The Awful Morals of Atheists

My wonderful, loving, (atheist) wife today:

1) submitted an application for a rescue dog (on top of the 4 she has given a loving home to in the recent past)

2) paid money to the animal shelter so some more of the animals’ expenses could be waived to facilitate them going to a new home. This was done anonymously (except I suppose I’m blowing that now).

3) turned in a woman’s wallet with a lot of cash, credit cards and personal belongings,  (yes, everything is still in there) that she found in the parking lot.

4) objected to me telling you all about all this because she’s gracious and humble.

Just another typical day in the life of a disgusting amoral atheist.

Now enjoy your two minutes of hate. It’s actually over 8 minutes but Christians need more time for hate than they did in Orwell’s dystopia.

I would feel bad leaving you with that nonsense, so here is some reason to cleanse your palate.

Advertisements

Posted on December 31, 2014, in Atheism, Christopher Hitchens, Philosophy, Religion and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink. 8 Comments.

  1. So feeding a dog and giving someone in your cultural and socio-economic group respect makes someone moral? No wonder she didn’t want you to say anything… For whatever you paid for your car you could save thousands, and I respect her for knowing that… But I don’t think you have justification to sit around and say how great your group is because something someone other than you did.

    • What an odd comment. Where to start, you said a lot of garbage in a very little space. But I don’t get many comments, so they are appreciated and I will do my best to respond — hopefully I won’t be nearly as rude as you were about it.

      “So feeding a dog and giving someone in your cultural and socio-economic group respect makes someone moral?”

      To answer the first question (which you asked rather snottily I might add), I believe the actions I pointed out in my post yesterday were morally good actions. But I never made the argument that these actions alone made an individual person moral and certainly never said that atheists as a group are moral because of a few actions of one person on one day — you made that brilliant leap of logic yourself. Also, your uncharitable framing of the actions is pretty rude.

      “For whatever you paid for your car you could save thousands, and I respect her for knowing that”

      You’re bringing what could be a quality, sophisticated argument about morals into a discussion where I was being purposely flippant in my post. Which is fine, I’m always up for engaging on a higher level, but you misread (or are ignoring) the subtext of my commentary. There are millions of religious people that run around every day and outright accuse atheists of being immoral. Many even go as far as to equate atheism with immorality. That was it. That was the total of the point 1) to give a simple anecdote because I thought my wife had a pretty good day and 2) to point out to those who would hold that atheists can’t be moral or even do moral things are wrong. So what you’re saying here about cars, may or may not be true, but completely irrelevant to anything that was said or implied in my post.

      Someday I will probably make a much more serious post that delivers all the seriousness that a true discussion on morals deserve. This wasn’t that post. I have made many blathering, long-winded posts that are more philosophical in nature, this wasn’t one of them. You would have to read in between the lines on this one and you either missed it or willfully ignored it.

      Also, the “I respect her for knowing that” line is again you being snotty and purposefully condescending. The power of your moral enlightenment simply has me perplexed because I thought I covered everything there was to cover in that single, short post with some anecdotes about my wife’s day. That was sarcasm by the way. You should probably take it back a few steps and talk about what I said instead of continuing to make bad leaps of logic.

      “But I don’t think you have justification to sit around and say how great your group is because something someone other than you did.”

      Phew. That’s good, because I didn’t even come close to saying anything remotely like that anywhere near the post. It wasn’t the point of the post (again you misread the subtext). The title of the post is “The Awful Morals of Atheists” which is having a little fun with religious people who think that an atheist cannot have good morals. Many, many of them think that. They are wrong. The content of the post was a tiny little snapshot into the day of a single atheist who I know to be a very moral person. That’s it. I never said that because of this “all (most) atheists are moral” that’s again, your brilliant leap of logic. I never said atheists as a group are so great (man, you’re really inserting a lot of your own content and arguing against things I never said).

