The Built-in Ad Hominem of the Morality Debate

An ad hominem, is an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or belief of the person supporting it.

When it comes to the debate of moral truth, can the ad hominem be avoided? It always comes to a theist questioning an atheist's morality and an atheist questioning a theist's morality. Since one's morality is the scale we measure the "goodness" of the person, we are basically saying that the individual we are debating against is a bad person. I don't like this, but since the only way to debate the validity of subjective morality is to call into question the moral beliefs of your opponent, I see no way around it.

If I'm debating someone who gets their morality from the Bible, I will mention Deuteronomy 22 or some other verse of the "Good Book" that conflicts with my morality and the morality of my modern society. I usually go with Deuteronomy 22 because it has everything from rules against mixed fabric to the stoning of women who had sex out of wedlock. Yesterday's morals make today's bible purist a bad person.

Inversely, a theist will call into question my belief that homosexuality is not a sin. Or that I am immoral because I have had sex outside of marriage. Or that I'm immoral by default simply because I haven't accepted Jesus to wipe away original sin. You can hate the sin and not the sinner, but that doesn't change the fact that an immoral person is a bad person.

I understand that most of these debates deal with the hypothetical and not the practical, but I'm tired of talking about hypothetical bestiality. It's humiliating and insulting. It detracts from the point of the argument. Is there a god and did he give us our morality? Those that think that there is and he did, also think that said god gave us life, the universe and everything. So let's talk about that, because I'd like to think that we're all good people.

One Fool's Rant

The number one most common response from believers after outing myself as an atheist is...

“The fool that said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good” Psalm 14:1

First off, they should know this is meaningless to an atheist. We don't believe in Psalm or any books of the Bible.

Secondly, if we did give a crap about the Bible, this very passage highlights a contradiction when Jesus said “…whosoever shall say, “Thou fool,” shall be in danger of hell fire.” Matthew 5:22. It was an opening bit of the sermon on the mount that basically made anger an equivalent sin to murder.

Speaking of Matthew, "judge not lest ye be judged."

Statistically speaking, there is no reason to believe that atheists do less good or more harm than theists.

And lastly, why not defend your beliefs with reasons why you believe rather than quote one of the oldest insults in the world? Seriously, get some new material.

If you are a theist who doesn't open with this line, this post isn't meant for you. Just know that it is extremely common, so if you see one of your buddies do it, please pass along this sentiment.

Morality Week: Biblical "Morality"

Christians tend to argue one of two positions.

1. Religion provides our morality through scripture.
2. Morality is objective and we all have a God-given sense of right and wrong.

The first is pretty straight forward, and I’ve found that the second eventually leads to the first. For example, a theist can argue a moral value against rape and murder is universal and use this as evidence that the value originates with God. Yet the same theist sees a similar moral truth in an issue like homosexuality, which is far from universal. In the U.S., roughly half the population is in favor of gay marriage, which implies they don’t find gay sex immoral, while the other half votes against it. If we are supposed to have a sense of God’s morality, why do so many not have said sense on homosexuality? The theist may argue we simply ignore our sense in supporting gay rights, but in doing so they presume to know how everyone in the world feels. I can only know how I feel. I feel that hot man-on-man love (or better yet, woman-on-woman love) is not immoral.

Christians use the Bible to define their morality and claim the values within as moral truths. Below are moral values taken from the Bible that otherwise have no reasoning behind them.

• Having other gods is immoral.
• Making graven images is immoral.
• Using God’s name in vain is immoral.
• Working on Sunday is immoral.
• Fornication is immoral.
• Homosexuality is immoral.
• Masturbating is immoral.

I could get into the really strange morality-guiding rules in the Bible, (it’s immoral to wear wool and linen woven together apparently) but I’d rather stick with the stuff the least amount of theists will argue about. The first three would never be immoral if not for the Bible. They are simply rules to keep you believing once you already believe. The Sabbath rule is arbitrary no matter how you look at it. So far, the list has been taken directly from the gold standard of morality as argued by nearly every theist I’ve engaged--the ten commandments. The last three make certain sex acts immoral. Without the Bible, I can think of no reason for these to be immoral. If you have a reason, let me know in the comments.

As is the theme of Morality Week, morality should be based on reasoning, not based on a book written well over a thousand years ago. Equating scripture to moral truth, using moral truth to prove God, and using God to prove the validity of scripture is typical theist circular logic. Worse, the idea of moral truth needing no explaination is dangerous. A theist doesn’t just believe abortion in morally wrong, they know it is evil. This gnostic morality is what leads to clinic bombings. If I knew I was stopping evil at the pleasure of the Almighty, who know’s what I’d be tempted to do. I realize clinic bombers are a rare extreme, probably driven by a mental disease more than religion, but to a lesser extent this moral gnostism is what ruins many families with gay children.

