Atheist Morality
Offline The conversation usually goes like this:
Theist: So who gets to decide what is right and what is wrong?
Atheist: The individual does.
T: So if I decide that murder is okay, then it is okay?
A: No, because we have laws against that.
T: So then the government gets to decide what is right and what is wrong?
A: Yes, we have to act in a way that is most beneficial to society.
T: Okay, so then are you saying that murder is okay if a government allows it, such as Nazi Germany?
A: No, because no society would survive if murder was allowed.
T: What if murder of specific groups was allowed? For example, what if a society said that it is okay to kill disabled individuals since they have no ability to contribute to the proliferation of society in any meaningful way. Certainly, society could survive and even become more affluent if we allowed that.
A: That would be wrong, because we are biologically wired to have empathy, which precludes us from doing that kind of a thing.
T: Okay, so you just changed your position. You first stated that a group of individuals get to decide what is right and what is wrong, now you are saying that our morals are given to us by our brain chemistry.
A: I didn't change my position. I believe all of these factors work in conjunction.
T: But they do not, because we can both agree that murder would not be okay if a group of individuals said it was. According to you, that line of thinking is based on our neurological wiring. So let me ask you this: How do you account for individuals like Charles Manson or John Gacy?
A: Those were sociopaths. They lack empathy due to mental illness.
T: So you are saying that all people have empathy, and if I introduce you to any one human without it, you automatically label him a "sociopath"?
That's known as an "ad hoc maneuver". Furthermore, you are operating under a presupposition that wiring for empathy gives us a universal "ought" while the morality of the sociopath is flawed. Why should the empathetic person get to decide what is right? You are deriving an ought from an is, without any appropriate connection between the two.
A: Then our metric can be evolutionary advantage. We cannot build a society if certain behavior is allowed.
T: I've just explained that we could. If we allowed the killing of disabled people, society would more than likely go on and be more prospereous. We would weed out the weak and maintain the strong. I would presume that a society would have to be governed by sociopaths in order for this to be allowed. Imagine that, an affluent society being run by sociopaths. It is conceivable, isn't it?
A: So you believe that God gets to decide what is right and what is wrong?
T: Yes and no. God does not decide. He has a certain character and morality is a manifestation of that character. We are created in His image and therefore we have a moral code written in our hearts.
A: Then how do you account for immorality in the world? And why are atheists able to be moral?
T: Our nature is fallen, but all people-- including atheists-- are created in His image. Only an eternal being who is good by his very nature can account for eternal values. If God doesn't exist, then anything can be permitted at any given time.
A: Whatever.
- Login to post comments
Offline Well, beside the fact you seem to be ignoring my post on the subject, I also want to say this:
The 10 commandments are held to be this big deal. But the first 4 deal with god and how he wants to be worshiped. I would posit the world might be better off if, instead of focusing on that, god had said something about "thou shalt not rape children". I mean we have the thing about honoring your father and mother, but where's the protection for the kids?
"Shepherd Book once said to me, 'If you can't do something smart, do something right.'" - Jayne
Personally subverting biological evolution in favor of social evolution every night I go to work!
- Login to post comments
Offline The ten commandments according to me:
- Thou shalt not harm one another.
- Thou shalt be polite.
- Thou shalt be curious about the world around you.
- Thou shalt think critically about weighty issues, and discuss them civilly with other people.
- Thou shalt appreciate interesting, pretty, curious, inspiring or otherwise nice things.
- Thou shalt appreciate interesting, pretty, curious, inspiring or otherwise nice people.
- Thou shalt enjoy a good meal, and enjoy enabling other people to have one too.
- Thou shalt avoid wasting stuff.
- Thou shalt spoil all small children to whom you are related with sweeties and presents on whatever special occasions are convenient.
- Thou shalt (calmly, politely, and only when circumstances merit) encourage everyone else to do 1-9.
- Thou shalt eat battenburg cake, drink beer, and attractive men shalt be scantily clad (at least when the weather's nice).
Oh, and...
God: "Thou Must Go from This Place Lest I Visit Thee with Boils!"
Man: "Really? Most people would bring a bottle of wine"
- Login to post comments
Offline Well, beside the fact you seem to be ignoring my post on the subject, I also want to say this:
The 10 commandments are held to be this big deal. But the first 4 deal with god and how he wants to be worshiped. I would posit the world might be better off if, instead of focusing on that, god had said something about "thou shalt not rape children". I mean we have the thing about honoring your father and mother, but where's the protection for the kids?
Exactly!
And how about, "Thou shalt not fuck over other people for your own gain"? Where's that?
I mean, if god really wanted a commandment all about him, why not, "Thou shalt not be an asshole in My name"?
"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers
- Login to post comments
Offline So? Just because you do not like it does not mean that it isn't true or that it wasn't right.
These days it is considered morally wrong to kill people just because they have different opinions/beliefs/religion than you.
God allows us to do anything we want. But when we face Him after we die, we will get punished for it
Why if god considers them to be unworthy of life, why would god punish you for following his orders? Your god is kinda fucked up then huh?
How do you know that? Have you died temporarily and saw that Hell did not exist?
Yes I have, died on the operating table for 5 minutes, no hell, no god no nothing.
Actually, that's incorrect. Abortions, same sex relationships, idolatry and pedophilia was much more commonplace in the Bronze Age than it is now.
Hey I am just quoting the religious folks, however in the end god hasn't done squat compared to what he did in the bible, no great flood, no destruction of great cities with fire, and well nothing really has happned.
Like that part where He sent his only begotten son to die for our sins?
Instead of simply forgiving us for being created imperfect by him? Blood for the blood god I guess.
If the bible says "Thou shalt not murder", then it means that DO NOT MURDER. Any person who wants to distort that is free to do as he pleases, but that is not God's fault.
Except in the bible people murder others all the time, with the consent of god, hell god even kills children for simply insulting a bald guy, remember that story? Genocide and murder happens throughout the bible with gods consent, God is again a human creation and he will allow you do do anything you want him to allow you to do with his consent. Don't like people occupying land you want, god says kill them all. Don't like the religion of your neighbour, kill him off god says so.
Where did I disagree with your sociological claims? I'm just trying to help you get it through your thick skull that just because it IS the case that people have different ideas about morality does not mean that ALL ethical systems are true.
True to what? They are ethical systems that work for that society you can't seem to get it through your thick skull that ethics vary from society to society there is no one set standards of ethics or morality, you have yet to even show the standard to which morals come from.