      Again, it seems like you have what could be a quality argument about morality: regardless of our little moral actions day to day, we could be making a much larger moral impact if we did a better cost/benefit analysis of our lives. Resources that provide us excess comforts for our life, could be routed to those who need those resources simply for survival. Peter Singer makes this point nicely and I’ll even be charitable here and say that you can derive this position from the teachings of Jesus.

      But alas, you decided to engage with things I didn’t say, willfully miss the point of the post, belittle me and my wife, and argue with things you made up in your head that I said which I didn’t say. Not to mention you did it snottily with an immense amount of rudeness.

      But I again thank you for your comment, even if it wasn’t the nicest way to go about it.

      • Hu, must have hit a nerve in accident . That’s a lot of typing.
        I was being facetious with a bit of hyperbole.

        And if anything, I took you as a morally capable and knowledgeable individual which was your whole subtext complaint. And, I was respectful to you wife.

        But I will also lampoon anyone who says being nice to doggies and turns in a wallet is proof of moral goodness. It just sounds like your in Silicon Valley or suburbia and quiet far away from the real world.

        You’ve never really delt with sanguine people online before Hu?

  2. And the fact you claim your not positing you wife vrs that preacher and trying to get your audience to inductively conclude “then they all must be like that ” but instead get upset that I knocked your example a bit… Shows you really don’t pay attention to what you write.

    • “Hu, must have hit a nerve in accident . That’s a lot of typing.
      I was being facetious with a bit of hyperbole.”

      No, you didn’t hit a nerve. You and your arguments certainly do not even come close to showing up on my emotional radar. Your logic was very poor and I had fun taking it apart. As I said, I don’t get a whole lot of comments yet, this is a nascent blog, so don’t mistake my responding in length to your poor arguments as any sign of my emotional interest in what you think.

      “And if anything, I took you as a morally capable and knowledgeable individual which was your whole subtext complaint. And, I was respectful to you wife.”

      I didn’t see that, but neither you nor I are probably a good judge of that, I will let the words stand for themselves and let others form their own opinions.

      “But I will also lampoon anyone who says being nice to doggies and turns in a wallet is proof of moral goodness. It just sounds like your in Silicon Valley or suburbia and quiet far away from the real world.”

      So much wrong here. First, I didn’t know that Silicon Valley or suburbia aren’t part of the real world. Must be magical places. Wouldn’t know either way because I’m in neither, but even if I were, you mentioning this doesn’t bring anything to the table and further shows that you’re incapable of discussing on merits and prefer to use strawmen and fling ad homs. But I’m sure the whole of Silicon Valley and every individual that lives in a suburb will be happy to know that they can’t engage in proper moral thought the way you can over there in the real world.

      As for you not thinking those are moral actions, that’s fine. I think they are. But unless you are saying they are immoral, then the only thing left is for you to argue that they are morally neutral actions, which I suppose is possible, but I don’t think you’d get much agreement there.

      “You’ve never really delt with sanguine people online before Hu?”

      Every single assumption you’ve made in your comments are incorrect. You should just stop. Do you not even care about being wrong all the time? I don’t know why you are forcing yourself to be wrong when you don’t have to be. I’ve engaged in plenty of discussion online. So, not really sure what your point is other than to further show that not only do you unnecessarily leap to conclusions, but when you do you have a very low rate of being correct. As for being sanguine, if that’s your bag, I don’t care. Just try next time to at least have good argument and be sanguine. Being obnoxious by making emotional arguments online is bad enough in and of itself, but when you are completely wrong, with really bad arguments you look doubly bad.

      “And the fact you claim your not positing you wife vrs that preacher and trying to get your audience to inductively conclude “then they all must be like that ” but instead get upset that I knocked your example a bit… Shows you really don’t pay attention to what you write.”

