Members Markdude Posted January 5, 2013 Members Share Posted January 5, 2013 Originally Posted by Cirrus I wouldn't say I'm an atheist, I don't think I know enough to judge either way. But I'm closer to there than a believer in God so I guess I can answer that life is not a vacuum for me, it has as much personal meaning and importance as I heap upon it. It's important and miraculous unto itself without any need for God to have done it, and I feel very sorry for people who need to invent something else to give their own life meaning. Mother. {censored}ing. This. Post of the day award. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Markdude Posted January 5, 2013 Members Share Posted January 5, 2013 Originally Posted by Cirrus I wouldn't say I'm an atheist, I don't think I know enough to judge either way. But I'm closer to there than a believer in God so I guess I can answer that life is not a vacuum for me, it has as much personal meaning and importance as I heap upon it. It's important and miraculous unto itself without any need for God to have done it, and I feel very sorry for people who need to invent something else to give their own life meaning. Mother. {censored}ing. This. Post of the day award. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Mogwix Posted January 5, 2013 Members Share Posted January 5, 2013 Originally Posted by wok Morality is a social construct, as is religion. Absolute morality doesn't exist. [/thread] this is the true answer. Do unto others, as you would have them do unto you. I want to make this world a better place for everyone, myself included. Not because of right or wrong, absolute morality doesn't exist. I do it because that's my choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Mogwix Posted January 5, 2013 Members Share Posted January 5, 2013 Originally Posted by wok Morality is a social construct, as is religion. Absolute morality doesn't exist. [/thread] this is the true answer. Do unto others, as you would have them do unto you. I want to make this world a better place for everyone, myself included. Not because of right or wrong, absolute morality doesn't exist. I do it because that's my choice. 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 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. But again, absent any societal construct, there would probably not be religion -- or at least nothing like the Bible -- to guide the moral sensibilities of a person, either. 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 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. But again, absent any societal construct, there would probably not be religion -- or at least nothing like the Bible -- to guide the moral sensibilities of a person, either. 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 Never said any such thing - but its rather interesting how you folks seem rather quick to want to turn this around when you fail so miserably to even grasp the premise to start with. So what did you say? You're suggesting you DO an intuitive sense of morality, and every time you see a soda and your kid you don't need to crack open the bible and check which one's for eatin'? So why do you feel a higher power is needed to explain it? All I want is for one of you - any of you - to just accept that absent any sort of agreed upon moral code, there is no difference in doing something that makes someone "happy", vs doing something that causes someone pain & suffering. Just claiming that "its the right thing to do", or that its "culturally advantageous" are mere cop out phrases to avoid the obvious truth about atheism. But there is a moral "code". It's not "absolute" nor is it handed down from some deity. If you think the notion that human morality is a product of biological and cultural evolution is a "cop-out" and don't see how immensely advantageous what we call "morality" has been for human civilization, then it's obvious you're not here to have a two-way discussion or any kind of brain engagement, so go ahead and ramble on and pretend this is some kind of problem for the atheist worldview 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 Never said any such thing - but its rather interesting how you folks seem rather quick to want to turn this around when you fail so miserably to even grasp the premise to start with. So what did you say? You're suggesting you DO an intuitive sense of morality, and every time you see a soda and your kid you don't need to crack open the bible and check which one's for eatin'? So why do you feel a higher power is needed to explain it? All I want is for one of you - any of you - to just accept that absent any sort of agreed upon moral code, there is no difference in doing something that makes someone "happy", vs doing something that causes someone pain & suffering. Just claiming that "its the right thing to do", or that its "culturally advantageous" are mere cop out phrases to avoid the obvious truth about atheism. But there is a moral "code". It's not "absolute" nor is it handed down from some deity. If you think the notion that human morality is a product of biological and cultural evolution is a "cop-out" and don't see how immensely advantageous what we call "morality" has been for human civilization, then it's obvious you're not here to have a two-way discussion or any kind of brain engagement, so go ahead and ramble on and pretend this is some kind of problem for the atheist worldview 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 Yes, to an atheist - life is indeed a vacuum - as there is nothing being what we make of it. Sorry - but thats just how it is. You cant have it both ways. That can be how you see it, but I doubt many others will agree. 