WHERE THE FUCK IS YOUR FUCKING EVIDENCE? YOU HAVE NONE YOU DON'T EVEN HAVE EVIDENCE FOR THE FUCKING INHERENT VALUE OF LIFE BEYOND METAPHORICAL WHICH MEANS JACK SHIT IN REALITY, NO EVIDENCE FOR YOUR GOD OR YOUR FUCKING CLAIMS OF ABSOLUTE MORAL STANDARDS YOU HAVE NOTHING YOU HAVE SHOWN NOTHING AND YOU HAVE PROVEN NOTHING. Get that through your skull. Murder, rape, pedophilia, etc. are either wrong or they are not. THERE IS NO MIDDLE GROUND. You can't say that "Murder is wrong" is true for one person but not true for another person. BULLSHIT MOTHERFUCKER, soliders kill all the time in times of war, it is legal, I can kill someone in self-defense it is legal. THERE ARE EXCEPTIONS TO THE RULES OF MURDER MORON. THERE ARE MIDDLE GROUNDS. Sex with teenagers fuck women were married at age 12, if they could bleed they could breed, and guess what no moral problems back a few 100 years ago, shit up to 60 years ago you could still do that in the US. Now its considered pedophilia, fuck there are tons of middle ground we can play with if you like, just depends on what time in history we are talking about. Soldiers in the bible raped captured women all the time, it was legal and morally fine to do so. SO fuck you and you massive ignorance to history and the evolution of morality in humanity. And how do you know that people who are chemically wired to have empathy are not the ones with the sickness? How do you know that the sociopaths aren't the ones who are healthy? You are just arbitrarily classifying people so that you may render people moral by virtue of a specific type of brain chemistry that they have. So you have not solved the problem at all. You simply derived an unwarranted ought from an is. You are going from, "Most people are biologically wired to believe A" to "Therefore, A is morally correct." It's a fallacy. Nope not even close, our moral judgments come from the capacity or incapacity of having empathy and compassion to each others, there are studies on this, even showed you one. We are social creatures that require each other to survive, therefore sociopaths and psycopaths would not be able to help out in the survival of the group. See the problem, wait you hide behing a god so you probably don't even understand, and so far you have shown that you have no clue what your talking about when it comes to this topic so far. It disproves your theory that morals are a result of evolution. You said there are moral absolutes that every society has in-common, you mentioned adultery as one of them, yet I have shown you that it is not the case, that evolutionary step would want us to pass on our genetic information to as many as possible, being in a monogamous relationship would limit the genetic diversity. So yeah why would we want to be monogamy is rarely practiced in nature, and is not practiced much by humans, more societies have polygamy than those that practice monogamy. Okay, so if two groups have two mutually exclusive ideas on what is right and wrong, which one is correct? If you are going to say that they are both correct relative to the group, then by your logic, we would have no right to intervene if some third world country created a new Holocaust.... UNLESS you want to say tha according to our morality, it is okay to infringe upon other people's morality. Then you are back to a social darwinist idea that whoever wins a battle gets to decide what is right or wrong. Thus, if Hitler had took over the world, we would have to concede that it is morally permissible to kill Jews. Sure if you grew up believing that killing jews is ok, to discriminate against them is fine and not knowing otherwise, then you would be fine with it morally, after all you don't know otherwise, and in the case of war it always has been, the victor writes history not the loser, when germany lost the war, they didn't have a say on how their country was to be split up, who was to control what, japan had no say on it's road to the future after the war, those in Tibet have no say to their future, native in north america had no say in their future. The loser has no say usually. If two groups have mutually exclusive ideas on what is right and wrong which one is correct? Depends on which group you agree with. I think I will talk to Congress and ask why it is not okay to kill elderly people. It will be interesting to hear if their answer is, "Because if we kill them, then doctors will not make as much money." Yet you ignore the rest of my statement about emotional attachment fucking typical of you so far, ignore the facts and focus on something else. You said they had no benefits I showed you they do, you said why don't we just kill them off, I explained to you why we don't, we have emotional attachment to them as individuals (children to parents and grandparents, etc, etc,) and as a society, we do not condone murder, again its part of an emotional attachment and because they are part of the social group. However they do have benefits that we can get from them, even if we don't always agree that is the case.
- Login to post comments
Offline "Actually, that's incorrect. Abortions, same sex relationships, idolatry and pedophilia was much more commonplace in the Bronze Age than it is now. "
I'll ask for evidence before I drop the nuke, because I don't believe this is true, but I have a response either way. I even have a response for if you don't prove anything and ignore this post.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
- Login to post comments
Offline Murder, rape, pedophilia, etc. are either wrong or they are not. THERE IS NO MIDDLE GROUND. You can't say that "Murder is wrong" is true for one person but not true for another person.
If rape is wrong, why do righteous people in the Bible offer their daughters to strangers?
In the Bible, who is responsible for more deaths, god or Satan?
How about an hypothetical -- imagine you know a person is killing other people. You have no evidence, and the cops won't listen to you. You can stop this person from killing another, but you must personally kill the murderer. Is that murder wrong?
Variation: What if you had the chance to kill a dictator who was causing his people to suffer and die of starvation? What if you knew that act could save a lot of suffering and death?
Another: imagine god came to you and told you to kill someone. Would you do it? What if he said it would save countless lives? Would you then do it? How about if he were the one that would kill the countless others unless you performed the murder. Then would you? (This is not outside the morality of the god of the Old Testament. After all, this is the god that asked folks to sacrifice their sons, or caused people to be put to death or endure untold suffering, just to win a wager.)
"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers
- Login to post comments
Offline This is my last response to you and then I'm moving on. It is clear to me that you are an obstreperous twit who is not going to listen, but for the benefit of neutral onlookers, I'll make this response.
These days it is considered morally wrong to kill people just because they have different opinions/beliefs/religion than you.
Have I killed anyone?
Why if god considers them to be unworthy of life, why would god punish you for following his orders? Your god is kinda fucked up then huh?
I have no idea what you even just said. Are you capable of making any sense?
Yes I have, died on the operating table for 5 minutes, no hell, no god no nothing.
And the angel Gabriel spoke to me and told me that atheists are compulsive liars.
Hey I am just quoting the religious folks, however in the end god hasn't done squat compared to what he did in the bible, no great flood, no destruction of great cities with fire, and well nothing really has happned.
What religious folks are you quoting? (It's a rhetorical question, please don't answer because this is my last response.)
God doesn't need to do that stuff anymore because His revelation has already occurred and we have the canon of scripture. God made a progressive revelation from Genesis all the way up until Christ's resurrection. After that, his revelation was complete and we have the gospels.
Instead of simply forgiving us for being created imperfect by him? Blood for the blood god I guess.
And the judge should forgive pedophiles because their parents, society, and the education system made them so corrupt that they could not help but molest little kids.
Except in the bible people murder others all the time, with the consent of god, hell god even kills children for simply insulting a bald guy, remember that story? Genocide and murder happens throughout the bible with gods consent, God is again a human creation and he will allow you do do anything you want him to allow you to do with his consent. Don't like people occupying land you want, god says kill them all. Don't like the religion of your neighbour, kill him off god says so.
Gah, you just don't it.
KILLING is not wrong in all circumstances. MURDER is killing which is UNLAWFUL. There is not ONE single instance in the Bible where God murders someone or commands the murder of someone. Not ONE. You will never be able to find one or cite one for me. You can find instances where God had people killed, but he never had people MURDERED.
Let me repeat: THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MURDER AND KILLING. GOD KILLS. HE DOES NOT MURDER.
Christianity endorses killing under LAWFUL JUSTIFIED circumstances. For example, CAPITAL PUNISHMENT is okay. Certain kinds of WARS are okay. SELF-DEFENSE killing is permissible. MURDER IS NOT.
Do you finally understand?
In EVERY circumstance where God had someone killed, it was because someone violated HIS LAW. Therefore, he never killed anyone UNLAWFULLY. His nature would not permit him to do that.
True to what? They are ethical systems that work for that society you can't seem to get it through your thick skull that ethics vary from society to society there is no one set standards of ethics or morality, you have yet to even show the standard to which morals come from.
I KNOW THAT ETHICS VARIES FROM SOCIETY TO SOCIETY. I HAVE AGREED WITH YOU ON THAT POINT. MY POINT IS THAT JUST BECAUSE THEY DIFFER FROM SOCIETY TO SOCIETY DOESN'T MEAN THAT AN ABSOLUTE SYSTEM OF MORALITY DOES NOT EXIST.
Let me apply your logic to other things. LET'S ASSUME that people in Japan believe in evolution and the people in Ireland all believe in creation. TWO DIFFERENT SOCIETIES have different views on the subject of where humans came from. By your logic, that would mean that creation is both true and not true.
WHERE THE FUCK IS YOUR FUCKING EVIDENCE? YOU HAVE NONE YOU DON'T EVEN HAVE EVIDENCE FOR THE FUCKING INHERENT VALUE OF LIFE BEYOND METAPHORICAL WHICH MEANS JACK SHIT IN REALITY, NO EVIDENCE FOR YOUR GOD OR YOUR FUCKING CLAIMS OF ABSOLUTE MORAL STANDARDS YOU HAVE NOTHING YOU HAVE SHOWN NOTHING AND YOU HAVE PROVEN NOTHING. Get that through your skull.
I do have evidence. The topic of this thread was not, "Could I prove that God exists or that humans have inherent value?" The topic of this thread was: Can an atheist rationally account for morality? I have demonstrated that you cannot. You constantly repeat the same things over and over again and when I expain the problems, you just repeat them again, like saying them over and over is going to somehow make them valid.
