I'd like to hear from Fundies. Now I realize that I haven't attracted too many Fundies to comment on my blog recently, but I'm asking for feedback here.
A couple of days ago, I saw a stray dog roaming from backyard to backyard on the street of my backyard neighbours. One neighbour, a Christian told the dog to get out of his backyard, not in an evil way, but just the same, he just turned the other cheek at the plight of this lost doggy.
I was thinking of going around to the other street with a leash, but before I could even get my coat on, Daisy, my border collie, started barking as if the mailman was at my front door. It was the stray dog.
I checked to see if there was any ID on his collar. Nope.
I opened the gate to let the dog into my confined large backyard.
I got him some water, and a couple of dog treat bones.
Daisy was curious, so I hesitantly let Daisy out back with him. They were fine together.
But then my wife got too comfortable with the dog and let him into the house. I said three words to her: "are you crazy." And just as I finished saying those words, the dog had spotted Otto, my "temporary" cat. He wound up viciously chasing Otto around the living room, causing Otto tremendous trauma, but luckily no physical damage. I think it is the first time that Otto found out a valuable lesson: that he is part of the food chain.
We quickly got the dog out of the house, and knew right there that adopting the poor old guy was out of the question.
I phoned the local SPCA to see if an older black lab male had been reported lost. No luck. I told them I would walk the dog for a bit to see if anyone recognizes him.
I started walking the dog saying "go home" and letting him lead. The few people I asked about recognition came up empty for me.
I had noticed I walked about 25 minutes when it dawned on me. Why am I doing this? I'm supposed to be a heartless atheist void of morals. What was driving me to walk this mutt? I'm not out to impress my God, because God is non existent to me. Was I out to impress my wife? I don't think so. I'm way beyond that these days.
Even after this realization, I continued walking with the dog for another 25 minutes.
No luck still.
But my question remains Fundies, why did I do this? And don't give me the "it doesn't matter because dogs don't go to heaven so they don't count as morality stuff."
I finally phoned the SPCA and they sent someone to pick him up (I was pretty sure that they don't put stray dogs down in my area). The SPCA dude was a flaming gay. I felt like saying, "if you want to get married to another guy, it is OK with me," but I held back. But man was he gay. He referred to the dog as "honey." And yes, he knew the dog was male. While putting him into the truck he said, "looks like you are neutered, honey."
Anyway, I asked if there was a chance he would be put down, and I was relieved to hear that they don't put stray dogs down in my area.
You have been tagged. It's about time too.
ReplyDeleteAs for your question. I believe that the greatest hypocrites are those who preach but don't practice what they preach.
Let's see... I bet I can channel a Christian!
ReplyDeleteThe reason you did such a wonderful thing for that dog was because God has endowed ALL of humanity with morals and we were specifically created to care for God's creation. Just because you're an atheist doesn't mean you're immune to the holy urges God created you with!
Wow, sinned hit a jackpot.
ReplyDeleteI was just gonna say, 'Cause yer nice.'
Sinned, if that was true, why did so many Christians turn the other cheek to the dog's plight?
ReplyDeleteBeaj said - "Sinned, if that was true, why did so many Christians turn the other cheek to the dog's plight?"
ReplyDeleteOh, come on now! Christians aren't perfect - just forgiven! Christians make mistakes too, you know! They lie and misrepresent others sometimes (for examples, read Ray Comfort's blog), they start wars for idiotic reasons (see George Bush Jr.), and some of them accidentally take drugs and buy sex from male prostitutes (Ted Haggard, wherefore art thou?). The only difference between them and you is God's grace and Jesus' sacrifice!
The fact that you were willing to help one of God's creatures when so many of His Children ignored that dog's plight shows that you can still hear the voice of God! I'll be praying for you to turn your heart to Jesus! (Please note: I will not actually be praying for anybody.) Or maybe those people are false converts. That's what Ray Comfort calls me when I remind him that I used to be washed in the blood, but have since blasphemed the Holy Spirit by returning to my presaved life like a dog returning to it's vomit!
So in other words, atheists might be perfected Christians.
