Members shane159 Posted January 5, 2013 Members Share Posted January 5, 2013 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members LynchProtoge Posted January 5, 2013 Author Members Share Posted January 5, 2013 Originally Posted by MadKeithV What in the flying buttmonkeys do you mean here? There are two double negatives in that sentence and you're asking people to disprove a premise given that the premise is true. DO.... LESS.. DRUGS.... Or, you could slow down, read...read again, and read it again if thats what it takes for you to understand what is being said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members LynchProtoge Posted January 5, 2013 Author Members Share Posted January 5, 2013 Originally Posted by MadKeithV What in the flying buttmonkeys do you mean here? There are two double negatives in that sentence and you're asking people to disprove a premise given that the premise is true. DO.... LESS.. DRUGS.... Or, you could slow down, read...read again, and read it again if thats what it takes for you to understand what is being said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members K-Bizzle Posted January 5, 2013 Members Share Posted January 5, 2013 Originally Posted by LynchProtoge Not at all In the most blunt terms, I am asking if an atheist truly doesnt acknowledge any moral authority beyond self, then shouldnt it should be equally permissible to drink water as it is to harm another being? Well you're answering your own question then. If you're saying you aren't implying that atheists are actually secret believers and we all know all atheists aren't out there killing babies then I'm not sure what you're getting at. One simply has to look at various cultures throughout the world and history to see common themes. We're social creatures, most if not all morals aspects are either about not hurting or helping another human. Pretty easy to see as Redeye stated that it'd simply evolve in any human civilization because simply put without it there isn't civilization. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members K-Bizzle Posted January 5, 2013 Members Share Posted January 5, 2013 Originally Posted by LynchProtoge Not at all In the most blunt terms, I am asking if an atheist truly doesnt acknowledge any moral authority beyond self, then shouldnt it should be equally permissible to drink water as it is to harm another being? Well you're answering your own question then. If you're saying you aren't implying that atheists are actually secret believers and we all know all atheists aren't out there killing babies then I'm not sure what you're getting at. One simply has to look at various cultures throughout the world and history to see common themes. We're social creatures, most if not all morals aspects are either about not hurting or helping another human. Pretty easy to see as Redeye stated that it'd simply evolve in any human civilization because simply put without it there isn't civilization. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members rushtallica Posted January 5, 2013 Members Share Posted January 5, 2013 Originally Posted by LynchProtoge Not at all In the most blunt terms, I am asking if an atheist truly doesnt acknowledge any moral authority beyond self, then shouldnt it should be equally permissible to drink water as it is to harm another being? sorry, not following your jive here. I think atheists probably easily acknowledge moral authority of society as a whole as well as within themselves while many religious people claim to acknowledge moral authority on a greater level but practice morality more on a level of what works out best for that person on an individual or family level. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members rushtallica Posted January 5, 2013 Members Share Posted January 5, 2013 Originally Posted by LynchProtoge Not at all In the most blunt terms, I am asking if an atheist truly doesnt acknowledge any moral authority beyond self, then shouldnt it should be equally permissible to drink water as it is to harm another being? sorry, not following your jive here. I think atheists probably easily acknowledge moral authority of society as a whole as well as within themselves while many religious people claim to acknowledge moral authority on a greater level but practice morality more on a level of what works out best for that person on an individual or family level. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members MadKeithV Posted January 5, 2013 Members Share Posted January 5, 2013 Originally Posted by LynchProtoge Or, you could slow down, read...read again, and read it again if thats what it takes for you to understand what is being said. Hint: if everyone fails to understand what you're asking, the problem is you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members MadKeithV Posted January 5, 2013 Members Share Posted January 5, 2013 Originally Posted by LynchProtoge Or, you could slow down, read...read again, and read it again if thats what it takes for you to understand what is being said. Hint: if everyone fails to understand what you're asking, the problem is you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members LynchProtoge Posted January 5, 2013 Author Members Share Posted January 5, 2013 Originally Posted by Phrophus I'd assume that most atheists recognize a moral authority, just not the one that you recognize. My jive was saying that morality doesn't exist in a vacuum. I completely agree they might go by something different, that was never a point of contention. So, if morality doesnt exist in a vacuum, then youd agree that without any absolute morality, my decision to harm you is as equally permissible as your decision to drink water.Whos to say which is right or wrong absent any ultimate authority? Originally Posted by Weathered You certainly could, but as a whole, we got to where we are over the course of human history because more people believed in not killing other human beings (at least those in their tribe/nation/whatever) than did believe it was OK. If you're asking how those of us who do not believe in a higher power still manage to believe in some form of "morality", that's an extremely complex question. Having done some studying of the well-known philosophers and philosophical positions over the course of human history, the concept of some form of absolute moral "right and wrong" is not completely