      If you had to distill the point of my post into a singular point (which I think you clearly can by what I wrote and what I inferred), is that there are many people out there claiming atheists can’t be moral, and further some argue that by definition atheists are immoral. That is a fact. To what degree it’s a fact is perhaps what you should be disputing perhaps, but there are plenty of religious people out there making that argument. And speaking of lampooning, I obviously showed that crazy preacher guy as a caricature of the point. The post was light-hearted so I picked a cartoonish person. I actually do not think some of the atheists came across so great in that exchange either, but whatever, you have already shown that you hear what you want to hear and see what you want to see in my post regardless of what I actually wrote.

      The only thing you’ve actually said in response to that point (everything else you’ve said is either off-topic, irrelevant, ad hom, strawmen, or just factually wrong), is that you don’t believe that the actions I mentioned are worthy to be deemed “moral”. Okay, point taken. I don’t agree with that position and further, I’ll be happy to accept the criticism that there are a million other actions that would be morally superior to the examples given. Okay. I’m good with that criticism, too bad you didn’t actually make that point clearly and nicely.

      • Sorry “what I inferred” should be “what I implied” or “what one could infer”.

      • You say I go add hominum but then complain I’m not nice. Really? Did you Google a list of fallacies to sound smart? And this is not a formal logic situation. Ethos, pathos, and logos are all valid online.

        And just because I fill in the very large blanks and expound your comments out to their likely conclusions doesn’t make inducing your likely positions wrong. It means you’re not making positions.

        Again, hyperbole. Google that while you are at it. Silicon Valley is obviously part of the planet. And I warned you I use hyperbole so your whole section there is just dumb. You prove nothing by trying to attack a rhetorical figure that isn’t literal.

        And it’s not convincing to say “I don’t emotionally care,” I mean you have to go out of your way to say it?! Come on Hondo! Should I dove you in a locker? That makes me feel like a Bully.

        I have been working on the lines there is such thing as opportunity cost. You are so caught up on right or wrong, that you don’t think that there are other actions one can do with say the money going to feed the dogs.
        My real position is ethics is not one or two acts but a mode of living. I don’t condemn it, but you’re example really are whatever because they don’t indicate a uniformly ethical life but a few good will actions even an evil person may do.

        Your whole thing really just is whatever.

        And THIS would be my ad hominum if I was gonna do one:

        I got you pretty figured out :
        The fact you even care if other groups think you are moral shows a insecurity and need for validation, and at the very least a lack of humility. You’re so vain you boast in others works… Where are yours? And when I called you out it poked your pride. So you go for intellectualism, because you are proud of your smarts… And it can be frustrated by simply not taking it seriously. And the fact you bother to call something not nice ad if it would stop someone who isn’t nice, does you’re most likely not very strong physically… Or at least that you where raised us middle class and taught to avoid conflict.

        Yet, you so want to be special so you pick an identifier that makes you opposite your larger group… And the best thing is Then people talk to lonely little you. But do they? No they just talk about your values system being so great, and you vicariously get to bask in glow workout any one ever looking at you and realizing the one thing you don’t want anyone to know… You’re just as boring as anyone we else. And just like everyone else someone had told you what to believe. And you probably would hate yourself.

        So no you can’t be moral, because any move you do is driven by ego, self loathing, self promotion, or some backwards revenge upon all those happy people out there who though they have so much less seem to have so much more.

        I don’t care of you think I’m moral or not, personally I find ethics boring. But you really did proffer be nice to a puppy vrs evil preacher then show some dude rallying on a religion for 6 minutes. So your giving a wallet back gave you karmic indulgences to do the same thing as that preacher… You’re just mad to get called out.

        Why you mad bra?

  3. Now that’s a rant! I like it. Really nothing I can do with that. It’s wrong in almost every way and if you’re okay being wrong with your leaps of logic, there’s not much I can do with that mess. I thought I was being respectful by responding point by point to what you said, but you were more interested in talking to some other person than me by jumping to conclusions (all wrong) and not directly discussing what I actually said or who I actually am. If you prefer tilting at windmills, get it on. Great.

    I honestly do appreciate you engaging though and I’m being sincere in that statement, just don’t think we’re going to find much common ground in this discussion.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: