Members LynchProtoge Posted January 5, 2013 Author Members Share Posted January 5, 2013 Originally Posted by sinnerx96 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. Such lofty, self serving language. Tell me, who gets to define "benefit"? Maybe my definition of benefit is much different than yours - thus who are you, or anyone else - to say my definition is wrong? 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 sinnerx96 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. Such lofty, self serving language. Tell me, who gets to define "benefit"? Maybe my definition of benefit is much different than yours - thus who are you, or anyone else - to say my definition is wrong? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members blargh Posted January 5, 2013 Members Share 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? Gee, that's a bit of a loaded question.And to me, it makes about as much sense as asking "how many atheists are willing to openly admit that, absent any higher authority, you can't tell a hot cup of coffee from a cold cup of coffee?"I don't defer to "higher authority" in either case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members blargh Posted January 5, 2013 Members Share 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? Gee, that's a bit of a loaded question.And to me, it makes about as much sense as asking "how many atheists are willing to openly admit that, absent any higher authority, you can't tell a hot cup of coffee from a cold cup of coffee?"I don't defer to "higher authority" in either case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members sinnerx96 Posted January 5, 2013 Members Share Posted January 5, 2013 Originally Posted by LynchProtoge Such lofty, self serving language. Tell me, who gets to define "benefit"? Maybe my definition of benefit is much different than yours - thus who are you, or anyone else - to say my definition is wrong? What benefits society is as much happiness as possible, and the least amount of suffering possible. Are you willing to argue that with me? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members sinnerx96 Posted January 5, 2013 Members Share Posted January 5, 2013 Originally Posted by LynchProtoge Such lofty, self serving language. Tell me, who gets to define "benefit"? Maybe my definition of benefit is much different than yours - thus who are you, or anyone else - to say my definition is wrong? What benefits society is as much happiness as possible, and the least amount of suffering possible. Are you willing to argue that with me? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members GRANKOR Posted January 5, 2013 Members Share Posted January 5, 2013 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members GRANKOR Posted January 5, 2013 Members Share Posted January 5, 2013 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members amt7565 Posted January 5, 2013 Members Share Posted January 5, 2013 What is "moral" about the Bible, for example? Read the old testament and it will make Hitler look like an amateur. Morality is subjective- Evangelical Christians consider sex before marriage 'immoral' and warmongering as perfectly 'moral'. For me, it's the reverse! Like someone posted earlier, being nice is an evolutionary byproduct. With increased education (and enlightenment) we are changing our perception of morality. Slavery was perfectly moral (and cool) at one time. Not any more! There are 1 billion Chinese who practice no religion and lead normal lives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members amt7565 Posted January 5, 2013 Members Share Posted January 5, 2013 What is "moral" about the Bible, for example? Read the old testament and it will make Hitler look like an amateur. Morality is subjective- Evangelical Christians consider sex before marriage 'immoral' and warmongering as perfectly 'moral'. For me, it's the reverse! Like someone posted earlier, being nice is an evolutionary byproduct. With increased education (and enlightenment) we are changing our perception of morality. Slavery was perfectly moral (and cool) at one time. Not any more! There are 1 billion Chinese who practice no religion and lead normal lives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Phrophus Posted January 5, 2013 Members Share Posted January 5, 2013 Originally Posted by LynchProtoge Thats the point - as an atheist, there is none, its your word/will vs anothers. Then you've missed the point. There are higher authorities. The social contract is an example of one. We can kill each other, but it's more beneficial to both of us if we don't and instead pool our resources to make life better for both of us. What you're saying is actually much more disturbing than what others are saying. The only reason that you don't kill is because you believe in some religion which tells you that killing is wrong. You can't see any other reason not to kill someone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Phrophus Posted January 5, 2013 Members Share Posted January 5, 2013 Originally Posted by LynchProtoge Thats the point - as an atheist, there is none, its your word/will vs anothers. Then you've missed the point. There are higher authorities. The social contract is an example of one. We can kill each other, but it's more beneficial to both of us if we don't and instead pool our resources to make life better for both of us. What you're saying is actually much more disturbing than what others are saying. The only reason that you don't kill is because you believe in some religion which tells you that killing is wrong. You can't see any other reason not to kill someone. 