[PW] Atheist (im)morality

[Franco, Adrienne]

Ingersoll's reasoning is faulty.
A better analogy for the atonement is one who pays a debt for another
which the other person cannot possibly repay. Another apt analogy may be
a loving parent sacrificing his/her own life to rescue a child in
imminent danger.
Ingersoll also assumes, in the next to last sentence, that the guilty
party is capable of carrying his own burdens.  If that were so, the
atonement would not have been necessary.
In Christian theology, there is only one who is truly innocent and that
by an act of mercy and grace He has chosen to make atonement for the
guilty. No human being can make atonement for another.

Adrienne Franco 


-----Original Message-----
From: project-wombat-bounces at lists.project-wombat.org
[mailto:project-wombat-bounces at lists.project-wombat.org] On Behalf Of
John Henderson
Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2008 3:57 PM
To: list at project-wombat.org
Subject: Re: [PW] Atheist (im)morality

PT Barnum was an ardent Universalist who frequently attacked hellfire  
and damnation orthodoxy, but the most quoted 19th century atheist is  
probably Robert Ingersoll. An examination of his writings might be  
worth pursuing. I haven't found anything close to "morality is bunk,"  
but his "Christmas Sermon 1891" does include the line "So much for  
morality." Here is the context:

"Freethought has attacked the morality of what is called the  
atonement. The innocent should not suffer for the guilty, and if the  
innocent does suffer for the guilty, that cannot by any possibility  
justify the guilty. The reason a thing is wrong is because it, in  
some way, causes the innocent to suffer. This being the very essence  
of wrong, how can the suffering of innocence justify. the guilty? If  
there be a world of joy, he who is worthy to enter that world must be  
willing to carry his own burdens in this. So much for morality. "

http://www.atheists.org/Atheism/ingersollsermon.html

John Henderson
Ithaca College Library
jhenderson at ithaca.edu

On Feb 12, 2008, at 2:53 PM, Paul Zimmerman wrote:

The common belief among many of the "faithful" that atheists are
necessarily immoral people is fairly well known. That this is not
necessarily so is also well known to anyone who thinks. But all
stereotypes or folk beliefs have an origin. In this case it was probably
the rebellion against the sanctimonious hyper-morality of the Victorian
era. I seem to recall but cannot locate a specific example. A prominent
19th century person, author, scientist, philosopher (one of the
Utilitarians, perhaps?), I'm not sure, who said specifically "Morality
is bunk" -- not meaning that he had the right to lie, steal, or whatever
he pleased, but simply that Pecksniffian decorum was over the top. It
might have been that he wanted to be able to get a divorce, which was
definitely an outrageous thing in the 19th century.

Now, this phrase has had a recent revival. I am _not_ looking for the
modern repeater(s) of this phrase, but the original, which I am fairly
certain is in the mid-19th century.
_______________________________________________
Project Wombat
list at project-wombat.org
http://www.project-wombat.org/

_______________________________________________
Project Wombat
list at project-wombat.org
http://www.project-wombat.org/