BULLSHIT MOTHERFUCKER, soliders kill all the time in times of war, it is legal, I can kill someone in self-defense it is legal. THERE ARE EXCEPTIONS TO THE RULES OF MURDER MORON. THERE ARE MIDDLE GROUNDS.
LOL, you can't even adequately define "Murder". See what I wrote above.
Sex with teenagers fuck women were married at age 12, if they could bleed they could breed, and guess what no moral problems back a few 100 years ago, shit up to 60 years ago you could still do that in the US. Now its considered pedophilia, fuck there are tons of middle ground we can play with if you like, just depends on what time in history we are talking about. Soldiers in the bible raped captured women all the time, it was legal and morally fine to do so. SO fuck you and you massive ignorance to history and the evolution of morality in humanity.
And people used to believe that the Earth was flat. Therefore, the shape of the Earth is relative to a particular society or time period.
Nope not even close, our moral judgments come from the capacity or incapacity of having empathy and compassion to each others, there are studies on this, even showed you one.
LOL, you didn't even address my point.
How do you know that the sociopath isn't the healthy one and the person with empathy is the sick one? Why are the morals of the empathetic person valid? (I'm serious, don't answer. I'm really done with this discussion.)
We are social creatures that require each other to survive, therefore sociopaths and psycopaths would not be able to help out in the survival of the group.
LOL, mentally retarded and elderly individuals do not help out the survival of the group either. By that metric, we should kill off disabled and elderly people. Was it okay to kill them off before the pharmaceutical industry was invented? (Once again, no need to answer because this is my last response to you.)
See the problem, wait you hide behing a god so you probably don't even understand, and so far you have shown that you have no clue what your talking about when it comes to this topic so far
Actually, I have a degree in philosophy and I specialized in the area of philosophical ethics. I've done exhaustive studies on utilitarianism, the is-ought problem, consequentialism, deontological theory, categorical imperative, etc. Are you familiar with any of those? What is your degree in?
You said there are moral absolutes that every society has in-common
I said that moral absolutes existed. That is different than claiming that every society believes that the same things are right and wrong.
Sure if you grew up believing that killing jews is ok, to discriminate against them is fine and not knowing otherwise, then you would be fine with it morally, after all you don't know otherwise, and in the case of war it always has been, the victor writes history not the loser, when germany lost the war, they didn't have a say on how their country was to be split up, who was to control what, japan had no say on it's road to the future after the war, those in Tibet have no say to their future, native in north america had no say in their future. The loser has no say usually. If two groups have mutually exclusive ideas on what is right and wrong which one is correct? Depends on which group you agree with.
No, it doesn't depend on which group I agree with. It depends on which group is actually correct.
Yet you ignore the rest of my statement about emotional attachment fucking typical of you so far, ignore the facts and focus on something else. You said they had no benefits I showed you they do, you said why don't we just kill them off, I explained to you why we don't, we have emotional attachment to them as individuals (children to parents and grandparents, etc, etc,) and as a society, we do not condone murder, again its part of an emotional attachment and because they are part of the social group. However they do have benefits that we can get from them, even if we don't always agree that is the case.
You never mentioned emotional attachment. You said that they are useful to our economy. Nice try, though. But even then, there are many disabled individuals who have no families or anybody who truly has any sort of attachment. Is it okay to kill them or is the only reason not to kill them that they somehow make the economy better? (For the last time, do not answer. We are done with this discussion.)
I think I'm going to do a different topic on the IS-OUGHT problem. Clearly, you didn't read my original post because you are making exactly the same arguments that my hypothetical atheist is making.
- Login to post comments
Offline Gah, you just don't it.KILLING is not wrong in all circumstances. MURDER is killing which is UNLAWFUL. There is not ONE single instance in the Bible where God murders someone or commands the murder of someone. Not ONE. You will never be able to find one or cite one for me. You can find instances where God had people killed, but he never had people MURDERED.
Let me repeat: THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MURDER AND KILLING. GOD KILLS. HE DOES NOT MURDER.
How conVEEENient. God cannot murder, by definition. That makes life pretty easy for him, does it not?
In EVERY circumstance where God had someone killed, it was because someone violated HIS LAW. Therefore, he never killed anyone UNLAWFULLY. His nature would not permit him to do that
Really?
How about the story of Lot? God had Lot's family killed just to win a bet.
How is that ethically justified?
"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers
- Login to post comments
Offline If rape is wrong, why do righteous people in the Bible offer their daughters to strangers?
Give me specific passages.
In the Bible, who is responsible for more deaths, god or Satan?
Who is responsible for more deaths.. the US government or Charles Manson?
Killing is not wrong in all circumstances.
How about an hypothetical -- imagine you know a person is killing other people. You have no evidence, and the cops won't listen to you. You can stop this person from killing another, but you must personally kill the murderer. Is that murder wrong?
Are you defining murder as the unlawful killing of another human being? Because such a situation wouldn't be unlawful if I confronted the guy, asked him to not kill this other person, and then shot him dead in self-defense when he tries to attack me. Or if I shoot a guy in order to prevent him from killing my children, that is not murder. That is self-defense. God permits it.
And why would I have to kill him? If I just shot him in the leg, that would prevent him from killing this other person.
Variation: What if you had the chance to kill a dictator who was causing his people to suffer and die of starvation? What if you knew that act could save a lot of suffering and death?
Do you watch House MD, by any chance?
No. It would be wrong.
Another: imagine god came to you and told you to kill someone. Would you do it? What if he said it would save countless lives? Would you then do it? How about if he were the one that would kill the countless others unless you performed the murder. Then would you? (This is not outside the morality of the god of the Old Testament. After all, this is the god that asked folks to sacrifice their sons, or caused people to be put to death or endure untold suffering, just to win a wager.)
Whatever God does is morally correct because his nature constitutes the basis for morality to begin with. If you are placing God in hypotheticals whereby he contradicts his own nature, then you are just speaking gibberish. God cannot act contrary to his own law. If God asked me to kill someone, it would be under circumstances where Christ had yet to die for our sins (in relation to temporality) and where the person he wants me to kill deserved to die in accordance with his own Law. In which case, I would say, "Thy will be done."
- Login to post comments
Offline Whatever God does is morally correct because his nature constitutes the basis for morality to begin with. If you are placing God in hypotheticals whereby he contradicts his own nature, then you are just speaking gibberish. God cannot act contrary to his own law. If God asked me to kill someone, it would be under circumstances where Christ had yet to die for our sins (in relation to temporality) and where the person he wants me to kill deserved to die in accordance with his own Law. In which case, I would say, "Thy will be done."
Dude! Get some medication. Seriously.
"The idea of God is the sole wrong for which I cannot forgive mankind." (Alphonse Donatien De Sade)
- Login to post comments
Offline Killing anyone you no fucking clue, wasn't talking about you specifically was I, see shows you don't pay attention to what is being said. I said these days it's considered morally wrong, yet in biblical times it was fine to do, umm talking about the bible and the difference of today's society morals, yet some how you think I am talking about you, you are ignorant little fuck huh?
You said god would punish people for murdering, yet I ask why would go punish someone for following his orders, you ignore that part too, shocking.
You asked if I died, I did, you don't want to believe hey that's fine don't care, no hell no god from what I experienced of death.
Killing people and murdering is the same thing, the difference is murder is just a legal definition for unlawful killing, in war it is acceptable for a soldier to kill people, even people with no weapons, that are not a threat, we call that casualties of war there are no moral problems with this concept for the most part, its accepted as a part of war, self defense is still killing, the bible does not say thou shalt not murder, it says thou shalt not kill. But there are exceptions to the rule of killing, you can dance around this topic all day long but there are always to this rule or law, murder is just really a legal defintion.
We are talking about moral decisions of right and wrong not biology, if one nations believes it is morally ok to treat women as second class citizens and another does not, who is right?