uncommon, even in those who did not believe or did not preach the concept of a higher power. Your statement that the concept of a higher power is necessary for some form of moral compass reminds me of Voltaire - "If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him." For some people, having that compass is necessary to feel as though there is some absolute truth somewhere outside of simply our own intrinsic nature. Personally, I believe that even without the concept of God, humans would not have been able to succeed as a race without some degree of reliance on other people, so killing them or harming them would have also, at the end of the day, harmed one's own chance at survival. This intrinsic self-preservation motive may well be why we were able to evolve to the point of having civilized societies, as well as developing some concept of a higher being. Again, read the OP - I am NOT, in any way, suggesting or implying atheists to be absent of any form of morality. I know thats the classical knee-jerk response for most, and hence why I worded my premise very carefully. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members LynchProtoge Posted January 5, 2013 Author Members Share Posted January 5, 2013 Originally Posted by Phrophus I'd assume that most atheists recognize a moral authority, just not the one that you recognize. My jive was saying that morality doesn't exist in a vacuum. I completely agree they might go by something different, that was never a point of contention. So, if morality doesnt exist in a vacuum, then youd agree that without any absolute morality, my decision to harm you is as equally permissible as your decision to drink water.Whos to say which is right or wrong absent any ultimate authority? Originally Posted by Weathered You certainly could, but as a whole, we got to where we are over the course of human history because more people believed in not killing other human beings (at least those in their tribe/nation/whatever) than did believe it was OK. If you're asking how those of us who do not believe in a higher power still manage to believe in some form of "morality", that's an extremely complex question. Having done some studying of the well-known philosophers and philosophical positions over the course of human history, the concept of some form of absolute moral "right and wrong" is not completely uncommon, even in those who did not believe or did not preach the concept of a higher power. Your statement that the concept of a higher power is necessary for some form of moral compass reminds me of Voltaire - "If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him." For some people, having that compass is necessary to feel as though there is some absolute truth somewhere outside of simply our own intrinsic nature. Personally, I believe that even without the concept of God, humans would not have been able to succeed as a race without some degree of reliance on other people, so killing them or harming them would have also, at the end of the day, harmed one's own chance at survival. This intrinsic self-preservation motive may well be why we were able to evolve to the point of having civilized societies, as well as developing some concept of a higher being. Again, read the OP - I am NOT, in any way, suggesting or implying atheists to be absent of any form of morality. I know thats the classical knee-jerk response for most, and hence why I worded my premise very carefully. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members mamberg Posted January 5, 2013 Members Share Posted January 5, 2013 The movie 'Rope' by Alfred Hitchcock is a good commentary on this subject - a just a good movie overall.Just watched it on either AMC or TCM last week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members mamberg Posted January 5, 2013 Members Share Posted January 5, 2013 The movie 'Rope' by Alfred Hitchcock is a good commentary on this subject - a just a good movie overall.Just watched it on either AMC or TCM last week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members MadKeithV Posted January 5, 2013 Members Share Posted January 5, 2013 Originally Posted by LynchProtoge Whos to say which is right or wrong absent any ultimate authority? Every individual capable of rational independent thought for himself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members MadKeithV Posted January 5, 2013 Members Share Posted January 5, 2013 Originally Posted by LynchProtoge Whos to say which is right or wrong absent any ultimate authority? Every individual capable of rational independent thought for himself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members LynchProtoge Posted January 5, 2013 Author Members Share Posted January 5, 2013 Originally Posted by MadKeithV Hint: if everyone fails to understand what you're asking, the problem is you. Of course! I mean, surely its impossible for everyone else to miss the point because either theyre too busy assuming what is meant or simply refusing to consider it for what it is at face value. Originally Posted by rushtallica I think atheists probably easily acknowledge moral authority of society as a whole as well as within themselves while many religious people claim to acknowledge moral authority on a greater level but practice morality more on a level of what works out best for that person on an individual or family level. You must have missed where I said outside any group or societal constraints.... Originally Posted by K-Bizzle Well you're answering your own question then. If you're saying you aren't implying that atheists are actually secret believers and we all know all atheists aren't out there killing babies then I'm not sure what you're getting at. One simply has to look at various cultures throughout the world and history to see common themes. We're social creatures, most if not all morals aspects are either about not hurting or helping another human. Pretty easy to see as Redeye stated that it'd simply evolve in any human civilization because simply put without it there isn't civilization. Again, absent any group or societal constraint, is there any reason a non believer should presume he cant do such a thing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members LynchProtoge Posted January 5, 2013 Author Members Share Posted January 5, 2013 Originally Posted by MadKeithV Hint: if everyone fails to understand what you're asking, the