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 Thats the point - as an atheist, there is none, its your word/will vs anothers. I disagree because, if nothing else, the will of the majority is a higher authority. 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 Thats the point - as an atheist, there is none, its your word/will vs anothers. I disagree because, if nothing else, the will of the majority is a higher authority. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Cirrus Posted January 5, 2013 Members Share Posted January 5, 2013 In complete absense of any higher power, social structure, potentially mutually beneficial relationships etc one person killing another has about as much impact in the universe as a boulder coming loose and damaging another boulder. There's nothing to care about, so why care what happens? Our brains aren't equipped to understand the cause of self awareness. So we come up with all kinds of retarded ways of understanding the world around us, the significance of our ability to observe it through our senses, and reasons as to why we exist. No explanation I've ever heard has survived even simple probing, trying to use our brains to understand it is like trying to use a thermometer to find magnetic north. It's not the right tool for the job, so we end up with ridiculous premises and hypothetical constructs like what we see in this thread. To me it's obvious that religion evolved as a way of controlling groups of people and spirituality evolved as a comfort to people who lose loved ones. Morality evolved because we understand that we need to create the world we want to live in, and that means treating people around us in certain ways. Beyond that, it's meaningless, just a concept in a universe that's mostly molecules of gas falling towards each other until they form stars and rocks occasionally bumping into each other. If you decide you can kill me without feeling bad I'll try to stop you, and I'll be very sad in the moments before I die if you succeed, but you won't think you did something wrong, I'll be dead so I won't think anything, and the universe won't care. The part in all this I don't understand is why my existence in this universe is aware of itself, but I'm sure there's a simple explanation, if I only had the right senses and capability for understanding that would let me comprehend more than a tiny part of the entire universe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Cirrus Posted January 5, 2013 Members Share Posted January 5, 2013 In complete absense of any higher power, social structure, potentially mutually beneficial relationships etc one person killing another has about as much impact in the universe as a boulder coming loose and damaging another boulder. There's nothing to care about, so why care what happens? Our brains aren't equipped to understand the cause of self awareness. So we come up with all kinds of retarded ways of understanding the world around us, the significance of our ability to observe it through our senses, and reasons as to why we exist. No explanation I've ever heard has survived even simple probing, trying to use our brains to understand it is like trying to use a thermometer to find magnetic north. It's not the right tool for the job, so we end up with ridiculous premises and hypothetical constructs like what we see in this thread. To me it's obvious that religion evolved as a way of controlling groups of people and spirituality evolved as a comfort to people who lose loved ones. Morality evolved because we understand that we need to create the world we want to live in, and that means treating people around us in certain ways. Beyond that, it's meaningless, just a concept in a universe that's mostly molecules of gas falling towards each other until they form stars and rocks occasionally bumping into each other. If you decide you can kill me without feeling bad I'll try to stop you, and I'll be very sad in the moments before I die if you succeed, but you won't think you did something wrong, I'll be dead so I won't think anything, and the universe won't care. The part in all this I don't understand is why my existence in this universe is aware of itself, but I'm sure there's a simple explanation, if I only had the right senses and capability for understanding that would let me comprehend more than a tiny part of the entire universe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members blargh Posted January 5, 2013 Members Share Posted January 5, 2013 Originally Posted by LynchProtoge Thats the point - as an atheist, there is none, its your word/will vs anothers. Is that really how you think people make moral judgements?Have you considered that you might be a sociopath? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members blargh Posted January 5, 2013 Members Share Posted January 5, 2013 Originally Posted by LynchProtoge Thats the point - as an atheist, there is none, its your word/will vs anothers. Is that really how you think people make moral judgements?Have you considered that you might be a sociopath? 