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 Yes, to an atheist - life is indeed a vacuum - as there is nothing being what we make of it. Sorry - but thats just how it is. You cant have it both ways. That can be how you see it, but I doubt many others will agree. 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 Yes, to an atheist - life is indeed a vacuum - as there is nothing being what we make of it. Sorry - but thats just how it is. You cant have it both ways. So, there is nothing good about life and the only thing keeping you from eating babies is because God will burn you forever after you die. You sound like a very disturbed individual 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 Yes, to an atheist - life is indeed a vacuum - as there is nothing being what we make of it. Sorry - but thats just how it is. You cant have it both ways. So, there is nothing good about life and the only thing keeping you from eating babies is because God will burn you forever after you die. You sound like a very disturbed individual Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members wok Posted January 5, 2013 Members Share Posted January 5, 2013 Ultimately, man is a social animal out of evolutionary need. Any creature, in order to survive and perpetuate the species, needs to maximize their chances of survival. Due to the amount of people on the planet, it makes evolutionary sense to create societies. In order for these to function properly, man created/developed rules (morality) to maximize the chances of the survival and even the expansion of the species. These 'moral rules' are arbitrary and depend on various factors/circumstances. (for instance, we generally regard killing as wrong, UNLESS we are faced with a situation where our survival is threatened or the lives of our families friends etc, such as wars, being attacked, starvation, illness etc.) (ps in that respect one could even argue that war is a natural occurance ). Religion is one of these constructs in order to keep our societies functioning properly to the benefit of the majority. Still not really clear on what point OP is trying to make though. Atheists lead empty lives? Atheists aren't moral? In any case, he's clearly not capable of arguing on an adult level Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members wok Posted January 5, 2013 Members Share Posted January 5, 2013 Ultimately, man is a social animal out of evolutionary need. Any creature, in order to survive and perpetuate the species, needs to maximize their chances of survival. Due to the amount of people on the planet, it makes evolutionary sense to create societies. In order for these to function properly, man created/developed rules (morality) to maximize the chances of the survival and even the expansion of the species. These 'moral rules' are arbitrary and depend on various factors/circumstances. (for instance, we generally regard killing as wrong, UNLESS we are faced with a situation where our survival is threatened or the lives of our families friends etc, such as wars, being attacked, starvation, illness etc.) (ps in that respect one could even argue that war is a natural occurance ). Religion is one of these constructs in order to keep our societies functioning properly to the benefit of the majority. Still not really clear on what point OP is trying to make though. Atheists lead empty lives? Atheists aren't moral? In any case, he's clearly not capable of arguing on an adult 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 blargh So, there is nothing good about life and the only thing keeping you from eating babies is because God will burn you forever after you die. You sound like a very disturbed individual It seems that way. I hope for some poor child's sake he doesn't stop believing! 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 blargh So, there is nothing good about life and the only thing keeping you from eating babies is because God will burn you forever after you die. You sound like a very disturbed individual It seems that way. I hope for some poor child's sake he doesn't stop believing! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Ashir Posted January 5, 2013 Members Share Posted January 5, 2013 Originally Posted by LynchProtoge So for a while now, one of the main reasons I have always held faith in a higher being is that I cannot bring myself to accept that life without any manner of absolute morality would be possible. What I mean by this is, aside from any manner of society or coexistence with other beings abiding by some form of shared moral boundaries, in order to truly believe that this life is without any absolute form of moral measure - I would have to presume that I could just as easily open a can of soda and drink it as I could take hold of one of my children (or any person for that matter) and violently murder them and have no conscience distinction between the two beyond what I deem appropriate. 