Members Phrophus Posted January 5, 2013 Members Posted January 5, 2013 Originally Posted by LynchProtoge BINGO! We have a winner. I just don't understand why you're questioning this. (A) It's mental masturbation...we do not live in a vacuum where there are no other considerations (B) it doesn't say anything about the difference between atheists and believers of any kind beyond the fact that the individual morality of one or another is shaped according to a different, albeit similar, set of rules © it does not say that atheists don't have morality. It only says that their morality is based on something else.
Members rushtallica Posted January 5, 2013 Members Posted January 5, 2013 Originally Posted by LynchProtoge You clearly didnt read, so your either just trying to join some dog pile or you are posting in ignorance. Which is it? But he's actually correct in a sense because even in the described vacuum there is another person involved, and that brings in benefits vs negatives to consider. If it's another adult, the idea to treat the other person as you may want to be treated would probably be important because, if things started in neutral manner then you started a fight, the other person might end up killing you, which would surely be considered a negative outcome. What if that person knew how to build a hut, hunt, catch fish, plant crops, etc., that may have been a help, as well? Again probably too many words, but at least from my understanding of your hypothesis, it seems to go along with what you described.
Members rushtallica Posted January 5, 2013 Members Posted January 5, 2013 Originally Posted by LynchProtoge You clearly didnt read, so your either just trying to join some dog pile or you are posting in ignorance. Which is it? But he's actually correct in a sense because even in the described vacuum there is another person involved, and that brings in benefits vs negatives to consider. If it's another adult, the idea to treat the other person as you may want to be treated would probably be important because, if things started in neutral manner then you started a fight, the other person might end up killing you, which would surely be considered a negative outcome. What if that person knew how to build a hut, hunt, catch fish, plant crops, etc., that may have been a help, as well? Again probably too many words, but at least from my understanding of your hypothesis, it seems to go along with what you described.
Members blargh Posted January 5, 2013 Members Posted January 5, 2013 Originally Posted by LynchProtoge BINGO! We have a winner. Okay, so what is your point? We're not in a moral vacuum. Some religious folks can't quite wrap their minds around just how little difficulty this whole issue presents to non-believers... and that, to me, is a bit frightening.
Members blargh Posted January 5, 2013 Members Posted January 5, 2013 Originally Posted by LynchProtoge BINGO! We have a winner. Okay, so what is your point? We're not in a moral vacuum. Some religious folks can't quite wrap their minds around just how little difficulty this whole issue presents to non-believers... and that, to me, is a bit frightening.
Members rushtallica Posted January 5, 2013 Members Posted January 5, 2013 Originally Posted by Weathered Yep. But what hasn't been talked about is that religion is a societal construct as well, so in a vacuum, the religious norms wouldn't prevent anything either. I'll borrow the term, Bingo!
Members rushtallica Posted January 5, 2013 Members Posted January 5, 2013 Originally Posted by Weathered Yep. But what hasn't been talked about is that religion is a societal construct as well, so in a vacuum, the religious norms wouldn't prevent anything either. I'll borrow the term, Bingo!
Members Phrophus Posted January 5, 2013 Members Posted January 5, 2013 Originally Posted by Weathered Yep. But what hasn't been talked about is that religion is a societal construct as well, so in a vacuum, the religious norms wouldn't prevent anything either. Almost pointed that out, but you know exactly where that's gonna go. No, it's not. Yes, it is. No, it's not. Which, obviously, is where this thread is heading.
Members Phrophus Posted January 5, 2013 Members Posted January 5, 2013 Originally Posted by Weathered Yep. But what hasn't been talked about is that religion is a societal construct as well, so in a vacuum, the religious norms wouldn't prevent anything either. Almost pointed that out, but you know exactly where that's gonna go. No, it's not. Yes, it is. No, it's not. Which, obviously, is where this thread is heading.
Members LynchProtoge Posted January 5, 2013 Author Members Posted January 5, 2013 Originally Posted by Phrophus I just don't understand why you're questioning this. (A) It's mental masturbation...we do not live in a vacuum where there are no other considerations (B) it doesn't say anything about the difference between atheists and believers of any kind beyond the fact that the individual morality of one or another is shaped according to a different, albeit similar, set of rules © it does not say that atheists don't have morality. It only says that their morality is based on something else. Simple - how many atheists are willing to openly admit that, absent any higher authority, killing or harming another being is no different than drinking water?
Members LynchProtoge Posted January 5, 2013 Author Members Posted January 5, 2013 Originally Posted by Phrophus I just don't understand why you're questioning this. (A) It's mental masturbation...we do not live in a vacuum where there are no other considerations (B) it doesn't say anything about the difference between atheists and believers of any kind beyond the fact that the individual morality of one or another is shaped according to a different, albeit similar, set of rules © it does not say that atheists don't have morality. It only says that their morality is based on something else. Simple - how many atheists are willing to openly admit that, absent any higher authority, killing or harming another being is no different than drinking water?
