Is the atheist argument that "good" doesn't come from religion a hollow statement?

Question

Because if “good” is really a product of evolution, then it has no deeper meaning or significance beyond the practical necessity of survival and keeping order in society. Humanity would just be a pretentious diversion from the meaninglessness of your lives in the grand scale of the universe. What gives humans the right to decide what is “good”? People wouldn’t have any more right to live on the earth than other creatures. Anyway, the earth would probably be a better place without humans to destroy the environment. Human standards of “good” are subjective and subject to change through time and among different cultures. Their only worth comes from what that society thinks of it, not because the laws of the universe or science have any regard for “good” or “bad”. An earthquake doesn’t care who it affects; it’s just part of the process of creation. If there is no god and humans aren’t going to be around forever, then even fame and accomplishments are simply ways of postponing the

inevitable. Should the earth be wiped out like the dinosaurs, everyone would fade into oblivion and it would be as if no one ever existed. Why would atheists prefer temporary enjoyment of worldly things over something that has permanent value?

Answer 1

Good is a construct. You might think one thing approaches the ideal of "good" and another doesn't. That's for you to decide.

Answer 2

You're definitely correct. That's precisely the problem when one removes the idea of an existence of God from the human consciousness. If there is no omnipotent, holy, divine being to define exactly what right and wrong is, then who are mere humans to do so? The human idea of what is right and what is wrong is always subject to change because, if we don't consider status and power, we're all in the same shoes. A person who might see murder as wrong in all cases may be at odds with a person who might, say, justify parricide on the condition that the parents are abusive or something.
Thus, the atheists are faced with a dilemma. I know that there are atheists with moral standards and personal definitions of right and wrong. But, why? What gives you the authority to say what is absolutely right and absolutely wrong? If you eliminate a God from our existence, then, who defines right and wrong? One immediate response may be the law. True. But, the law is headed by humans. All humans are flawed. The law can also come to wrong conclusions, execute the wrong people, and enforce the wrong laws. If the atheist decides to make the law the absolute, then the law becomes God. The law will have all the ability to punish and to dictate to its people what must be done. Now, since there is no God, then, what if the law is not God? Well, then it amounts to a power struggle. If you disagree with the law, then, too bad; you must deal with it. Those itching for anarchy will have to put their ideas off because, since the law is more powerful than they are, they will be forced to obey the government until they can successfully rebel against it.
So, if there is no God to define right and wrong, then why do people obey morals in the first place? One reason is indoctrination. They do it because their parents and society tell them what is right and what is wrong morally, and what the best way is to live. If not for their parents' teachings, they would go astray and attempt to rebel against the government. Furthermore, their morals would be shaped differently.

Another reason would be, in a way, evolutionary: they do so because it is advantageous to their survival. If they disobey, they will be confronted with punishment and violence and, possibly, death. Because most humans would like to actually live, they only do it because it is advantageous in their situation to do it.
This is quite scary. When you think about it this way, part of the reason some of those who do not believe in God follow the morals they follow and obey the law in the first place is because it is expedient for them to do so. If the law or any authority over them were to relax its hand even for a moment, if instilled morals do not kick in in the conscience of the atheist (by the way, without a God, there's not really much of a justification for morals), then anarchy would reign. Quite a few would kill, rape, and steal. To think that, without a God, the line between right and wrong is blurred, and, because of the differing perceptions of right and wrong, the black and white suddenly merge into gray. The meaning in life turns into nihilism, in which there is no basis for any absolute truth.
With all this, it mystifies me as to how people can refuse to, at least, believe in a God.

Answer 3

You have answered you own question. You are correct, we have no more right to be here than any other living creature on Earth. Good and bad are a human invention. They cannot simply be a set of rules handed down by God because the definition of good and bad changes depending on the area, people, and faith of the people. For example, good religious people thought it was "good" to marry children, to take multiple wives, to beat women, to beat children, to exclude people of different races from participating in governmental issues. All of these things were considered "good" at one time, and anyone trying to speak out against such injustices was considered "bad". Is an earthquake "good" or "bad"? If it is bad why would God subject his people to such bad things? At least one righteous person has to be killed in each such incidence. Again another person has also read more into the word Atheist than is actually there. Not everyone who fails to buy the line of Christianity is an atheist. Nor a pagan. The only way you could qualify a person in such a way would be using the standards of a religion that they do not belong to, therefore the assement is not valid. With your statement here, you would be suggesting that God must exist, or else good would not? Again you cannot define a term without having a definition that works for everyone, or else it is not a definition. If people focused less on telling everyone else their own ideas about God, and focused more on feeding and clothing people regardless of their beliefs, then perhaps we could all gain a little ground before the inevitable.

Answer 4

Your whole question embodies the fallacy of 'Argument from Adverse Consequences' - You're saying that things can't be this way because you don't like the consequences of things being this way. Well, I'm afraid the universe neither knows nor cares what you think about it. Morality isn't going to be something other than a product of evolution just because you want it to be. A god isn't going to exist just because you want it to. The universe isn't going to know or care about your existence just because you think it ought to.