For the flat earth part, again, not talking about objects, we are talking about moral decisions and what is considered right and wrong morally, you have yet to prove that morals are absolute in anyway or form that there is a standard model for morals. Atheists can and have explained morals and even more science has begun to explain how morals evolved.
But hey don't bother responding you avoid it all so far and haven't proved a thing, heck you haven't even proved that atheist can't decide what is moral or not. Don't worry just keep on ignoring the facts your great at doing that, morals stem from our point experiences, education, empathy, compassion, ethics that we were taught and in the end not from god.
But go on to a new topic, you haven't proved your point at all.
- Login to post comments
Offline "And the angel Gabriel spoke to me and told me that atheists are compulsive liars."
It is my understanding that your god says ALL humans are compulsive liars. Your response is self refuting.
"God doesn't need to do that stuff anymore because His revelation has already occurred and we have the canon of scripture. God made a progressive revelation from Genesis all the way up until Christ's resurrection. After that, his revelation was complete and we have the gospels."
Then the lack of quantum physics and particle theory in the bible proves the bible is fallible. The various changes in doctrine proves the whole is false. Your god is a lie.
"KILLING is not wrong in all circumstances. MURDER is killing which is UNLAWFUL."
Wrong. Killing, as defined, is an action which results in the death of a life form(s). Murder, as defined, is an action which results in the death of a human(s), by another human, by premeditation.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
- Login to post comments
Offline Killing is not wrong in all circumstances.
Nice flip flop from moral absolute huh? You can't even keep your story straight.
- Login to post comments
Offline In other words, god can't murder because god isn't human. It has nothing to do with morality, it has to do with his species. Or lack thereof.
"Can an atheist rationally account for morality? I have demonstrated that you cannot."
I have demonstrated you are wrong. Morality is nothing more than an emotional filter through which people judge the actions, and sometimes beliefs, of other people and themselves. If it were absolute, then everyone would share the same morality. They don't, so it cannot be absolute. Maybe you need to learn what absolute means.
"How do you know that the sociopath isn't the healthy one and the person with empathy is the sick one?"
Because the majority don't share that view. The sociopath has brain damage. ALL other social species have been observed to have similar traits. And for a final blow, now we can detect differences in brain chemistry between average people and those who've been damaged. The science will only get better over time.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
- Login to post comments
Offline nigelTheBold wrote:If rape is wrong, why do righteous people in the Bible offer their daughters to strangers?
Give me specific passages.
Genesis 19:1-8.
19:6 Lot went outside to them, shutting the door behind him. 19:7 He said,“No, my brothers! Don’t act so wickedly!11 19:8 Look, I have two daughters who have never had sexual relations with12 a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do to them whatever you please.13 Only don’t do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection14 of my roof.”
Here, Lot is offering his daughters to keep some angels from being sexually assaulted. Lot is presented as the most righteous person around -- that's why god and satan have a little wager about whether Lot is righteous because his life is good, or because he is righteous by nature. God then has satan put Lot through the wringer, including the murder of his family (though they had done nothing wrong).
Quote:In the Bible, who is responsible for more deaths, god or Satan?Who is responsible for more deaths.. the US government or Charles Manson?
Killing is not wrong in all circumstances.
Nope. That's what I've been saying. That's why morality is not absolute. I'm very glad you see it my way.
"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers
- Login to post comments
Yeah, that's not the way it goes with me.
Theist: "so how do people know what is right or wrong?"
Me: "Would you want it done to you? Rape, murder, theft, assault, etc? Then it is wrong. Your book says it's ok to stone people."
T: "well, you have to look at the historical context..."
M: "What tells you it isn't ok to stone people?"
T: "it just isn't."
M: "bingo."
"Shepherd Book once said to me, 'If you can't do something smart, do something right.'" - Jayne
Personally subverting biological evolution in favor of social evolution every night I go to work!
Hello Fortunate_Son. Welcome to the forum.
Have a conversation with me.
Define right and wrong.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
actually society decides what is good and what is wrong, even if a government enacts a law it does not mean the society itself approves of the laws, as not all government act according to the wishes of it's society. Even more so what is considered good and wrong changes over time as knowledge increases in a society, most societies if not all societies decide what is good and wrong depending on what is more beneficial for it's survival. Murder, rape, robberies and assault on individuals or society at large tends not to be beneficial to it's survival at large, as evidence we have the nazi society and government which did not last that long.
[Edit] With that said individuals can still follow society laws and morally not agree with them as well, and their own sense of right and wrong could be different than that of society at large, however to killing of individuals disabled or otherwise doesn't necessarily benefit society as the taking care of such said individuals can be a long term benefit for others in the means of employment of taking care of such said individuals, where in ages past the possibility or the technology to take care of such individuals was not available, where now it is. Again as we gain knowledge our sense of right and wrong changes as well, individual and as a society.
Wrong, wrong, wrong...
You should look up some of the old threads about morality here. The previous replies to your post are worth listening to.
Have a good look at your bible and the rules god laid down.
Also, look at all of the despicable things done by god's chosen people. the bible heroes are all murderers.
What was the first thing done by Moses when he came down from the mount with the 10 commandments? He ordered the execution of hundreds of people. Then he led them to war and genocide.
The morals do not come from your religion.
All over the world, regardless of religion or culture most people have the same basic morals..
etc, etc
Zen-atheist wielding Occam's katana.
Jesus said, "Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division." - Luke 12:51
If even dare may I say so myself, my own considered rational treatment of the problem of atheist morality on my webpage http://www.foolquest.com/atheism.htm is far better.
So your argument to this is that it is wrong to kill disabled individuals because they can be fruitful for creating employment? It has nothing to do with any inherent value that they have?
But you are off-base. All of the employment created for the care of disabled individuals consists of minimum wage positions available to people with limited credentials. Careworkers have to work overtime in order to cut a decent paycheck and even when they do, it is not enough to boost the economy because that money will be allocated towards personal expenses such as rent, cheap clothes, utilities, and food. When you are behind on your payments, that is not conducive to making society more affluent. Even case managers at state agencies for insurance are highly underpaid. More than likely, such people will have to rely on federal assistance which ends up creating more expenditures for middle and upper class individuals and families. On top of that, disabled inviduals live off of social insurance, medical subsidies, food assistance and other things that could be characterized as costs for maintaining an egalitarian society. The individual allotments that people get are very low (the maximum level of food stamps that 1 person can get is $200 per month, for example) and are not enough to boost the economy, so much that the federal government is continuously modifying regulation so that anybody and everybody can get on. Severely disabled individuals reside in group homes which are typically funded through federal grants, which are accumulated through, you guessed it, federal and state tax dollars.
So in terms of the care of disabled individuals, we are paying out more than we are taking in. You can go ahead and research the income of human services workers vs. the expenditures towards assistance for the disabled. Society would be much more affluent if we simply allowed the strong to destroy the weak. But we do not do that because we recognize that human beings have an inherent sanctity and value that makes it not a chore to preserve lives, but a privilege.
This has been covered many, many times. However, it ultimately comes down to this:
We live in society. You gain benefits from participating in society -- security, convenience, and so on. Everyone who participates in society agrees to the behavioral norms explicated by society. That's the cost of reaping the benefits of society.
Now, each society gets to choose what is right or wrong based on their fundamental beliefs. In many Middle Eastern countries, this means turning women into second class citizens. (It wasn't that long ago that women were second-class citizens in the US, so don't hand me, "But we don't do that," bullshit.) In our society, a lot of what they do is wrong. In their society, it's not wrong at all.
That does not mean individuals don't also have ideas of what is right and wrong. A person might disagree with society. For instance, I disagree that corporations should have the same rights as persons with none of the responsibilities. I also disagree that upper management should get paid so much greater than the lower-paid workers. But that's me, and I have odd ideas about equality and justice, words that are kinda hard to define in practice.
Take me as an example. My "atheist morality" is based on the simple concept that life is best when enjoyed to the fullest. I am a rational hedonist. Further, it seems reasonable that most of the enjoyment of my life comes from a stable, sane society that allows me to enjoy my life. It seems reasonable to assume that I could be anyone in society; my position in society is part chance, part ability (but even my abilities stem from the chance of genetics). So it further seems reasonable that society should further the general, over-all happiness of all people in society. Therefore, the laws and casual morals of society should be directed to the greatest happiness of the greatest number of people.
This includes being careful with resources, because those people of society are not just those that are alive at this moment, but those that are alive tomorrow, and next year, and next decade, and next century. That's also part of the "stable" part of stable and sane.
So you see, your dialog with the atheist is hardly a good one. An atheist that has thought about morality knows there is more to morality than simple self-interest. Honestly, my life would be better if everyone in the world get along and had enough to eat and even enough left over to enjoy better things. Therefore, the best morality would be one that strove for happiness among everyone in the world. This is the exact opposite of self-interest.
And that morality is arrived at rationally, without the intervention of people who claim to know what some unknowable being believes.
"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers
There is no such thing as atheist morality.
Atheists are not a "group" that subscribe to a particular "creed". They are individuals who hold personal opinions.
Even if Atheist A and Atheist B who live close to eachother hold a common point of view, it says fuck all about "atheism" as such.
As someone said, atheism is no more a religion than not collecting stamps is a hobby. If you don't understand that, you won't ever understand anything about atheism. There is no common moral ground. "Atheists" are not a group. The only common ground is an outspoken will to not believe in theistic systems of thought, much less submit to them and kiss the ass of their particular god-image.
Morality is a personal choice. It doesn't follow from any choice of "belief". It is quite simply the way you choose to represent yourself to the world. Do you want to be an asshole? Fine, then that's your choice of morality - and you can actualize it even within a system of faith (as has been shown). But if you want to be respected you have to behave like a respectable person. It really is that simple.
"The idea of God is the sole wrong for which I cannot forgive mankind." (Alphonse Donatien De Sade)
http://www.kinkspace.com
There are many people who do not participate in society and reap the benefits (see disabled and elderly people). Why should we not just put them to death and let society flourish without the financial burdens?
Different beliefs does not mean that all the beliefs are correct. If one society exclusively rejects evolution and another rejects creation, then that does not mean that neither is correct.
Utilitarianism lends itself to the problems that I've mentioned. Furthermore, "happiness" is an ambiguous and relative term. What makes one person happy may not make another person happy. In the end, it would boil down to a majority rule ethics, which is based on a flawed presupposition that the majority is always correct. Assuming you are on the atheist side, I would guess that you do not believe the majority is always correct, since the majority of people adhere to some sort of theistic belief.
In the dialog, I addressed the idea about morals being beneficial to society and addressed some of the problems with that.
Not off base at all, see you simply see it as the caretakers, but there are so many others involved, doctors, researchers that work into finding cures, industry that builds equipment to help the disabled move around, there is an huge industry for this, you think so small there no wonder you can't understand how society defines right and wrong. As for caretakers I know care takers that make good money here, 3000 grand or more a month, all depends on where and of course the type of clients your talking about. However inherent value of what they have? Again this is all a matter what you define of the value of a person or life, lets be honest in the bible if your not a believer of god or jesus your the value of your life is not much really has history has shown us time and time again and in the bible, it means squat, it can be and is taken my israelites and by god all the time without any care about the inherent value of that individuals or group of people. Your argument falls flat when you try this to argue like that because you already shown that the value of life is not an issue for the believer, life only has value to the believer depending on the circumstance they wish to believe in.
For society it is the benefit of it survival, and even more so with the knowledge we have gained we have changed our moral stance since biblical times, in todays society, god and much of the bible is really immoral and just plain out evil.
I'm not just talking about caretakers. I'm also talking about social workers and case managers. Doctors are not directly employed through the existence of permanently disabled or elderly individuals. I'm talking about people who are permanently disabled or elderly. Doctors would exist even if these people did not exist, as they mostly care for regular people who get sick temporarily. Same for people who design medical equipment. The meal ticket for doctors are not mentally retarded individuals who have medical insurance offered to those who are below the poverty line. The meal ticket for doctors are the upper class individuals who have cadillac health insurance in case they become temporarily ill. Most of the people I am talking about can't even afford medical equipment nor can they get their insurance to cover most of their medications. As a result, people are highly in debt and require federal assistance, which becomes even more of a tax burden on the community.
Researchers are mostly post-doctorate fellows and they make chump change. At the most, a researcher can make $3,000 per month, which really isn't a whole lot.
LOL
Now you are just being disingenuous. There is not a *single* caretaker out there who makes $3,000,000 per month. The only way that would be possible is if the client was a rich elderly person who just became so sick that s/he was unable to do anything for him or herself. And this person would have to be really stupid to actually pay that much for a caretaker. Since this person presumably became rich through his or her own merits, I highly doubt that s/he would be so stupid as to hire a caretaker for that much.
Please go research the income of social workers vs. the expenditures for the elderly/disabled. Do I have to do it for you?
No, it isn't a matter how I define value. Value exists whether or not I believe it does. I could say that people are valuable only insofar that they help me out, but that would not make a true. It is this line of thinking that opens the door for people like Stalin or Mao to create their own morality based on a value that they arbitrarily impose upon certain people, such that they can say that certain lives are not worth living and that they are not morally at bay for doing what they did.
"Theist: So who gets to decide what is right and what is wrong?
Atheist: The individual does.
T: So if I decide that murder is okay, then it is okay?
A: No, because we have laws against that."
Wrong answer. If you decide it's ok, then that's your decision. But if someone disagrees with you, you might have a problem. The rest of your post led from this flaw, and is therefore refuted by refuting the flaw. Feel free to try again. I'll correct you as necessary.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
Okay. So you're saying that there really is no right or wrong, it's all just a matter of who is able to win a battle of disagreements. Whoever wins gets to choose what is right and wrong.
Democracy.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
That doesn't answer anything. So it is just majority rule? Should we vote every 4 years on what is right and wrong?
Oi it is still an industry that makes money, and keeps people employed does it not? 3000 one can live comfortably I do very well on 3000 grand a month, actually I can afford to take vacations as well, but that has more to do with good financing as well. Not everyone knows how to handle money. Second tax burden or not, research happens, drugs get made, people find cures, as such in the past these people may have been thrown away and locked up or killed off we no longer do this, they do have an inherent value, even if that value is to help find cures for what has caused their illness or injuries that have left them permanently disabled, you think that those with artificial limbs get those at a cheap price? a basic arm is 8000 dollar, want to play sports starts at 10,000 and goes up from there. Hell there is money to be made now (capitalism at its best) or you can get them back into the work force, yes they still might need federal assistance but they are contributing to society. The elderly have many ways to contribute, including passing on their wisdom and experiences and if they are disabled they can be used and have been used for research to prevent their ailments from happening to the next generation, and that's lots of money to be made as well. Only the religious can think that disabled people should be killed off I see, because I sure don't and nor do a lot of folks, but I guess when your want to use a books over 2000 years old you get to use those ancient brutal forms of morality too.
I have and I know, my wife's cousin is a care taker, she makes 3000 grand, however her clients are not exactly wealthy, they aren't poor either, but they do have specific ailments that require her to adminster drugs to them, as such she is also a nurse, but falls under the care taker area as well. But hey like I said, in your part of the world care takers may not make money, or you may not be able to actually look up the range, but here I have and I can, and I do know care takers that make a decent living.
Of course it is, chrsitian nazi's defined the value of jewish life, gays and the undesirables as nil, hence the holocaust, Hutsu catholics defined the value of tutsi's as nil, hence the genocide, there is no value for life, we define that value as a society, but the reality is there is ZERO value for life itself. Christianity created it's own value for life a long time a go, Stalin and Mao did the same thing that religion has been doing for a very long time. Welcome to reality boy morality changes depending the time in history and who is in charge.
In our society we view it wrong to make children do hard labor and work, in our society we view it wrong to beat your spouse, in our society we view it wrong to send children to war, yet only 70 years ago this was socially acceptable, and in other soieties around the world this still happens.
