Atheists, what is your take on this comment regarding morality and good/evil?
This is a youtube comment made by a supposed Christian under a video response to an Atheist user. Anyway, here it is:
"’I'm not even five minutes into the video yet, and this so-called “skeptic” is a horrible debater. His argument fell flat on his face when he claimed that evil exists “self-evidently.” That’s not how a rational debate works. You can’t just say that something is self-evident; you have to prove that it exists. Evil exists self-evidently? Prove it. If evil exists, then it follows that objective morality exists, otherwise “evil” is nothing more than “actions that you personally dislike.” Therefore, if objective morality exists, God must exist. He also says that “a good thing eliminates evil as far as it can.” Oh really? Prove it. Again, he states this as it’s somehow self-evident, which it is not. He just read that, but he never explains why this is true. Good does not always have to eliminate evil as far as it can."
How would you respond to it?. And for the record, I'm sincerely not trying to troll. I'm a non-theist myself. Thanks in advance.
This debate between theists and atheists is often marked on both sides by a failure to distinguish between two different things – the practice of morality, and the existence of morality. There is no doubt but that theists and atheists agree it is important to have moral standards but surely the atheistic stance that morality actually exists, contradicts their godless, evolutionary basis? How could morality arise from evolutionary development?
For the theist, moral standards depend on the law of God. For the consistent atheist, it can only be evolution – moral quality must be assessed in terms of evolutionary benefit or failure, yet the strange thing is that atheists know that morality actually exists. It is no use comparing the moral standards of the protagonists, for the real question is how atheists can attribute moral awareness to their evolutionary beliefs. Here is how Richard Dawkins puts it: "My own feeling is that a human society based simply on the gene’s law of universal ruthless selfishness would be a very nasty society in which to live. But unfortunately, however much we may deplore something, it does not stop it being true… Be warned that if you wish, as I do, to build a society in which individuals cooperate generously and unselfishly towards a common good, you can expect little help from biological nature. Let us try to teach generosity and altruism, because we are born selfish." [The Selfish Gene, p 3, Oxford Uni. Press 1989]
Yet if atheism is true, there is no moral high ground to occupy. If our world is the product of amoral forces, and if man is simply cosmic flotsam scattered on the shores of time, then there can be nothing good and nothing evil. Right and wrong would be devoid of all meaning. Old atheists like Nietzsche, Russell, Sartre and Camus recognized this and saw that it led logically to nihilism, or, at best, to absurdity.
Humans uniquely exhibit morality (whether good or bad). Whatever moral judgements we make does not alter the fact that there is a moral domain which shows in individual and societal conscience. But evolutionary theory insists that all kinds of behaviour, good and bad, are simply survival mechanisms in disguise. And how can diametrically opposed moral traits – selfishness and unselfishness – arise and co-exist courtesy of the same evolutionary process? If we had two separate races of men, a selfish race and an altruistic one, Darwinism could explain that in terms of different selective pressures acting on segregated populations. But it cannot explain what all human history has shown – we all have a conscience that tells us when we do wrong – even toddlers display that.
We can only distinguish good morality from bad morality by appealing to some independent standard. The atheist only has evolutionary advantage as his standard, which continually favours selfishness. So how can Dawkins call it bad and urge altruism as being good? To what standard is he appealing? Hahn and Wiker analysed the matter and concluded that Dawkins standard "…is actually a pastiche of Christianity as filtered through 19 century liberalism… and its radical extension, via Darwinism, into the farther reaches of 21 century liberalism." [Answering The New Atheism, p 132] Bereft of moral clothes, evolution’s emperor simply borrows them from someone else.
The whole statement is faulty because 'evil' doesn't actually exist. It's cult fiction Because evil is imaginary " “evil” is nothing more than “actions that you personally dislike.” " is true. Ask a thousand people 'what is evil' and you will get many different answers, based on personal perception not reality.
"Therefore, if objective morality exists, God must exist" sounds like 'Christian logic' as the giant assumption is fictionally based. Morality is objective although there will be group think on certain issues.