But who’s doing the counting?

Character counts – even the atheist proclaims such. But when it comes to the atheistic version of theological morality, minus God, I often find myself asking, “But who’s doing the counting?”

How can morality even be counted in a system of belief that has its roots in amorality? It’s an oxymoron from the get go. And it’s a pipe- dream with severe leaks! For a system based upon evolution must demand that evolution continue to happen through the avenue that “got us” to where we are as humans to begin with – survival of the fittest. But survival of the fittest isn’t a very positive moral guideline is it? I mean how can a wolf in sheep’s clothing ever be wrong if the wolf is only doing what he evolved to do? If nature does it then it must be right, right? Of course, unless nature is wrong. It’s fuzzy math to say the least!

Humanism says at the end of the day we’re animals but we’re not supposed to act like it. It says character counts but it refuses to add into the equation the fact that animals don’t care about character – and they care even less for math. EA

Related Article:

Advertisements

11 comments

    1. Hi, Kurt.

      No, that’s not what I’m saying; I said that even atheists proclaim that character counts.

      I’m saying that the basis of an atheist’s point of view concerning the origin, the purpose and the end of life comes from nature – and nature doesn’t care about morality, or the lack thereof, but yet atheists (with the humanistic point of view) still try to find a basis for a moral life even though they say life came from amorality. It just completely contradicts the very belief of evolution which is survival of the fittest. Hence if the cat kills her kittens, she’s no more wrong for doing that than she is for killing the mouse because that’s what nature does…it’s amoral.

      Hope that explains what I’m trying to get across a little better.

      Character does indeed count but atheism leaves the counting up to the individual, so how can the individual ever be wrong at the end of the day?

      1. No disrespect but it sounds like a stretch. Evolution just doesn’t advance our physical abilities, it also advances our mental abilities, and especially so. To say just because we evolved from a species that was not able to think deeply and was thereby amoral, is one thing; but to say that we, who can think deeply and, as a result of this thinking, choose not to believe in a higher being remains amoral is another. And when tallying up the points, there are both the tangible – laws, moral or not – and intangibles – consciousness, i.e. guilt or lack thereof – for which to assist in the score keeping.

      2. I understand, but according to atheism we are the species that was amoral so whether we decide to recognize “our advanced mental abilities” is completely up to us (which by definition is subjective) and not according to a standard of objective morality that exists outside of our own creation. The point being that an atheist can “keep score” but the score is based upon the rules that the individual makes up, and ultimately when the “game is over” the points, or the lack thereof, doesn’t matter. So if the points don’t matter, according to atheism’s endpoint, then we’re left with “who’s doing the counting?” in relationship to atheism and “a character that counts”.

        I get your point, Kurt, but at the end of the day a smart animal and a dumb animal are both animals, and animals don’t care about doing the math of character because character doesn’t matter to nature or to the “survival of the fittest.” So saying that we, as “higher evolved” animals, have any obligation to care about morality doesn’t change the fact nature revolves around amorality. Again, the cat that kills her kitten is no more wrong for doing so than she is for killing the mouse. And why not? Because that’s what nature led her to do. So if the same nature is the “end all, be all” in relation to humanity, then that nature tells us that there is no such thing as objective morality when it comes to our character. “I think this” in relation to morality may indeed be a thought but it is no more than that. And having that thought doesn’t make it anymore “real” than those who do not have the thought.

      3. The points matter to those whom points matter during one’s life and don’t matter during death. Regardless if one is an atheist or not (I don’t think it useful to compare atheists to cats in this regard), if one chooses to live a moral life, the points matter.

      4. I’m not comparing atheists to cats per say, I’m just using an example of a natural behavior (which we’re subject to if we originated from animals as atheism teaches) that most people can understand. If “I think” is the standard, then people can “think” like an animal and they’re no more wrong for doing so than someone is right for “thinking” like a person (who is just a glorified animal at the end of the day).

        My main point with post was to show that you can count points (character traits) as an atheist if you want too but the points are determined on a completely arbitrary and subjective point of view.

      5. Yes, and I respectfully disagree. What I believe to be true and moral is not arbitrary and completely subjective (although it is hard to live a life less subjectivity) to me. You may regard my choices as arbitrary out of hand; I do not.

        Thanks for the 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