The truth is the truth, regardless of what you feel about it, and the truth is that we're the product of an unthinking natural process in an uncreated universe. Personally that doesn't distress me one little bit - I just accept reality as it is. I live my life on the basis that I will do what I think is right just because it's what I think is right - there simply *is* no other basis for governing one's own behaviour. Morality is defined as the judgment of good and bad behaviour according to conscience, which is part of human nature and a product of evolution. If you choose to dress up your morality in religious garb then you're entitled so to do, but it doesn't change the nature of what you're doing, it only changes your *perception* of what you're doing.

Life had no meaning or purpose beyond what you yourself decide it should be. If you choose to believe that life in a godless universe is meaningless then that is entirely your prerogative. I would argue that the fact that this life is the only one we will ever have means that it couldn't possibly *be* more meaningful, or more significant. Whatever you want to do or achieve, you'll do it in this life or not at all. You can see that as a good thing or a bad thing - It's up to you, but denying that this is reality will do you absolutely no good at all.

Answer 5

Are you saying that without your religion, or any religion, mankind would become a chaotic anarchy of self-serving hedonists? You don't need to be able to benefit from acts of kindness to make kindness worthwhile. Humans decide what is good because we are the only ones who will take care of ourselves. We don't have any more right to live on earth than other creatures, its just that we are sentient and can figure out how to exploit the world around us to our advantage. This is not some Divine Right, but the result of our development. That is kinda 'might makes right', but that is how things work in nature. I am not an atheist, but I do agree that human kindness and the ideas of good and bad are not the result of religion. People are perfectly capable of treating each other well and punishing criminals without the Threat of Divine Punishment. You are wrong if you think your religion, or any religion, is the glue that keeps society together.

Answer 6

It was practical necessity that harnessed the power of fire; brought people together in farming communities (because cereal grains can feed more people than hunting ever could); and taught them that there are a few basic rules which must be followed if those communities are to survive.

Atheists have the highest respect for the achievements of the human mind and spirit. It's believers like you who belittle these things. You say "practical necessity" as if it's some new plague and you discovered it. Congratulations. Moron.

Answer 7

As a foundation for the belief in atheism I see many atheists claiming evolution with its theory of naturalism as an argument for how things came to be. Not all of them agree with this I am sure but it puzzles me why you can hold to a naturalistic explanation with the evidence of personality in the universe. It cannot be demonstrated that impersonal matter, plus time, plus chance can give an answer to the fact of intelligence within physical agency. Rocks just cannot be made to suddenly evolve into something greater than itself. Common sense and logic will tell you that in a world of cause and effect nothing ever has or ever will demonstrate ascendency to that which caused it to become. Without any sensible intelligent demonstration as to how the impersonal can have the virtue of personality to make a choice the atheist has no valid argument for moral agency be it good or bad.

Answer 8

Hey you are crazy, but so am I and I agree with you, but think of this, the total destruction of the planet is inevitable. It the last few stages of the sun, its surface will be beyond the earths orbit, and the planet will be consumed, leaving no trace of it ever existing. Everything will be gone, all the animals, all the plants, all of us. And with that all of the "bad", all the "good", all the things we have created and destroyed, any evidence of your, my, every ones ever existing. No graves, no memorials, nothing. And no one or thing will ever know that we were even here, so when you think about it, it really does not matter what we do, how we destroy ourselves or our planet, because in the end, it will die and be forgotten about just like us.

Answer 9

Wow, that was a long-winded question, and actually, I'm not sure what the question was? But you are right in that "good" is a man-made term, so what behaviors fall into the "good" category will be highly subjective. Society comes up with general rules, usually based on consensus (with all the limitations that brings) for behaviors which are "good" and "bad" - anyway, what is the question? I'm unsure how this relates to Atheism.

Regarding your update: Atheists would welcome eternity, but we are highly skeptical of its existence - and just because you believe in something (e.g., afterlife) doesn't make it true. So, like the proverbial ostrich with its head in the sand....

Answer 10

Good and evil are, as you pointed out, subjective as perceived by society. However, the argument that good doesn't come from religion is a viable one. One can choose to act without menace (this has nothing to do with religion) and not be a theist.

For example, if a person chooses to do no harm to anything except in the context of self-preservation, they can be assumed to be "good" because the willful act of harm has been avoided. It has only been done in self-defence.

Why would this, one can ask, be the differentiating factor? Because it is a choice not based on instinctive reactions but on thoughtful reasoning. Dogs, for example, have no theology but they can and do choose to be "good" as opposed to "bad". If a dog bites someone that is threatening it, that is instinct. If a dog is being threatened but chooses to sublimate itself to ward off harm, it has chosen to be a mediator rather than a violator. If subsequent to sublimation it experiences harm, to react by biting does not change the fact that it acted in a "good" way until it had to do otherwise for physical survival.

Ergo, doing harm without justifiable cause is "bad" while only reacting in a "bad" way with justifiable cause is "good". Additionally, there is no black and white on the issue. Shades of grey, contingent upon base decency rather than religious dictum, creates this environment and could (should) be representative of good/bad.

Any standard of "good" that precludes this base meaning are never true determinates except in the minds of those who have limited logic.

Answer 11

Good as opposed to bad implies morality.

Morality implies a moral law giver.

Moral law giver may imply a god.

Hence the position of an atheist is self defeating.

I Corinthians 13;8a, Love never fails!!!!!