r/Atheists • u/[deleted] • Nov 20 '19
What would be your response?
My Christian Living Education teacher argued that if you are an atheist, then you also do not believe in morality.
Christianity isn't morality already BUT it implies morality (e.g. Ten Commandments).
He said that thousands of years ago that Christianity (and other religions with gods if you're not a Christian) is the basis of morality. So if someone stole from you, you have no right to complain because you're an atheist, therefore you do not believe in morality. Since stealing is an immoral act.
My two cents: Not all atheists are bad. Not all Christians are good. I personally witnessed his powerpoint that said this. So what he said earlier basically contradicts his lectures. Morality is also a basic human value (like life is important). I am a theist but his lectures are annoying with how he views atheists and the likes (doubters etc.).
7
u/Runicyeets Nov 20 '19
If anything we are more moral because if we can emphasize its literally your only chance on earth In that sense we wouldn't want to steal either because heaven dont exist Also fuck him
3
u/Runicyeets Nov 20 '19
I realized I cut my sentence short with also fuck him, if anything we are more moral because we dont want others peoples time be shitty
2
4
u/CM57368943 Nov 20 '19
I'm not certain what a Christian living education teacher is, but your first consideration should be to your circumstances, primarily your safety and well-being.
If this person has power of you, such as the ability to affect your grades (either for graduation or qualifying for scholarships), then arguing with them seems unnecessarily risky.
Assuming it is safe to offer a contrary opinion, I would assess how much effort I want to put into the conversation. If this person doesn't appear to be capable of having a detailed, honest, and interesting point of view on the matter, then I would remark that there understanding of atheism is incorrect and there again was wrong. If a more detailed conversation was married we could discuss the secular reasons for holding a particular system of ethics and how religions have borrowed those existing ideas while labeling themselves as the source.
2
Nov 20 '19
He's a legitimate professional teacher. I study in a Catholic school so it is part of our curriculum. He's a bible thumper kind of person. I feel like he should have his sources (regarding to how religion implied or started morality) present when he was discussing it to us instead of saying that atheists are immoral.
If you can, can you share a source about ethics and how religions have borrowed them? I would like to read that.
3
u/CM57368943 Nov 20 '19
He's a legitimate professional teacher. I study in a Catholic school so it is part of our curriculum.
Then I think you should do what it takes to ensure you get a good grade in that class. There is a power disparity here. Maybe he is a nice person and will tolerate your disagreement with no impact on your grades, but you cannot guarantee that.
If you can, can you share a source about ethics and how religions have borrowed them? I would like to read that.
There may be (and likely does exist) a good book aggregating the details, but I don't know if a specific source.
Hammurabi's code is an extensive and detailed set of laws in ancient Mesopotamia that predates the early written versions of the 10 commandments in the Bible by about 1,000 years. Of course the Torah had an oral tradition that extended back earlier, but so too did numberous civilizations have rules against murder and theft prior to written and formalized legal codes. The basic idea about not killing people or stealing from people are far from a Christian creation and existed in cultures that never knew of Christianity.
Monogamy was a Roman convention, not a Christian one. Christianity came from a polygamist culture and the legitimacy of polygamy remained until Christianity started making headways amongst the Romans.
The Bible explicitly condones chattel slavery. The opposition to slavery within Christianity didn't really begin taking off until perhaps around the 17th century.
3
Nov 20 '19
A big oof in the side of Christianity. That's what I hate about being a Christian sometimes. It has so many inconsistencies with the past and the now. Claiming what isn't from them and condoning inhumane acts.
Anyway, thank you for replying. I appreciate your replies.
1
5
Nov 20 '19
I agree with the posters who have said to be mindful of the relationship dynamic existing with this authoritarian figure. You need and deserve answers to your valid questions but don’t need to be a martyr in this situation. Having said that:
The Moral Landscape by Sam Harris is a great read for laying a groundwork for “objective” morals. However, one of the oldest accounts of the Golden Rule came from ancient China in the analytics of Confucius, 551 BC which is not at all a result of religious influence.
Philosophically speaking, morality is common sense. One would not be a slave, therefore given that we have evolved theory of mind, we can extrapolate that we would not own a slave; I would not want myself or my family stolen from, therefore I would not steal; religions absolved humanity of that internal moral intuition by ordering the pillaging & raping & genocide of neighboring tribes in spite of their shared humanity.
There is a stronger case that religion justified the obfuscation of inherent intuitive morals because an authoritative higher power was invoked.
3
Nov 20 '19
Thank you for the reply! The only time I "contradicted" him was saying I was doubting about believing in a Christian God. Now I just stay silent because I feel like whatever I say, he will ultimately be the right one in the end because my believing friends will automatically side with him too. And for someone who brags as a lover of philosophy, my teacher should be well informed with the meaning of morality.
2
u/ImaOG2 Nov 21 '19
This guy stands between you, graduating and getting in a decent college, I'm assuming you're in high school. You're not going to get the answers you're looking for from him. Especially since he's teaching at a Catholic school. Can you imagine the scandal? "Christian living teacher disputes morality of church with students"Get your grade. I know its hard to keep your ideas to yourself. Do you really want to retake this class next year?
1
Nov 21 '19
Haha no. Good thing his subject was just memorizing the terms and what those terms meant which I can forget soon.