As for your statement sure it would be true, for you, it does not mean that it is true for society. As for the stalin/mao crap, sure they did, as did many kings, many a pope, many church leaders and many priests. They all put a value of life and that some people had that value and some people did not.
The point is, disabled individuals and elderly people do not overall contribute to the proliferation of society. Society would be much more affluent if they did not exist. Therefore, you cannot in any way, shape or form say that we are not killing them simply because they are somehow beneficial to society. They are not. That has nothing to do with why we are not killing them. Overall, expenditures to help them exceed the actual income made by the jobs created by their ailments. Their value has NOTHING to do with whatever contributions they make.
I have no idea what you are talking about. All you are doing is splitting hairs to say that everything which is conventionally accepted by sane people is somehow justified by your own moral standard when all of the objective evidence indicates that it isn't. Mentally retarded people do not work. They attend day programs, live in group homes, and live off of social security and food stamps. Group home workers are paid at minimum wage and funding for group homes comes from federal grants which come from our tax dollars.
Umm, no. I just explained that post doctorate research fellows or college research assistants make absolutely nothing. And even if they did, it would not be enough to off set the expenditures that go into helping these people. Furthermore, you obviously have no experience dealing with elderly people. Most of them lack wisdom because they are on the brink of losing their memory altogether, along with other senses. Whatever intelligent 90 year old you've met is the exception and not the rule.
No, actually. It is the religious community which propagates the idea that all people are made in the image of God and therefore we must treat people a certain way even if we do not believe that what they do is meaningful towards our evolution as people.
"3000 grand" is THREE MILLION. There is not a single caretaker out there who makes that. Furthermore, permanently disabled people and elderly individuals are not the meal tickets of nurses. Even if we decided to kill off mentally retarded or elderly individuals, that would no in any way hurt the medical industry.
And I believe that cow can fly and that Jupiter doesn't exist. There, I said it. Therefore, it is true.
Morality doesn't change. People's beliefs about morality change.
By the way, is English your first language? I only ask because your grammar is absolutely dreadful. I do make typos, so I can be sympathetic to that.. but I can barely understand what you say.
Did you take 4th grade English?
The irony of this is really rather hilarious. Morality you say? Morality is what you do, boy. And... what did you just do here? Which deadly sin occupied your black little heart while you were having at it? Fortunate Son, eh? More irony. Well I guess you are fortunate to not be my son, because I would have punished you severely for being the prick that you are in a public place.
"The idea of God is the sole wrong for which I cannot forgive mankind." (Alphonse Donatien De Sade)
http://www.kinkspace.com
Bullshit.
Just as a person is judged by how they treat their "inferiors," (however that may be determined) a society is judged by how it treats those who have, by happenstance, ended up in poor situations.
Plus, how do you prove that the disabled or elderly do not contribute to society? It seems you have an arbitrary rubric of what "contribution" might be.
[EDIT addendum]
Plus, you've missed the point where morality is the cost of participating in society. That statement in and of itself does not demand that one give more to society than one takes. Part of the role of society might be to protect those who are too weak to take care of themselves.
So far, you really seem to be a selfish bastard, far more selfish than most of the atheists who have replied to you.
"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers
Right.
They're human concepts that don't exist in nature. They are abstractions of what we think/feel is desirable/undesirable based on instincts, logic, culture, etc.
Sort of.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
And why do you think that is? (Hint: It wasn't based on secular ideas)
I used to work in a group home. One of the individuals I worked with consisted of a 56 year old man who had severe MR and had the IQ of a 2 year old. During the week, he would be at a day program, where they would have him play with toys. When he got home, he would eat, sit on the couch, eat again, sit on the couch, try to go into the refridgerator, go back on the couch, take medication, go to sleep. Personally, I loved the guy. Even though he was much older than me, it became like a father-son relationship. But the only family this guy had was a brother who rarely paid attention to him. It personally brought me joy to work with him. But most people disliked him because he was so difficult to work with and they didn't like giving him a shower or brushing his teeth for him.
But I think we can objectively say that if everybody was like this man, then the human race would have perished a long time ago. His only income was social security and he lived off of food stamp benefits. He had no particular hobbies or skills.
There are millions out there just like him. If the metric you use to assess morality is usefulness, in what way do they contribute to the evolution of society or the species? They heighten taxes for federal expenditures and I was only paid $10 per hour to do the work. By a moral evolutionist metric, we would be better off just killing this guy.
So what is the metric that you use for morality? It doesn't appear to be that which will contribute to a more affluent society.
On the contrary, I'm arguing in favor of people who cannot contribute like you and me. I'm arguing that these people are just as valuable as you and me, and that we should put them above the maximum utility of the majority.
what do you mean by disabled exactly, there are so many terms and forms of it, from amputation to mental retardation, to ailments, with that said, since biblical times our knowledge and our technology has increased to a point where many disabled can work and be beneficial to society.
Why we don't kill our parents is emotional attachment, why society hasn't decided to discard or killed them off is because there is a benefit to them, want the corporate version, the longer you can keep an employee the better because it cost less to keep on than to train a new one and deal with all the mistakes, from a social aspect we abhor killing it doesn't make society better to kill off anyone unless its absolutely necessary, such as self defense or to save the lives others (now don't even start with the whole save some one by killing a healthy person so the doctors can take their organs because that's a stupid argument to make as other people have tried to make in the past) and because the elderly are still part of our society. We still find some form of benefit of them and for them, be it emotional, medical research. etc.
Amputees, an arm cost $8000 dollars, want to play a sport, that type of arm starts at $10,000 and goes up to as high as $24,000 dollars these are disabled people that's how a company can make money off of the disabled, wow there is a billion dollar industry triving on the disabled.
So since when is it ok to kill of or discard other folks? because at this point I have no clue what your talking about in regards to sane people.
Mentally retarded people do work, and I know of people with downs syndrome that do work, so where are you getting this fucked up idea that mentally retarded folks can't work? Severely mentally retarded may not be able to work, but you really don't have a clue about what your talking about at this point.
your ignorant aren't ya. Ok lets try this again, researchers tend to work for? a research company, which either works for a pharmaceutical company or are part of one, and your going to tell me they don't make a few billion dollars finding cures every year? If you say no, then you have no clue what your talking about. Finding cures to permant genetic disorders, or finding ways to prevent them can make a company billions for years to come, so even if the researchers don't make much, the company does. Welcome to reality again.
That's a load of shit, the religious community is what has caused genocides to occur as well, the religious community was quite willing to kill of jews, gays, non-believers, witches and others that did not believe as they did, the value of life is a matter of what they viewed it as.
Sorry wrote all of this on my blackberry, now back on my computer. $3000 is what I mean't. Maybe not after all we have war right now, however the elderly in the US are greater than those entering the work force and with that said there are not enough (or at least there wasn't enough nurse or caretakers to take care of the baby boomers in the coming decade), this is a booming industry actually, retirement homes, care takers etc, etc, again billions to be made.
Define the value of life and how you get to that value? Just because you said it doesn't mean that it's true, however reality is on my side, life has no inherent value, you as well as society define the value of life. Define the value of life please what makes on life more valuable than another, say human life over a dog's life.
Sorry about the grammar, english is my first, spanish my second, italian my third, portuguese my forth, having a conversation in spanish and another in portuguese while typing this out didn't help. But hey, it's not about my grammer, its your ignorance of where morality comes from. its an evolutionary part of humanity, and various other social creatures, what we decide is morally right and morally wrong is not the same as what is right and wrong. Morality really does change as a society gains knowledge, as well, what is considered right and wrong, lawful and unlawful.
Could you please give us an example of a moral that has not changed but and is written in stone so it is so static it cannot be changed at all.
I mean people who are so disabled that they cannot work, cannot conversate, have no hobbies, and in many cases cannot move from their beds and speak in nothing but gibberish.
Emotional? Tell that to those who have families who do not pay attention to them and primarily work with CNAs who hate dealing with them.
Medical research barely pays anything. But let's assume for a moment that it did. Your argument is that the only reason we keep elderly people alive is because it is financially beneficial to the medical community and allows scientists to do research.