ReplyDeleteBeing amused is not morality, duh. (six words? how novel)
ReplyDeleteMan, I wish I was an atheist Jew. That would be so freaking sweet. Imagine the possibilities. I could...nevermind. That would be stupid.
ReplyDeleteYou walked the dog because you are NOT a Christian. Christians don't give a crap about the dog because it doesn't have a soul. The difference between Christians and geniuses like us is that we realize we don't have a soul either.
Then again, I wouldn't have been so nice. I live in Texas. We all have guns. When you own a gun, there is only one thing to do with a stray dog. Give it antifreeze.
yet another "fundie" opinion
ReplyDeleteI do not accept your assertion that you do not believe. For if you truly had no concept of a Supernal Being Who created the world with purpose, then what is all this outrage of yours against the injustice of life? The substance of the universe is not moral, nor are plants and animals. Why should it surprise you that whoever is bigger and more powerful swallows his fellow alive?
It is only due to an inner conviction in our hearts, shared by every human being, that there is a Judge, that there is right and there is wrong. And so, when we see a wrong, we demand an explanation: Why is this not the way it is supposed to be?
That itself is belief in G-d.
~ From the wisdom of the Lubavitcher Rebbe, Rabbi Menachem Schneerson; words and condensation by Tzvi Freeman
Babba, I DON'T BELIEVE. You'll have to trust me on this.
ReplyDeleteI suggest you look at the behavior of the Bonobos societies. They have no concept of God, yet they have their own morality system that is very similar to humans.
We evolved the Golden Rule, or we would have been extinct long long ago.
We evolved the susceptibility to believe in the supernatural and God and all to explain things that we couldn't explain. For example, our ancestors had to explain lightning somehow and our own mortality without going insane.
Ha in Bosnia we used to collect all the stray dogs the lads had collected on camp and shove them in an Iso container. The duty medic would them gas them. Oh the bitching that would go on when the idiots found out their cute pet was brown bread. Problem is they are only there for six months and left the animals behind. (Mind you one girl did pay for her new pet to travel to the UK) As for why you spent time walking a dog round the streets because you are not the bastard people think you are.
ReplyDeleteMind you I bet Otto was glad the dog went.
Pounce….
I was posting on a Christian blog half an hour ago, and spent some time showing how even animals have morals. Among other thing, I posted this:
ReplyDelete"One experiment found that if each time a rat is given food, its neighbor receives an electric shock, the first rat will eventually forgo eating."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/27/AR2007052701056.html
The reply, after having made a long post with plenty of scientific quotes?
"Ha ha. As if the cat feels bad after having killed a mouse."
Right. I almost regret that I took the time to refute his silly argument, and if it wasn't for the fact that others may read it, it would be a waste of time to "discuss" with this unintelligent ingrate.
It's interesting to me that your story is placed in the "Good Samaritan" context, when you claim that the person to whom that story is attributed may never have existed. Whether you were operating in that particular context when the events with the stray dog occurred or not, it does indicate to me that your frame of reference is built around the Judeo-Christian and Western framework of Virtue.
ReplyDeleteThat is, you didn't choose to be kind to the dog because it might be a long-lost relative reincarnated, or because it might contain the essence of some deity you ought not offend.
That said, do you suppose, frame of reference in hand, that you were fair to your neighbor?
I didn't see the dog in question, but I know that our dog has in the past gotten out of her ample enclosure and roamed the streets, inspecting the neighborhood for rabbits and garbage. She's a dog.
Some people (increasingly few) would say all strays should be shot on sight, so they don't get into the henhouse, garbage can, or spread disease or parasites.
Now, would I rather have my neighbors shoot my dog, turn the dog away, take the dog in, or turn her in to the authorities as a stray, for which I'll pay a hefty fine -- while I'm out looking for her?
I see nothing wrong with what you did, but neither would I call it a slam dunk pwning of your self-righteous neighbor. It's not the clear question of morality you make it out to be.