Alpha & Beta

My dog, Alpha

I got a dog the other day, his name’s Alpha. I really went all out accommodating the pooch. I made the entire house a canine playground. I put a different bowl of food in every room. I installed ramps so that every inch of furniture could be his domain. I maxed out my treat budget. Seriously, all I ever heard where squeak toys. I even gave Alpha a friend, a female named Beta. They were good dogs.

“Were” being the operative word. I told Alpha and Beta that the only thing in the house that was off limits, was my lucky tennis ball. I pointed at the ball and said “no!” They saw me do this on more than one occasion, but the little buggers couldn’t help themselves. I don’t think she knew I was watching, but Beta brought my ball over to play with Alpha and they launched it right out the window.

Disobedience is something I do not tolerate! I removed all the food and treats from the house. I threw out the ramps and fenced off their “fun rooms.” Their toys? They went straight into the trash. From then on, I made Alpha work for his food. Beta too. To remind them of their indiscretion, I installed traps randomly around the house--a snare here, a foothold there. Some would hurt the animals and others would just cage them for a while. I even drip a little rat poison in their food occasionally. There’s no rhyme or reason to it really, I’m just keeping them on their toes.

Sure, it’s within my power to buy new tennis balls, actually I already have another, but that won’t teach any lessons. I plan on continuing this punishment for the rest of their lives. Come to think of it, I better keep it up for their offspring and any other pets I may bring into the house. Alpha and Beta’s single disobedience should be felt for all future generations.

Don’t call PETA on me, this is an analogy. I don’t want to overstate the obvious, but on topics of religion I’ve learned that clarity matters, so here I go.

• The narrator/dog owner = God
• Alpha and Beta = Adam and Eve
• The house pre-disobedience = The Garden of Eden
• The tennis ball = The Tree of Knowledge
• The house post-disobedience = Earth
• The traps, poisons and other canine dangers = Natural evil (earthquakes, hurricanes, volcanoes, etc.)

If you don’t think of the narrator as a loving and forgiving master, than you probably shouldn’t be a huge fan of God either. The good news? You don’t need to hate God because this fable of pet ownership is no more imaginary than the fable of Genesis. There is no one to hate.

I could carry this story to it’s illogical, yet Biblical, conclusion. A few generations later the master might sacrifice a dog in order to atone for Alpha and Beta’s original sin, but why bother? It’s not like dogs go to heaven.

Alien Jesus vs. Biblical Jesus

Picture this: Jesus returns from the dead in all his glowing, haloed glory with a choir of angels in tow. He may even sport Joseph’s Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat for affect. The exalted figure brings the expected good news and bad news. The faithful will ascend into heaven while the doubting collective will be left behind to die off under the regime of this or that Antichrist.

As an atheist, I’m asked what it would take for me to believe the literal word of the Bible. “Evidence and lots of it.” is my typical response. This Revelations-like scenario would seem to qualify. After all, the faithful’s claim of fulfilled prophecy would suddenly become a lot more compelling, but lets examine this further. Jesus’ arrival and call of acceptance of the Bible would still be a hard pill to swallow, even under the circumstances. I’d be forced to believe that...

• A boat built in a relatively short time by one man can fit every animal on earth and suddenly the net H2O of the planet increases enough to flood every land everywhere.
• The Force-like parting of the Red Sea is a task that Moses can pull off even when I doubt Yoda could.
• A talking snake convinces a woman made from a man’s rib to eat from the one tree the confirmed Creator told them not too--even though said creator made them perfect and never made any talking snakes.
• The raising of Lazarus is the second most impressive non-zombie resurrection in history.
• The spontaneous duplication of rolls and seafood for a stadium-sized crowd is a sustainable business model.
• The divine transmogrification of a woman to salt, water to wine, and a virgin to mother all occurred at one time or another.

I’d have to accept all this, right? The frickin’ King of Kings is eyeballing me! What else could I believe? Well, I could believe that...

• Aliens, biological or artificial in nature, have done basic research into our world and concluded that the most efficient way to gather a manageable population of compliant humans would be to pose as a popular deity. In a diabolically easy plan, the aliens wouldn’t even need an invading army. A single alien could pull this off. He’d probably need a cloaking mechanism for the ship, a holographic projector for the light show, Jesus, and the angels, and maybe a tractor beam to “ascend” the willing believers. This technology would be a given for any intelligence that is able to travel between solar systems. In fact, this technology, aside from the tractor beam, is being researched today and is just far enough from our own scientific ability to appear divine. If you believe we could ever make contact with extra-terrestrials, it is a small jump to believe this could happen.

So what’s the point? Firstly, this is an awesome movie idea and I want credit if it gets produced. Secondly, the alien scenario, while being very unlikely, is still more likely than the more extravagant stories in the Bible.

Picture this: In the future everyone will believe what is consistent with reality.  No, that’s just ridiculous.