Maybe we should actually spread disease instead of curing it. Then our economy could flourish.
Actually, that wouldn't be a billion dollar industry because amputees probably constitute less than 1% of the country's population. But if anyone has actual statistics, go ahead and present them.
Some of the higher functioning individuals get jobs through sheltered workshops, which are actually funded by the group home agencies themselves and pay minimum wage. The jobs usually consist of remedial tasks such as inserting letters into envelopes.
But I'm referring to people with profound mental retardation or severe brain damage. These people essentially have the IQ of a 2 year old.
These are typically scientists who independently contract and do business with drug companies, so that if they develop medication, drug companies can put a patent on it. Or they are research fellows. You are delusional if you think they are paid a billion dollars every year. Most of them are medical doctors who are employed through a hospital and do research on the side. They may do clinical trials, but that's through the hospital.
But killing severely retarded individuals wouldn't make any difference to whatever revenue is generated from this. Everybody gets sick. There will always be business in the medical community as long as everyone in the world is subject to sickness. The point you are making is moot.
I can't prove to you that humans have value. I can only relay to you my personal experience as a human being myself and tell you that it makes the most sense only if humans truly possess a metaphysical value. Some things we have to take on faith.
Then why didn't humans all evolve to have the same morality?
So murder was okay at one point in time?
Lying, cheating, stealing, murdering, adultery.
"That doesn't answer anything. So it is just majority rule? Should we vote every 4 years on what is right and wrong?"
That's not quite how it works. But it's close enough to a gross interpretation to pass as a bad analogy.
What do you want an answer to that I haven't answered?
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
I refer you to a previous thread http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/16051?page=1
Sounds made up...
Agnostic Atheist
No, I am not angry at your imaginary friends or enemies.
Now we are getting somewhere, you cannot show me the inherent human value or how we get that value or anything, we have a metaphorical value, great, in reality we don't have any value. Let look back in history, let us use the bible.
Genesis 7:23 He killed, intentionally, every man, woman, and child on the planet save eight of them. Hmm human life has a value huh?
Genesis 38:10 God murders Onan for refusing to commit incest with his sister in law.
God punishes children for the sins of their fathers, unto the third and fourth generations. Punishing a child for the sins of their ancestors is not very just. Exodus 20:5&34:7
Deuteronomy 3:3-7 God ordered Moses’ army to “utterly destroy” 60 cities, killing all the women and children within!
Deuteronomy 7:12 God ordered the Israelites to kill all the people of seven nations. He even adds, “show no mercy unto them”.
Handicapped people must not approach the altar. Leviticus 21:16-23
yup we have here the inherent value of life from the bible, even disabled people are not wanted by god. But hey, lets take our morals and our metaphorical value of life from religion.
God can care less about humans,
Also notice that all the laws and commandments only work if you apply it to Israelites or believers of god as a group, those laws regarding killing, murder or adultery don't apply if it is done to those outside of this group. So don't do it to the group but if they are not part of the group it's ok to lie to them, kill/murder, and take their virgins and use them for sexual pleasure, as it is done numerous times in the bible.
All in all we as a society take a stance towards stealing, lying, cheating and murdering, however there are always exceptions to the rule, even holy books have had exceptions to the laws or commandments. For adultery, well that is another one that is a matter of society to take up, and is not strictly morally wrong, it all depends on the society.
Lets take spartan for historical purposes
Those two aspects of Spartan culture and society by themselves make Sparta worthy of our continued study, but they far from exhaust Sparta’s fascination. Consider the following more or less well attested social customs or practices: institutionalized pederasty between a young adult citizen warrior and a teenage youth within the compulsory state-run educational cycle; athletic sports including wrestling practiced officially by the teenage girls; marriage by capture of a bride by the prospective groom; polyandry (women with more than one husband); and wife-sharing without the opprobrium or legal guilt of adultery.
[taken from http://www.historytoday.com/MainArticle.aspx?m=18610&amid=18610 )
The notion of adultery well, it's really against our nature, although we have been taught otherwise and grown up with that notion.
According to the Ethnographic Atlas Codebook, of the 1231 societies noted, 186 were monogamous. 453 had occasional polygyny, 588 had more frequent polygyny, and 4 had polyandry Monogamy isn't really the norm, and adultery occurs in most societies, what is morally acceptable or not again is dependent of the society.
As for your question of why didn't all humans evolve with the same morality, well that really takes out the whole god issue really, if we were all created by god then we should all have the same views on morality or what is right and wrong. However as humans evolved as social creatures, we have a basic form of morality, we require others for our survival, so killing those that we live with, stealing from them, cheating them doesn't benefit us personally either as they could do the same to us, therefore not allowing us to pass on our genetic information to the next generation. Basically those that practiced some forms of altruism survived, those that didn't, well didn't survive. However it's just a basic morality, we evolved more as our society, language and knowledge grew.
Murder has been ok, murdering others of a different tribe so that your tribe could grow or survive has been ok'd in most religious texts, the bible is full of murder and genocide so that the Israelis could survive.
Oh and final part I never said the researchers made billions, I said the pharmaceutical companies made billions. Just like most companies, the top guys make money, the share holders make money as well, everyone else gets employed and gets a salary.
Atheist, like every one else, aren't born with morality, but can create it based on what we hate or love. We can grow to like or hate something. We do something about those we hate or love, whether it's good or bad. Add the innate ability to hate and love with accepting society's view of handling the love and hated, you have morality. If anything, religious doctrines are by products of a society, like religious doctrines, morality changes. Besides an unchanging Super Saiyan God can't create things that change right? Of course he can't, or she, it, he-she, shim, or what ever the monster in my closet may be.
PSN:Hybrid-D_91 aka All American Atheist. The 18 yr old(soon to be 19) human that likes Rap and Rock. Oh yeah, God plays Killzone 2.
Right: Something that you gives you satisfaction, whether if it was taught, or innately grew to love.
Wronng: Opposite of right.
PSN:Hybrid-D_91 aka All American Atheist. The 18 yr old(soon to be 19) human that likes Rap and Rock. Oh yeah, God plays Killzone 2.
Our value is not metaphorical. That is a mischaracterization of what I said. I said that I cannot prove to you that humans have value. I cannot stick a human into a laboratory, hook them up to a machine, and then use fiber optics to locate VALUE inside their bodies. It does not work like that.
I could offer you supporting ideas, anecdoctal(sp?) evidence, and maybe employ Ockham's Razor to attest to the veracity of the scriptures, but asking me to prove that humans have value is akin to asking me to prove that my mother actually loves me. It's silly.
Cherry picking bible passages is bad form, especially when you do not put everything in its proper context. God had sent a flood because man kept on sinning against Him. The earth was corrupt and man was under God's righteous condemnation. God created the world and created man with the capacity to disobey Him. But God does not turn a blind eye to sin. Sin has consequences and God sent a flood as punishment.
If you procreate with your sister IN LAW, it is not incest, unless you loosely define it. But such relationships do not have the potential to cause complications related to incest if they are between in-laws. Incest, in this sense, can only occur if you conceive a child with blood relatives. Judah had asked his son Onan to conceive a child for his brother. This practice was commonplace for the proliferation of tribes and was considered a duty. Onan did not fulfill his duty and God punished him for that. This was a completely different time. Some ethics are relative to a particular time period, others are not.
When someone breaks God's law, the earthly effects do not just extend to the sinner. The effects often times are passed down through the generations. Fathers have the ability to lead their entire families into sin. Just having a sinful nature is enough to put you under the righteous condemnation of God. So you may not like it, but that does not mean that God has no right.
You've cited other passages but I do not have time to go into them. But you are naive if you honestly believe that apologists have not dealt with this. Google search any decent apologist website and realize that you did not magically discover bible passages that strangely went unaddressed by the religious community for the past 2,000 years. Seriously, give Christians a little more credit.
If that was true, then he would not punish sinners. He would turn a blind eye and let you do whatever you wanted.
I don't understand what you are trying to say. Some laws were given for different times, other laws were not. Are you saying God allows murder, lying, and adultery today? You need to be more clear.