Morals, of course, do not (always) come from God. Morals are the rules we each, as individuals, think everyone ought to follow. We all have them. Whether we want those rules put into law or not, and whether we ourselves follow them or not, we each still think everyone ought to behave a certain way.
For you, that includes dealing promptly and properly (as you see it) with a stray dog. Others don't share your view, but most would call it immoral to actively harm the dog. This is an area where morality is in flux, I think trending away from the extreme of shooting strays on sight toward the extreme of letting the stray have the spare bedroom.
It may tickle your sense of superiority to believe yourself the moral champion over your Christian neighbors, but it seems clear that you were simply playing a different game, or playing the same game by different rules.
I wasn't trying to say I'm morally superior to anyone, but what I did should be deemed as a moral act, and since I don't need a book written by scared 2nd and 3rd century peasants, it is clear that God has nothing to do with morality.
ReplyDeleteThe words in the bible that count are just common sense having to do with the Social Contract that we innately have evolved over time, written down and attributed to the invisible sky fairy.
We can agree that morality doesn't come exclusively from religious teaching. Many people get the syllogism wrong:
ReplyDeleteReligions teach morality.
Atheists do not believe what religions teach.
Therefore, atheists are amoral.
It is not even true, as you have demonstrated with your implicit endorsement of the Good Samaritan ethic, that atheists reject all of what religions teach, even as religious teaching. It is to be expected that an atheist living in a culture will accept most of the morality of that culture, whatever its source.
It is only the subset of morality that has no obvious basis apart from religious teaching that he is likely to challenge. It seems to me likely that his status outside of the religious community will strengthen his desire to show integrity, or constancy of conviction.
It is to be expected that an atheist living in a culture will accept most of the morality of that culture, whatever its source.
ReplyDeleteThis is a good point. Humans adapt moral values from the society in which they live. It is a societal thing that would be present with or without religion in order for humans to live peacefully with one another and to protect the species. If we don't have some set of guidelines or laws, then we would just destroy one another...which people also do all too often even amongst the religious.
Church leaders need to stop this stupid argument that atheists do not have morals. It's a ridiculous argument.
ReplyDeleteBEAJ, that's not what "turn the other cheek" means, but your point is understood.
ReplyDeleteI have questions now.
Who is this bogeyman you are arguing against? Not only is it doctrinal, but it can be observed without recourse to doctrine that even the heathen will follow the lights that God has endowed them with. stardust is right to say that "atheists do not have morals" is a ridiculous argument. It's all the more ridiculous for being an argument that isn't even an argument! Again, who have you argued this with?
BEAJ, what was the moral aspect about your interaction with that dog? To what standard of right conduct do you appeal? Does your disbelief at your wife letting the dog in imply that she behaved immorally in so doing? Would ordering the dog off your lawn have been wrong conduct? A breach of virtue? 1000 stray dogs show up on your lawn. To how many of them, or to which ones do you have a moral obligation? What is your criteria for choosing? Should you have a choice?
I hope you figured out why you were walking the dog. It is unnerving not to understand one's own actions.
BEAJ, that's not what "turn the other cheek" means, but your point is understood.
ReplyDelete**********************
I was using it in a sarcastic way. I know what it means.
I have questions now.
Who is this bogeyman you are arguing against? Not only is it doctrinal, but it can be observed without recourse to doctrine that even the heathen will follow the lights that God has endowed them with. stardust is right to say that "atheists do not have morals" is a ridiculous argument. It's all the more ridiculous for being an argument that isn't even an argument! Again, who have you argued this with?
*************************
It is part of self awareness. I was talking to myself. We have evolved the capability to talk to ourselves. We also evolved the concept of the social contract. This includes varying degrees of altruism at different times. Some people are OK with killing bugs, some aren't. God has nothing to do with it.
BEAJ, what was the moral aspect about your interaction with that dog?
*******************
I'm empathetic towards dogs...a lot more than I am toward cats or birds. I think the differential is more nurture than nature in this instance.
To what standard of right conduct do you appeal?
**********************
Nature/nurture.
Does your disbelief at your wife letting the dog in imply that she behaved immorally in so doing?