Members rushtallica Posted January 5, 2013 Members Posted January 5, 2013 Originally Posted by LynchProtoge Simple - how many atheists are willing to openly admit that, absent any higher authority, killing or harming another being is no different than drinking water? Define what you mean by higher authority. Is it a divine being? Is it a societal construct? I think many view laws as being part of a higher authority (authority beyond the individual person). And what about my post regarding even having one other person involved -- the beneifts and negative outcomes to consider? There must be assumed intelligence and reasoning ability, of course. But again, when there is, there is morality in the sense that people will act in self-preservation even if it's just two people on an island or even one person who has a choice to kill a dog or not when the dog might be able to warn the person that a dangerous animal is approaching, etc... And what if the person in a vacuum is a believer but is also schizophrenic and ends up killing the one other person in the vacuum? Does that mean a god does not exist because the person was not healed of the mental instability and killed the baby regardless of a belief in a god?
Members rushtallica Posted January 5, 2013 Members Posted January 5, 2013 Originally Posted by LynchProtoge Simple - how many atheists are willing to openly admit that, absent any higher authority, killing or harming another being is no different than drinking water? Define what you mean by higher authority. Is it a divine being? Is it a societal construct? I think many view laws as being part of a higher authority (authority beyond the individual person). And what about my post regarding even having one other person involved -- the beneifts and negative outcomes to consider? There must be assumed intelligence and reasoning ability, of course. But again, when there is, there is morality in the sense that people will act in self-preservation even if it's just two people on an island or even one person who has a choice to kill a dog or not when the dog might be able to warn the person that a dangerous animal is approaching, etc... And what if the person in a vacuum is a believer but is also schizophrenic and ends up killing the one other person in the vacuum? Does that mean a god does not exist because the person was not healed of the mental instability and killed the baby regardless of a belief in a god?
Members -Assy- Posted January 5, 2013 Members Posted January 5, 2013 Originally Posted by LynchProtoge Simple - how many atheists are willing to openly admit that, absent any higher authority, killing or harming another being is no different than drinking water? yeah i dont think anyone here will admit to that because it is retarded and higher authority is pretty vague. I don't kill people because it is wrong. That did not come from any religion or spiritual belief.
Members -Assy- Posted January 5, 2013 Members Posted January 5, 2013 Originally Posted by LynchProtoge Simple - how many atheists are willing to openly admit that, absent any higher authority, killing or harming another being is no different than drinking water? yeah i dont think anyone here will admit to that because it is retarded and higher authority is pretty vague. I don't kill people because it is wrong. That did not come from any religion or spiritual belief.
Members sinnerx96 Posted January 5, 2013 Members Posted January 5, 2013 Originally Posted by Phrophus I just don't understand why you're questioning this. (A) It's mental masturbation...we do not live in a vacuum where there are no other considerations (B) it doesn't say anything about the difference between atheists and believers of any kind beyond the fact that the individual morality of one or another is shaped according to a different, albeit similar, set of rules © it does not say that atheists don't have morality. It only says that their morality is based on something else. I would argue that our morals are based on the same thing, for the most part(Most bible thumpers use their own moral intuition to judge whether or not god's actions are moral). Some of us just choose not to delude ourselves. Anyone with a functioning brain that takes the time to think about it, can come to an objective morality based on reason. Even a concept as simple as, "the most happiness for everyone involved, and the least suffering of everyone involved". It's not very complicated. The OP's question is stupid. At least, what sense I can make of it. It's "possible" to kill someone regardless if you get your morals from god or not. Check the religious affiliations of murderers in prison. Secular morality is superior in every way, and I can't believe we are still having this conversation in the 21st century.
Members sinnerx96 Posted January 5, 2013 Members Posted January 5, 2013 Originally Posted by Phrophus I just don't understand why you're questioning this. (A) It's mental masturbation...we do not live in a vacuum where there are no other considerations (B) it doesn't say anything about the difference between atheists and believers of any kind beyond the fact that the individual morality of one or another is shaped according to a different, albeit similar, set of rules © it does not say that atheists don't have morality. It only says that their morality is based on something else. I would argue that our morals are based on the same thing, for the most part(Most bible thumpers use their own moral intuition to judge whether or not god's actions are moral). Some of us just choose not to delude ourselves. Anyone with a functioning brain that takes the time to think about it, can come to an objective morality based on reason. Even a concept as simple as, "the most happiness for everyone involved, and the least suffering of everyone involved". It's not very complicated. The OP's question is stupid. At least, what sense I can make of it. It's "possible" to kill someone regardless if you get your morals from god or not. Check the religious affiliations of murderers in prison. Secular morality is superior in every way, and I can't believe we are still having this conversation in the 21st century.
