Obserwuj wątek

by Matt Slick
Atheists routinely try and base morality on the idea of reducing harm because the majority of people don’t want to be harmed. Therefore, they say that reducing harm is morally good. If that is the case, then I have some questions.

How do atheists define harm and what justifies their definition as being the right one?
How is appealing to the majority desire not committing the logical fallacy of argumentum ad populum to determine morals?
If it is a logical fallacy, then why do atheists appeal to it?
Why „ought” atheists work to reduce harm?
How is it not a double standard when defining good as that which reduces harm, and that which reduces harm as good, yet atheists complain when Christians say that God is by nature good and what is good is what reflects God’s nature?
If reducing harm is morally good, then shouldn’t atheists work to stop abortion since it causes the greatest harm to a life by killing unborn babies?
If reducing harm is morally good, then shouldn’t atheists be morally obligated to join the military and go to war with radical Islam so as to stop its spread and thereby reduce harm to millions of people?
If reducing harm is morally good, then does it imply that the ends justify the means as long as harm is reduced?
If the ends justify the means, then are lying, adultery, cheating, stealing, etc., all okay if they reduce overall harm?
If an atheist believes that religion causes harm, then shouldn’t he use lies with religious people in order to undermine their religious presence and expansion and reduce harm?
If reducing harm is morally good, then how many hospitals have atheists built, or wells have they dug, or cultures have they taught agriculture, and provided electricity to, etc.?
Since Christians build hospitals, dig wells, visit 3rd world nations and upgrade their technology, thereby reducing harm, then why are atheists increasing their attacks on Christianity?
Why do atheists work to get the 10 commandments removed from public areas since those same 10 commandments reduce harm when followed?
If atheists are routinely getting the 10 commandments removed from public places, then are they advocating lying, stealing, adultery, and theft since they don’t want those prohibitions posted publically?
What is it about not lying, stealing, murdering, and committing adultery that are unconstitutional? (This question only applies to the U.S.A.)
If reducing harm is morally good, then shouldn’t atheists appreciate Christians who seek to reduce the greatest suffering of people by trying to get them saved in order to avoid eternal damnation?
Would it be okay to rape a woman in a coma if she doesn’t know about it and no one ever finds out since no one is harmed but it gives the rapist pleasure?

Przeczytaj jeszcze: Atheists err when asking for material evidence to prove God's existence

https://carm.org/questions-for-atheists-based-on-morality-of-reducing-harm

Questions for Atheists, part 2

by Matt Slick

What makes something moral?
Do you have any objective moral standard, or are all your morals subjective?
Do any actions automatically have moral value, such as rape being wrong, or is the moral value assigned by people?
Why ought a person not steal?
Was the atheist Joseph Stalin wrong for killing over 42 million people in the 1900s? If so, why? If not, why not?
From the perspective of an atheist, is the action of rape wrong even if it furthers the species?
In atheism, if you say rape is wrong because it harms someone, why is harm the standard of morality?
If you believe something is morally wrong (like rape), „ought” you do something about it and impose your value on others?
If you „ought” to impose your moral value on others (like stoping a rape), what gives you the moral right to do that?
Do you believe that the subjective opinions of a society offer proper basis for morality?
How do you know if a society is improving morally?