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. I'm an atheist, and morality is one of the reasons I left religion. I refuse to follow most religions not only because of the unlikeliness of a divine being, but because most of their morals are disgusting, judging from the holy texts here. Morality is artificial. It does not exist naturally. Unless you want murderers to roam free, some sense of law has to be made to retain order. With or without religion, humans are not stupid enough to tolerate crimes against them or their fellow people. Secular countries have been shown to be much more peaceful and neutral regarding war than the more religiously influenced law. Morality should be determined on the basis of what and what not is fair, which can be defined in debates. Of course, most are quite clear; murder, robbery, abuse, rape etc should be crimes. Similar to a self defense mechanism, humans have evolved with a brief mindset of justice. This has been confirmed in tests with babies. My memory is rusty, but I can recall reading about a test with a mechanical arm which snatched a toy from one of two babies. It wasn't rare to see that not only did the other baby return the toy, but then gave the mechanical arm (which looked like a human's) a dirty look, and even sometimes hit it. This makes sense if you think about it. Creatures as intelligent as us would develop the means to blow each other to bits unless we evolved with a sense of order. And this is found in other life forms, too. Rhinos are aggressively protective of their young, for example. And then there's the fact that we're self-conscious animals; we feel sympathy for one another, and want to help each other, for the same reasons stated above. Morality is an evolutionary trait. At the end of the day, morality and order is to make us safe. It would make no sense that intelligent life didn't deduce some sort of moral code, because our lives aren't just sleeping and eating; we aren't always struggling for survival; we have no common enemy, which would otherwise be nature. We have the time and energy to kill each other. Intelligence is dangerous, and we have to protect ourselves from those dangers. So no, I don't believe you would feel wrong about killing a child because a God instilled that emotion. You were born with it's building blocks, and developed it further with the society around you. Why? To protect yourself, and those around you. And another thing; most life forms have some sort of morality. Otherwise they would eat their offspring, and obviously the race wouldn't survive. Morality has both biological and social influences. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Ashir Posted January 5, 2013 Members Share Posted January 5, 2013 Originally Posted by LynchProtoge So for a while now, one of the main reasons I have always held faith in a higher being is that I cannot bring myself to accept that life without any manner of absolute morality would be possible. What I mean by this is, aside from any manner of society or coexistence with other beings abiding by some form of shared moral boundaries, in order to truly believe that this life is without any absolute form of moral measure - I would have to presume that I could just as easily open a can of soda and drink it as I could take hold of one of my children (or any person for that matter) and violently murder them and have no conscience distinction between the two beyond what I deem appropriate. 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. I'm an atheist, and morality is one of the reasons I left religion. I refuse to follow most religions not only because of the unlikeliness of a divine being, but because most of their morals are disgusting, judging from the holy texts here. Morality is artificial. It does not exist naturally. Unless you want murderers to roam free, some sense of law has to be made to retain order. With or without religion, humans are not stupid enough to tolerate crimes against them or their fellow people. Secular countries have been shown to be much more peaceful and neutral regarding war than the more religiously influenced law. Morality should be determined on the basis of what and what not is fair, which can be defined in debates. Of course, most are quite clear; murder, robbery, abuse, rape etc should be crimes. Similar to a self defense mechanism, humans have evolved with a brief mindset of justice. This has been confirmed in tests with babies. My memory is rusty, but I can recall reading about a test with a mechanical arm which snatched a toy from one of two babies. It wasn't rare to see that not only did the other baby return the toy, but then gave the mechanical arm (which looked like a human's) a dirty look, and even sometimes hit it. This makes sense if you think about it. Creatures as intelligent as us would develop the means to blow each other to bits unless we evolved with a sense of order. And this is found in other life forms, too. Rhinos are aggressively protective of their young, for example. And then there's the fact that we're self-conscious animals; we feel sympathy for one another, and want to help each other, for the same reasons stated above. Morality is an evolutionary trait. At the end of the day, morality and order is to make us safe. It would make no sense that intelligent life didn't deduce some sort of moral code, because our lives aren't just sleeping and eating; we aren't always struggling for survival; we have no common enemy, which would otherwise be nature. We have the time and energy to kill each other. Intelligence is dangerous, and we have to protect ourselves from those dangers. So no, I don't believe you would feel wrong about killing a child because a God instilled that emotion. You were born with it's building blocks, and developed it further with the society around you. Why? To protect yourself, and those around you. And another thing; most life forms have some sort of morality. Otherwise they would eat their offspring, and obviously the race wouldn't survive. Morality has both biological and social influences. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Festus Posted January 5, 2013 Members Share Posted January 5, 2013 Originally Posted by LynchProtoge 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? Drinking water is an action necessary for survival. If I don't do it, I will die...and will no longer be of any potential assistance to the civilization around me. However, if so inclined, I certainly have the ability to go out and harm someone for the sake of doing so. But what does this accomplish? Most likely, it would be detrimental to the civilization around me. Most of what we call 'morality' is a rational, logical set of guidelines necessary for civilization to successfully exist. There needn't be some supreme being to dictate this to us; it's common sense. Well, it SHOULD be common sense. Look at it from the slippery slope persepective; if EVERYONE went around stealing, raping, and killing, then there is longer a civilization anyway. The Golden Rule pretty well sums up the entirety of morality in succinct fashion. In a state of nature (ie no civilization), these guidelines become quite scarce, sparse, and limited in scope (basically null and void). But, in such a case, survival itself is usually a 24/7 proposition, so there'd be little time or extra energy to go around harming anyone/anything for no reason. But, it's not about a 'moral authority' beyond one's self...that authority comes from within---no 'God' required. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Festus Posted January 5, 2013 Members Share Posted January 5, 2013 Originally Posted by LynchProtoge 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? Drinking water is an action necessary for survival. If I don't do it, I will die...and will no longer be of any potential assistance to the civilization around me. However, if so inclined, I certainly have the ability to go out and harm someone for the sake of doing so. But what does this accomplish? Most likely, it would be detrimental to the civilization around me. Most of what we call 'morality' is a rational, logical set of guidelines necessary for civilization to successfully exist. There needn't be some supreme being to dictate this to us; it's common sense. Well, it SHOULD be common sense. Look at it from the slippery slope persepective; if EVERYONE went around stealing, raping, and killing, then there is longer a civilization anyway. The Golden Rule pretty well sums up the entirety of morality in succinct fashion. In a state of nature (ie no civilization), these guidelines become quite scarce, sparse, and limited in scope (basically null and void). But, in such a case, survival itself is usually a 24/7 proposition, so there'd be little time or extra energy to go around harming anyone/anything for no reason. But, it's not about a 'moral authority' beyond one's self...that authority comes from within---no 'God' required. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Festus Posted January 5, 2013 Members Share Posted January 5, 2013 Originally Posted by blargh So, there is nothing good about life and the only thing keeping you from eating babies is because God will burn you forever after you die. You sound like a very disturbed individual I have (well, had) an old friend who, at around age 20 or so, found 'the Lord' and became a bible thumper. I asked him what he would do if he could somehow be given irrefutable proof that the god he believed in did not exist and that the bible is pure fiction. He said he'd kill anyone that he didn't like, would steal anything he wanted, and would anally rape every attractive underage girl he saw. He then asked me what I would do, and I replied (quite honestly) 'nothing would change'. He's in church every Sunday to this day, basking in the moral supremacy of the 'good word', and pitying me and my heathen ways because, no matter how I live my life, I'm condemned to hell for not accepting Jesus as my savior. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Festus Posted January 5, 2013 Members Share Posted January 5, 2013 Originally Posted by blargh So, there is nothing good about life and the only thing keeping you from eating babies is because God will burn you forever after you die. You sound like a very disturbed individual I have (well, had) an old friend who, at around age 20 or so, found 'the Lord' and became a bible thumper. I asked him what he would do if he could somehow be given irrefutable proof that the god he believed in did not exist and that the bible is pure fiction. He said he'd kill anyone that he didn't like, would steal anything he wanted, and would anally rape every attractive underage girl he saw. He then asked me what I would do, and I replied (quite honestly) 'nothing would change'. He's in church every Sunday to this day, basking in the moral supremacy of the 'good word', and pitying me and my heathen ways because, no matter how I live my life, I'm condemned to hell for not accepting Jesus as my savior. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Kap'n Posted January 5, 2013 Members Share Posted January 5, 2013 Originally Posted by -Assy- I don't kill people because it is wrong. That did not come from any religion or spiritual belief. It's also messy. In a vacuum soap and spot remover don't exist either. What total pile of horse{censored} this whole thread is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Kap'n Posted January 5, 2013 Members Share Posted January 5, 2013 Originally Posted by -Assy- I don't kill people because it is wrong. That did not come from any religion or spiritual belief. It's also messy. In a vacuum soap and spot remover don't exist either. What total pile of horse{censored} this whole thread is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Cirrus Posted January 5, 2013 Members Share Posted January 5, 2013 I have a friend who once tried to explain to me that we should live good lives out of fear of God. I don't think he's as bad now, but it's a strange mentality, that assumes we would live bad lives if we didn't fear punishment. Very clearly just an instrument of controlling the masses, to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.