Members Phrophus Posted January 5, 2013 Members Posted January 5, 2013 Originally Posted by sinnerx96 I would argue that our morals are based on the same thing, for the most part(Most bible thumpers use their own moral intuition to judge whether or not god's actions are moral). Some of us just choose not to delude ourselves. Anyone with a functioning brain that takes the time to think about it, can come to an objective morality based on reason. Even a concept as simple as, "the most happiness for everyone involved, and the least suffering of everyone involved". It's not very complicated. The OP's question is stupid. At least, what sense I can make of it. It's "possible" to kill someone regardless if you get your morals from god or not. Check the religious affiliations of murderers in prison. Secular morality is superior in every way, and I can't believe we are still having this conversation in the 21st century. I tend to agree that our morals actually come from the same place. Religious institutions have sets of rules that seem to track fairly closely the cultural norms from which the religion sprang. I think that was an awkwardly worded sentence. Meh.
Members Phrophus Posted January 5, 2013 Members Posted January 5, 2013 Originally Posted by sinnerx96 I would argue that our morals are based on the same thing, for the most part(Most bible thumpers use their own moral intuition to judge whether or not god's actions are moral). Some of us just choose not to delude ourselves. Anyone with a functioning brain that takes the time to think about it, can come to an objective morality based on reason. Even a concept as simple as, "the most happiness for everyone involved, and the least suffering of everyone involved". It's not very complicated. The OP's question is stupid. At least, what sense I can make of it. It's "possible" to kill someone regardless if you get your morals from god or not. Check the religious affiliations of murderers in prison. Secular morality is superior in every way, and I can't believe we are still having this conversation in the 21st century. I tend to agree that our morals actually come from the same place. Religious institutions have sets of rules that seem to track fairly closely the cultural norms from which the religion sprang. I think that was an awkwardly worded sentence. Meh.
Members wok Posted January 5, 2013 Members Posted January 5, 2013 Morality is a social construct, as is religion. Absolute morality doesn't exist.[/thread]
Members wok Posted January 5, 2013 Members Posted January 5, 2013 Morality is a social construct, as is religion. Absolute morality doesn't exist.[/thread]
Members sinnerx96 Posted January 5, 2013 Members Posted January 5, 2013 Originally Posted by wok Morality is a social construct, as is religion. Absolute morality doesn't exist. [/thread] There's some truth to this. But unlike religion, we can use reason to make sense of morality. We can use logic and reason to come to an objective morality to the benefit of society.
Members sinnerx96 Posted January 5, 2013 Members Posted January 5, 2013 Originally Posted by wok Morality is a social construct, as is religion. Absolute morality doesn't exist. [/thread] There's some truth to this. But unlike religion, we can use reason to make sense of morality. We can use logic and reason to come to an objective morality to the benefit of society.
Members LynchProtoge Posted January 5, 2013 Author Members Posted January 5, 2013 Originally Posted by rushtallica Define what you mean by higher authority. Is it a divine being? Is it a societal construct? I think many view laws as being part of a higher authority (authority beyond the individual person). And what about my post regarding even having one other person involved -- the beneifts and negative outcomes to consider? There must be assumed intelligence and reasoning ability, of course. But again, when there is, there is morality in the sense that people will act in self-preservation even if it's just two people on an island or even one person who has a choice to kill a dog or not when the dog might be able to warn the person that a dangerous animal is approaching, etc... And what if the person in a vacuum is a believer but is also schizophrenic and ends up killing the one other person in the vacuum? Does that mean a god does not exist because the person was not healed of the mental instability and killed the baby regardless of a belief in a god? Thats the point - as an atheist, there is none, its your word/will vs anothers.
Members LynchProtoge Posted January 5, 2013 Author Members Posted January 5, 2013 Originally Posted by rushtallica Define what you mean by higher authority. Is it a divine being? Is it a societal construct? I think many view laws as being part of a higher authority (authority beyond the individual person). And what about my post regarding even having one other person involved -- the beneifts and negative outcomes to consider? There must be assumed intelligence and reasoning ability, of course. But again, when there is, there is morality in the sense that people will act in self-preservation even if it's just two people on an island or even one person who has a choice to kill a dog or not when the dog might be able to warn the person that a dangerous animal is approaching, etc... And what if the person in a vacuum is a believer but is also schizophrenic and ends up killing the one other person in the vacuum? Does that mean a god does not exist because the person was not healed of the mental instability and killed the baby regardless of a belief in a god? Thats the point - as an atheist, there is none, its your word/will vs anothers.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.