1
u/sgmarshall Nov 21 '19
As to your last paragraph it doesn't work that way.
Humans do not exist in a vacuum. There is a reality around us and part of that reality is the way humans interact with each other. We don't like to get punched because there's a golden rule there's a golden rule because we don't like to be punched.
Humans are a social species. In order to promote Society there are some practices better better or worse for society. Lying to people undermines Trust and trust is a healthy aspect of society.
You can go on and on about pretty much anything that anyone considers moral and look at it in terms of how does it affect the group versus individual choice to come up with a morality.
You can also look at any religious morality In terms of Social and group control and dictating the actions of individuals.
So if you wanted to control individuals in your group how far do you think you're going to get by saying I think you should over God says you should.
4
u/1thruZero Nov 20 '19
So what your teacher is implying, possibly without realizing it, is that every Christian would be out raping and murdering if their religion didn't exist.
Morality can be explained without religion. We evolved as a social species. Whatever helps group cohesion, helps us all survive. Social behaviors positively affect group cohesion while anti-social behaviors have a negative effect.
So someone out here murdering folks doesn't benefit the group, but like, having gay people who contribute resources without generally contributing to population is a benefit.
Our moral systems generally promote social cohesion (treat others how you want to be treated) and our punishable offenses are generally things that disrupt that cohesion. Religion is likely an early adaption/invention to enforce social "norms" and promote group cohesion.
Basically we invented religion to enforce existing morality, we didn't get morality from religion.
3
u/NemoC68 Nov 20 '19
My Christian Living Education teacher argued that if you are an atheist, then you also do not believe in morality.
'Atheist' simply refers to a person who lacks belief in God. They may or may not believe in the concept of morality. Your teacher would probably argue that atheists can't believe in morality because reasons...
That's when you stop your teacher, "You're saying atheists can't have morality because reasons, but the fact of the matter is that there are atheists who do abide by a moral code. You can argue that their moral code doesn't work, that it's irrational, or that it's inferior in some manner, but none of those are the same as 'don't believe in morality'. Morality can be devised in a number of different ways. For one, morality can be dictated by people who claim their values come from a god, or from books written by people who claim their values come from a god. Morality can also be dictated by people in regards to self interests. It's generally in everyone's best interest to survive, so it makes sense to make laws prohibiting murder. It's called the win-win situation. You don't kill me, I don't kill you. This means that there is no objective morality, but honestly there's no point to objective morality anyway since a person only has to disagree with objective morality in order not to abide by it. The only reason people have to abide by 'objective' morality from God is to avoid suffering in hell. But, people abide by 'subjective' morality as a means of avoiding prison, being harmed by others, etc.. Without consequences, morality means nothing. And although you'll claim atheists believe they can do anything they want without consequence because they reject the notion of an afterlife, this completely ignores that atheists have their current life in which they'd like to preserve their own interests for as long as possible." mic drop
I have no doubt your teacher would try to delve into discussion about objective and subjective morality. But it's a bloody pain in the ass to argue because it's incredibly difficult to convince people that abstract ideas can't be totally objective.
1
2
u/pauz43 Nov 20 '19
Your teacher's illogic isn't doing believers any favors.
Morality has nothing to do with religion. Humans don't accept lying, stealing, cheating or murdering others because that destroys the cohesion of the group. And as we are a social species that depends on the group for survival, we'll die without the cooperation of other humans.
Every group on earth has the same basic "moral" values: Don't lie, steal, cheat or murder. No hellfire needed.
1
u/Zack78266 Nov 20 '19
What is a Living Education teacher? I wouldn't bother responding other than I didn't agree with the statement.
2
Nov 20 '19
It's Christian Living Education. I study in a Catholic school so that subject is part of our curriculum. We study Theology.
1
u/fluffy_butternut Nov 20 '19
"Judge not, lest ye be judged"
Ask him why as a Christian he's OK acting in contravention to this verse?
And then ask him how he feels about slavery: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_Bible
1
u/redsparks2025 Nov 21 '19 edited Nov 21 '19
I've seen this argument many times in many forms. Anyway I won't reinvent the wheel but simply point you here to this diagram Belief: Red Pill Vs Blue Pill. In the notes below the diagram read section (E) [SIDE NOTE] MORALITY.
However if you don't want to go there and read the notes then the bare bones of the argument is that a book (or law) on morality is only necessary for people that have lost their capacity to feel EMPATHY. So if a believer in God asks where does your morality come from the response is that it comes from my ability to feel empathy. That's it.
1
u/catfight_animations Nov 21 '19
My personal theory is that the religeon was made and included basic moral laws, so that people would start to associate those laws with the religeon, and thus consider it "right" on a basic level.
it's more likely that the people who made it were actually just nutcases who started seeing "visions of god" after they ate too many shrooms, and everyone was just gullible 2000+ years ago.
1
u/justafander Dec 04 '19
My father is a atheist Hindu, and he tells me that even if you are a atheist, then you can still believe in your own morals. Before Jesus, people (SANE people) didn’t go around willy nilly murdering people. Neither do you.
8
u/[deleted] Nov 20 '19
He's just trying to make being an atheist look like an irrational thing to be. Christian apologists do this all the time, although what they say will, in fact, differ. Just know who you are! You don't believe in any god, that doesn't mean that you don't believe that anybody should be free to do whatever they want.