***************************
No, just that she wasn't thinking about our new cat and how this dog would react to the cat. Also, his feet were dirty and I wasn't even sure if he wouldn't take a leak on my furniture.
Would ordering the dog off your lawn have been wrong conduct?
*************************
Depends on the circumstances. It was really a tossup to be honest.
A breach of virtue? 1000 stray dogs show up on your lawn. To how many of them, or to which ones do you have a moral obligation? What is your criteria for choosing? Should you have a choice?
************************
That would be an overwhelming situation. I hate to say it, but it would probably be best to put most of the dogs down, if there that many without probable owners. What kind of life could they be expected to have?
I hope you figured out why you were walking the dog. It is unnerving not to understand one's own actions.
********************
I did it out of a combination of empathy (which evolved in all humans, and my own personal preferences which has to do with my life experiences.
What is particularly moral about empathy if it evolved in all humans? Do you mean by, "it was a tossup" that any action you chose would have been equally moral? Or that you were equally drawn to morality and amorality? Do you mean by "personal preference" that morality is a matter of personal preference? If so why equivocate? Why not simply ask, "Where Do My Preferences Come From?" (If you can't tell, I think morality has nothing to do with any of this, but I do have a few more questions.) You said you began to ruminate on the source of your morality whilst walking the dog. Did you conclude that it was a "combination of empathy and personal preference" at that time; after you had asked the question here (Another Question For Fundies...); or only once you answered it in your reply to me previously? Is that supposed to be the "correct" answer? Would you say it was a dogmatic answer?
ReplyDeleteI won't reply again but I am curious as to your answers.
I've already written in previous posts that "morality" is very subjective to begin with.
ReplyDeleteFor instance, take the death penalty, abortion, etc. Ask anyone theist or non theist alike and you get many POV's.
Culture defines morality many times. In some cultures dogs are food. In our culture dogs are pets.
I knew what my answer would be regarding this post before I wrote it.
I took a sarcastic shot at theist who believe that atheists don't have any basis for morality. That is what this post is about.
Atheists have a basis for our subjective morality, as do theists, for their individual morality.
Nuts. I said I wouldn't reply, but I'm not satisfied that there was anything like an answer in there. May I take a stab at the idea I believe you may be trying to convey?
ReplyDeleteTheists say there is a moral compass which is made to point due north. Due North, being a fixed point, is the key reason they ever began talking about morals(Morals, now, not ethics), to begin with. If there is no fixed point, then what is the ... er, why bother? Atheists say, "We have followed all the charts and maps to where this "north magnetic pole" of yours is supposed to be, and guess what? The compass just spins! There is no north magnetic pole!"
Or maybe I misunderstand you, and you really mean that since North looks different relative from different points that all points must be taken into account simultaneously? This is absurd but even so, even given that one could see from all perspectives like a human firmament, the world's North would remain fixed. Perhaps you have avoided this conclusion because you have avoided talking (and so I surmise, thinking) about morality at all. And you've said nearly nothing about culture, relativism, nature, nurture, evolution, or any of the other free associations you've used to buttress your point (Culture is not morality. Nature is not morality, etc.) If I am able to read anything between the lines, it's only that Might Makes Right - an idea that is morally repugnant - which I trust I can safely say is regardless of my opinion.
Morality is relative. Plain and simple.
ReplyDeleteThere is no absolute morality. Although some acts could be described as universally immoral to humans.
Like killing someone randomly on the street.
Universally immoral acts are acts that are totally against the social contract.
The social contract is something that is mostly innate in us, but is also reinforced in cultural laws.
Our species would be extinct if we were inclined to murder people at random.
Here are a few of my posts on "morality"
Casual Morality Test
Back To Morality
Morality is Hardwired In Us
I hope the posts and the comments on the posts give you a good enough idea of where I am coming from.
Plain and simple? I'm sorry, I didn't realize we were dealing with such a clear cut case of Because I say So. We agree on this though, that questions can be pesky, irritating things in matters of fiat.
ReplyDeleteBye.
If you read the posts and the links I provided, it isn't a case of me saying so.
ReplyDelete