problem is you. Of course! I mean, surely its impossible for everyone else to miss the point because either theyre too busy assuming what is meant or simply refusing to consider it for what it is at face value. Originally Posted by rushtallica I think atheists probably easily acknowledge moral authority of society as a whole as well as within themselves while many religious people claim to acknowledge moral authority on a greater level but practice morality more on a level of what works out best for that person on an individual or family level. You must have missed where I said outside any group or societal constraints.... Originally Posted by K-Bizzle Well you're answering your own question then. If you're saying you aren't implying that atheists are actually secret believers and we all know all atheists aren't out there killing babies then I'm not sure what you're getting at. One simply has to look at various cultures throughout the world and history to see common themes. We're social creatures, most if not all morals aspects are either about not hurting or helping another human. Pretty easy to see as Redeye stated that it'd simply evolve in any human civilization because simply put without it there isn't civilization. Again, absent any group or societal constraint, is there any reason a non believer should presume he cant do such a thing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Weathered Posted January 5, 2013 Members Share Posted January 5, 2013 Originally Posted by LynchProtoge Again, read the OP - I am NOT, in any way, suggesting or implying atheists to be absent of any form of morality. I know thats the classical knee-jerk response for most, and hence why I worded my premise very carefully. I wasn't claiming that you were. But, this quote: Originally Posted by LynchProtoge Again, I am not presuming morality is not possible absent a higher power; I am simply asking why this wouldnt be possible if you truly believed in no other higher form of morality beyond what you deem for yourself? If "right and wrong" are subjective to a moral measure, then we must cede that absent any absolute measure, any action we take could and should be deemed permissible according to each individual point of view. Thus, something as common as consuming some manner of food or drink is equal to taking action that would cause harm to another person. seems to imply that if I don't believe in God, then my morality is simply driven by my own desires and not by some compulsion to follow divine law. While my belief structure is not derived from a religious text or teaching, that does not mean that it is completely relative to my own desires. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Weathered Posted January 5, 2013 Members Share Posted January 5, 2013 Originally Posted by LynchProtoge Again, read the OP - I am NOT, in any way, suggesting or implying atheists to be absent of any form of morality. I know thats the classical knee-jerk response for most, and hence why I worded my premise very carefully. I wasn't claiming that you were. But, this quote: Originally Posted by LynchProtoge Again, I am not presuming morality is not possible absent a higher power; I am simply asking why this wouldnt be possible if you truly believed in no other higher form of morality beyond what you deem for yourself? If "right and wrong" are subjective to a moral measure, then we must cede that absent any absolute measure, any action we take could and should be deemed permissible according to each individual point of view. Thus, something as common as consuming some manner of food or drink is equal to taking action that would cause harm to another person. seems to imply that if I don't believe in God, then my morality is simply driven by my own desires and not by some compulsion to follow divine law. While my belief structure is not derived from a religious text or teaching, that does not mean that it is completely relative to my own desires. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members LynchProtoge Posted January 5, 2013 Author Members Share Posted January 5, 2013 Originally Posted by MadKeithV Every individual capable of rational independent thought for himself. So then youd agree that if you & someone else were alone and away from any form of law or civilization of any kind, there is no reason that other person should feel restrained from hurting you if that is their desire? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members LynchProtoge Posted January 5, 2013 Author Members Share Posted January 5, 2013 Originally Posted by MadKeithV Every individual capable of rational independent thought for himself. So then youd agree that if you & someone else were alone and away from any form of law or civilization of any kind, there is no reason that other person should feel restrained from hurting you if that is their desire? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members -Assy- Posted January 5, 2013 Members Share Posted January 5, 2013 reported for racism Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members -Assy- Posted January 5, 2013 Members Share Posted January 5, 2013 reported for racism Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members MadKeithV Posted January 5, 2013 Members Share Posted January 5, 2013 Originally Posted by LynchProtoge So then youd agree that if you & someone else were alone and away from any form of law or civilization of any kind, there is no reason that other person should feel restrained from hurting you if that is their desire? No. You can't presume anything about what I'd think, because I haven't told you a) if I'm an atheist, and b) what MY morality is (which will be the frame of reference for me to judge the action of the other person). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members MadKeithV Posted January 5, 2013 Members Share Posted January 5, 2013 Originally Posted by LynchProtoge So then youd agree that if you & someone else were alone and away from any form of law or civilization of any kind, there is no reason that other person should feel restrained from hurting you if that is their desire? No. You can't presume anything about what I'd think, because I haven't told you a) if I'm an atheist, and b) what MY morality is (which will be the frame of reference for me to judge the action of the other person). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.