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 GRANKOR 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 GRANKOR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members sinnerx96 Posted January 5, 2013 Members Share Posted January 5, 2013 Originally Posted by LynchProtoge Thats the point - as an atheist, there is none, its your word/will vs anothers. Originally Posted by rushtallica I disagree because, if nothing else, the will of the majority is a higher authority. I would go even further. It's NOT my word/will vs another's that slavery is wrong. It can be considered objectively wrong with reason and logic. Nothing more than very simple concepts are needed. Everyone agrees that it is better for people to be happy than not happy. Everyone has a desire to be happy. Everyone agrees that suffering is not desired. Therefore, we should strive to attain the most happiness and least suffering possible. Slavery causes people to suffer unnecessarily. Slavery is wrong.Referring to a "higher power" in the sense that LynchProtoge seems to be implying, is riddled with problems that don't exist within a secular morality that I'm describing. Are deeds only good because god commands them? Can slavery be considered "moral" if god condones it? What about murder? And how does god choose what is moral or not moral? Is it arbitrary? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members sinnerx96 Posted January 5, 2013 Members Share Posted January 5, 2013 Originally Posted by LynchProtoge Thats the point - as an atheist, there is none, its your word/will vs anothers. Originally Posted by rushtallica I disagree because, if nothing else, the will of the majority is a higher authority. I would go even further. It's NOT my word/will vs another's that slavery is wrong. It can be considered objectively wrong with reason and logic. Nothing more than very simple concepts are needed. Everyone agrees that it is better for people to be happy than not happy. Everyone has a desire to be happy. Everyone agrees that suffering is not desired. Therefore, we should strive to attain the most happiness and least suffering possible. Slavery causes people to suffer unnecessarily. Slavery is wrong.Referring to a "higher power" in the sense that LynchProtoge seems to be implying, is riddled with problems that don't exist within a secular morality that I'm describing. Are deeds only good because god commands them? Can slavery be considered "moral" if god condones it? What about murder? And how does god choose what is moral or not moral? Is it arbitrary? 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 sinnerx96 I would go even further. It's NOT my word/will vs another's that slavery is wrong. It can be considered objectively wrong with reason and logic. Nothing more than very simple concepts are needed. Everyone agrees that it is better for people to be happy than not happy. Everyone has a desire to be happy. Everyone agrees that suffering is not desired. Therefore, we should strive to attain the most happiness and least suffering possible. Slavery causes people to suffer unnecessarily. Slavery is wrong.Referring to a "higher power" in the sense that LynchProtoge seems to be implying, is riddled with problems that don't exist within a secular morality that I'm describing. Are deeds only good because god commands them? Can slavery be considered "moral" if god condones it? What about murder? And how does god choose what is moral or not moral? Is it arbitrary? Good points. And I'm thinking "moral" reasons have definitely been posed at least at some point people to end up buying into something as abhorrent as slavery. 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 sinnerx96 I would go even further. It's NOT my word/will vs another's that slavery is wrong. It can be considered objectively wrong with reason and logic. Nothing more than very simple concepts are needed. Everyone agrees that it is better for people to be happy than not happy. Everyone has a desire to be happy. Everyone agrees that suffering is not desired. Therefore, we should strive to attain the most happiness and least suffering possible. Slavery causes people to suffer unnecessarily. Slavery is wrong.Referring to a "higher power" in the sense that LynchProtoge seems to be implying, is riddled with problems that don't exist within a secular morality that I'm describing. Are deeds only good because god commands them? Can slavery be considered "moral" if god condones it? What about murder? And how does god choose what is moral or not moral? Is it arbitrary? Good points. And I'm thinking "moral" reasons have definitely been posed at least at some point people to end up buying into something as abhorrent as slavery. 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 sinnerx96 What benefits society is as much happiness as possible, and the least amount of suffering possible. Are you willing to argue that with me? Absolutely! Whos definition of happiness & suffering are we gonna use? Catching on yet? I can do this all day, baby! Originally Posted by Phrophus Then you've missed the point. There are higher authorities. The social contract is an example of one. We can kill each other, but it's more beneficial to both of us if we don't and instead pool our resources to make life better for both of us. What you're saying is actually much more disturbing than what others are saying. The only reason that you don't kill is because you believe in some religion which tells you that killing is wrong. You can't see any other reason not to kill someone. No, it seems your regressing now. To an atheist, there is no absolute or ultimate higher authority as all things are relative. Originally Posted by rushtallica I disagree because, if nothing else, the will of the majority is a higher authority. Again, absent any such construct (though I'm sure even within its possible), its simply you vs me, or anyone else - were all equal. Thus one mans morally wrong choice could just as well be anothers morally acceptable or right choice. Originally Posted by blargh Is that really how you think people make moral judgements?Have you considered that you might be a sociopath? No, I'm honest. Please dont posture about your lofty morals - they disappear in a second as soon as you find a way to get around them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.