“What about unreciprocated altruism?”

The altruist was still acting on an outcome considered desirable.

“And a study has recently concluded that subjects will act spitefully towards others for no reason and with no possible reward.”

What sort of reward? One could argue that being a dick to someone for the gratification of being a dick is a reward.

“Atheists are moral parasites because they suck the morality from Christianity whilst trying to destroy it.”

Beale’s claim that atheists are “moral parasites” is complete nonsense. The big three (assault, theft, fraud) were opposed on moral and legal grounds long before Christianity and in lands which never heard of Judaism. In fact, they’re very easy to reason out as requirements for a functional society. In this regard, it’s very easy to reason out that a person oughtn’t commit assault, theft, and fraud because it’s a requirement for the polite society that they enjoy. Or you could start with a position of self-preservation. These crimes are shunned by the majority and committing them increases the chance of that person or society at large extracting retribution for this breech. Of course, you could also argue that natural selection is responsible for selecting traits which enforce a sense of guilt and shame at committing them. Or even that this guilt and shame is the result of many millenniums of tradition proscribing these actions.

But to claim parasitism on the part of atheists to Christian morality is to stake a claim in these morals. And, as the author of this article put it, Christianity did not invent these morals. Rather this seems to me another incident of Beale covertly nodding an argument for the existence of their god to the faithful. If Christianity did not always exist, but these morals existed before Christianity, then the only conclusion left is some inane explanation that “goddidit” and stake a sneaky claim to Christian moral victory and the existence of their god.

Anywho, back on topic. One has to wonder at the logic of claiming moral parasitism on the part of atheism to begin with. I’ll agree with Beale that we overwhelmingly are opposed to traditional Christian morality proscribing homosexuality, sex before marriage, etc. That should be enough to make it very clear that we aren’t ripping off Christian morality. Even Beale’s own argument can be summed up as “atheists are leeching off of Christian morality, except for the stuff they aren’t.”

There is, of course, a very simple alternative to sucking at the teet of the divine command theory of morality for atheists, namely moral realism. Which, to make it simple, is the position that moral sentences express propositions. Simple, effective, and avoids that nasty tendency of apologists to lump all atheists in as moral relativists.

Isn’t this what Vox is saying?

Atheists have the same morality as the religious. Essentially atheists have a morality set down for them in the Bible. This is the basis for Western morality.

Just as Dawkins admits he is a ‘Cultural Christian’ you are a ‘Moral Christian’.

Atheists are moral parasites because they suck the morality from Christianity whilst trying to destroy it.

You said:

“But that’s too easy. Of course an evil conspiracy would pretend to embrace real morals. What they’re really after is “disgusting dog-torturing and corpse-carving.” Yada yada yada. (Sigh.)”

Unbelievable! You have totally misunderstood what Vox has said. You may be able to lead anyone who reads this blog astray, but I have read The Irrational Atheist and I know you have either unwittingly or dishonestly misunderstood large parts of it.

Incompetence or dishonesty?

Woah, Woah!

Evidence???

What about unreciprocated altruism?

And a study has recently concluded that subjects will act spitefully towards others for no reason and with no possible reward.

You seem to rely upon so many unsupported assertions that I have come to the conclusion that your thinking is untrustworthy.

And why use so much hyperbole to make his arguments sound ridiculous – CONSPIRACY etc.

You have attached this to a much more reasoned argument – a bit straw-mannish.

One would hope that his readers will see through this nonsense, but I guess no one will read this book for educational purposes.

Still, I’m curious to find out who our leadership is.

It’s funny, I wonder, if this quest to find our “leadership” some kind of projection? It’s almost as if this guy is so given over to an outside authority (God) that he is unable to conceive of a person following their own moral judgement, and therefore insists that Atheists must secretly be following some authority of our own.