This is actually a thing that theists say to atheists a lot: "Without God, you atheists have no foundation for morality. There's nothing stopping you from raping and murdering."
I find this statement horrifying, since what the theist is actually saying, almost certainly without realizing it (EDIT: and likely without intending it, as it probably doesn't really align with their values), is that they want to rape and murder and only their belief in God is holding them back.
Um, no, that's not what we're saying.
Yes, that is exactly what y'all are saying. I don't think it's what you *mean*, but it's what that question says. "I don't want to murder or rape" is a reason to not murder and rape. If one says that God is the *only* reason to not murder and rape then they are saying that they want to do it but don't because God forbids it. If you, Raxner, in fact do *not* want to do it then the statement is obviously false, because atheists generally don't want to murder or rape either, no God required. I believe that you, Raxner, are a moral person and that you do not want to go around murdering and raping, and that you would continue to have this lack of desire even if you got amnesia and forgot about your belief in God. It is therefore trivial to see that atheists may well have the same basis for not murdering and raping.
So what is the basis for the assertion that murder (or any other act) is wrong everywhere, everywhen, and for everyone?
Every moral system has an axiomatic foundation. The foundation you have chosen is "what God says". The foundation I have chosen is "what promotes human weal and prevents human woe." I choose this for many reasons, among them the fact that it's a lot safer. The god of the Bible (which, OOC, I know is the one you are referring to) is a bit scary if you read only the Torah and a bit bipolar if you read both the Old and New Testaments. Should he get in another Isaac-sacrificing or Midianite-genociding mood, I'd prefer not to base my foundation on him.
I was saying yes from fairly close to the beginning, up until it was mentioned that everyone else would be getting it too. That brings up a whole lot of questions about how we're going to deal with overpopulation,
First, keep in mind that what is being offered at the end is agelessness, not immortality. An accident will eventually kill you, no matter how careful you are. Might be something as simple as choking on a peanut while watching Netflix on your couch, but there will be something. I heard an estimate that it would take about five hundred years on average. I have no idea what that was based on if it's true in the specific, but there is definitely an LD50 for simply existing in the physical world.
A society of the ageless would be different than what we have now, that is certain. Still, we can make some predictions:
As a general rule, birth rate drops as affluence increases. Compound interest will, over the course of centuries and assuming that modern Western conditions mostly continue, make the vast majority of people modestly affluent. Young people might work for one or two hundred years to build up their stake and would then be able to largely retire. Or, perhaps people would go in and out of the workforce, taking century-long vacations and then working their way back up the ladder for the next century. Ageism would no longer be an issue to contend with, so it would be a lot easier to do so
Space development would become more prevalent, if only because today there are a handful of private individuals who recognize the potential and/or find the idea exciting. Give it a *very* pessimistic 500 years and we will have enormous amount of energy (space-based solar), nigh-unlimited material resources (asteroid mining), nigh-unlimited living space (space stations, asteroid homes, generation ships, Mars and Moon colonies, etc), and easy/cheap access to all of it. (Space elevator / laser launch / etc)
My point is that he has simply misunderstood our argument,
Nope. That's why I was careful to go back and add the provisos: I do not believe that the average theist wants to commit murder or rape, but when they say "without God there is no reason not to" -- which is an exact quote that I have heard multiple times, not a strawman paraphrase -- what they are accidentally saying is what I wrote...which, again, is not what they actually want. Theists who use this phrase are either acknowledging themselves to be immoral monsters or are assuming the premise that atheists are immoral monsters.
I don't know what statistics you are referring to. Do you have a reference for me?
Dear Mona, I recently read an article that said most of the prison population is religious while there are very few atheists in prison. Please tell if this is t…
fivethirtyeight.com
There are a lot of grains of salt to be taken here. The statistics linked above are from numbers released by the US Federal Bureau of Prisons based on a survey of roughly 216,000 prisoners. The numbers are self-reported and inmates who claim to be religious are more likely to get parole, so there are incentives to lie. Still, if you believe that these numbers are even slightly reflective of reality then atheists are far more law-abiding than theists.
If I don't believe in Him, I cannot even ask myself the question of whether such-and-such an action is morally wrong and have that question make sense.
Nonsense.
Well, perhaps *you* can't, but atheists can. Saying otherwise is simply not acknowledging the clear reality that atheists can be moral people too.
EDIT:
In other words, the only real difference is that [theists are] able to assert your morality as universal
Except they can't. At most they can assert either:
1) Their morality is based on what God wants, in which case it's still subjective.
2) There is an objective standard of morality which exists outside of God and he is merely a channel for relaying that standard to humanity. In which case that standard is not dependent on God and theists have no special claim to it.
Unless you want to assert that your religion as a whole is a more powerful tool of indoctrination than the cultures of secular societies, which would lead to less murderers in religious societies
Note that this is not the case. Violent crime rates decrease as countries become more secular.