No, there were no exceptions to the laws. If everything is put in its proper context, then everything is consistent. There are not any exceptions. That is just a morality created for yourself to justify bad behavior. Adultery does not depend on your society. It is always morally wrong.
The existence of different ethical systems among cultures does not prove that all ethics are relative. You are making invalid inferences. You are going from "Different cultures have different ethics" to "Therefore, there are no moral absolutes." It's a non-sequitur.
And you did not answer the question.
We should, as certain laws are well documented, but people are given free will to reject God and his laws. The noetic effect of sin prevents people from thinking clearly and gives way to moral relativists such as yourself.
We went through this. A society could go on perfectly and become more affluent if it allowed the killing of mentally retarded and elderly individuals. Why is this not permissible if morality is strictly based on evolutionary advantage?
If we evolved as social creatures, why do some people still believe that murder, child porn, and rape is okay? Why did they not evolve like we did? You've made the mistake of citing the Spartans, which actually disproves your whole theory.
You just said that we evolved to become social creatures. Are you now repudiating the claim you made one second ago?
There are societies today, such as China, which allows the torture of certain groups. Once again, how do you derive morality from evolution if there are people in the world who have different morality? And how do you account for the fact that China is still functioning as a country even though they turn a blind eye to things like the torture of women? Please answer the question. Do not just cite some bible passage as a diversion.
Correct, and they would still make billions even if people all died at age 59.
Uhm... yes it is. As an atheist, it's easy to see there's no way to judge which role you will play. As I said, I am here by happenstance. I could easily have been born into any role, including that of my niece, who is severely handicapped with Angelmans Syndrome.
The people I enjoy hanging out with are all kind people who treat the servers in restaurants with respect. Why? Because they realize the servers in restaurants are people just like us. They are not beneath us in any way. They just have a suckier job.
This all comes out of respect for others, the same respect we wish society to provide us. This is simple reciprocity, and is a completely secular idea. Just because Christians play lipservice to the idea doesn't mean it's a religious idea -- after all, the times religious morality is correct is when it concentrates on secular ideas.
Or, to paraphrase a secularist who's name I can't remember, "Design society as if you do not know which role you will play." This is simple game theory.
I am glad you enjoyed making his life better. You increased the happiness in the world. By that metric, you have contributed to society.
If everyone were homosexual, the human race would've passed a long time ago. If everyone were a carpenter, the human race woud've passed a long time ago. If everyone were a health care worker, the human race would've passed a long time ago.
What's your point?
Ah! Here's where the problem is. My metric for morality is not "usefulness." It's telling that you think that's the only metric there is outside of that handed down by the people who wrote down what they thought some non-existent deity said was moral. And that's what I meant when I said that you were selfish: it seems you can't conceive of a secular morality that isn't based on "usefulness," when in fact there are several. You have to be told it's right to treat people with respect, rather than derive it from the fact that you want respect.
As I said before, my morality is based on increased happiness. I believe that happiness is the greatest state a human can attain, and we don't experience enough of it, on whole. (I realize that we are exceptions, you and I. Most people don't experience happiness nearly to the extent I do.)
Note that this has nothing to do with usefulness. When I say that we participate in society, it is under society's terms, certainly. But the great thing is, as members of society, we get to help shape those terms! So we don't have to make participation in society relate to usefulness. It's certainly nice when those who are able do contribute to society -- if there were no contributing members to society, it would collapse rather rapidly. In fact, I would hope that all people contribute as much as they can, while not sacrificing their own happiness, or the happiness of others. However, contribution ('usefulness') isn't necessarily mandatory, just as reproduction isn't mandatory.
Of course, that's just me. As atheism has nothing to bind atheists together, you'll find other atheists with other views. I personally am very comfortable with mine, and would argue the merits of my morality against any religious morality. (If you consider Buddhism a religion, I would probably come close to a draw against Buddhism, as the results of Buddhism are similar to mine, though Buddhism sets out to reduce suffering, rather than increase happiness.)
"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers
I suggest you do what you think is right and I do what I think is right.
If it works, it works. Fine. If it doesn't, I guess we'll have to fight it out.
"The idea of God is the sole wrong for which I cannot forgive mankind." (Alphonse Donatien De Sade)
http://www.kinkspace.com
Now you see the beauty of his system - right or wrong he can blame a magic metaphysical being.
No personal responsibility required.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
Even better, because he's following a magic metaphysical being, he's always right!
No matter what.
"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers
Yet here is the kicker, only a select few knew of god, this specific god, the hebrews, everyone else had already their own gods well before this god came to be, and even more never heard of this god because the hebrews never even left the middle east let alone asia, europe, america, yet god found it fit to kill off those folks (however evolution, archaeological evidence, fossils and geological evidence have also proved that this flood never occurred) simply because of some sin? yeah god doesn't care about human values at all. I do give christians credit for answering, even if they dodge and weave their way out of it most of the time and justify it by hiding behind god, it was god's will is the answer, its god's punishment he allow people to massacre other people, men, women, children and babies. To rape their virgins, to pillage their cities, I know it's all been said and done, you can do whatever you want as long as god allows it.
In case you haven't noticed, god hasn't punished anyone since the time of the bible, god hasn't created some great big flood , no cities have been destroyed completely or burned or flooded or had plagues and we are doing far more sinning per se (at least according to so many religious folks) such as allowing same sex marriage, abortions, not believing in god, believing in other gods, Canada for my example has allowed same sex marriage now for years, nothing has happened, no divine punishment, nor the Netherlands, Spain, non believers area majority in Sweden yet, again no divine retribution for them. God doesn't care, never has, he does not value human life as it has been shown time and time again in the bible.
God allows anything because god is a human creation and humans can make god allow anything they want. That's the beauty of religions, all things are allowed. Want to commit genocide, god deems those folks unworthy of life, what to be a bigot, god allows that, want to lie in order to spread the word, god allows that, adultery, sure its' in the bible anyways part of the spoils of war. Still happens today and still allowed today.
Again only towards the tribe or group, but those outside of the tribe or group they were fair game, you could take their women, kill their children and men, no problem, you could lie to them, they aren't part of the group as such the laws that they followed didn't apply to them, again as shown in the bible numerous times.
Yet still proves my point, you said adultery is a moral absolute, that's not true, killing is not a moral absolute, we have exceptions to the rule, and I have shown you those exceptions, if that was the case, if killing was so wrong that the bible outlaws it, then why the massacres, the killing of other people and folks, no there are massive exceptions to the rules in the bible. God doesn't even follow his own rules, don't lie? Lied to Job, don't kill? do many instances of that occurring.
I did, just not to your satisfaction, someone else can explain it to you than I can.
we should if we were created by a god all the same, but we don't because we evolved in different locations with different requirements for survival and different views, no god is needed to explain how human views of right and wrong and morality came about. God is the biggest moral relativist int he bible.
Great question, here is the answer, fuck ups in the genetic make up of people, just like those with XXY instead of XY are more prove to violence, fuck ups in the genetic sequences can produce people more prone to violence, child pornography (and various other sexual fetishes such as but not limited to foot, necrophiliacs, shoes, etc, etc, etc), serial killers, sociopaths, psychopaths, and various other moral problems. Even more evidence to this is if you damage ventromedial prefrontal cortex which is located just behind the eyes near the forehead, people with damage to this area tend to lack empathy and compassion. Without those to emotions then moral dilemmas are not an issue they have no issues killing people, stealing, cheating, lying or any other moral dilemmas that other humans have.
How exactly did the spartans disprove my theory that adultery is not a moral absolute like you stated?
Wow you don't pay attention, we as a species tend to follow the group morality, be it social, religious or other, in this case the group is the communist party, those not part of the group or those deemed a threat to the party are not important, again it's shown throughout history, we as social creatures have no problems killing others of a different group, however killing those of the same group tends to be harder for folks to do, that includes the elderly and the sick, it's part of the emotional attachment we form with these individuals.
But they make even more if they can keep their clients alive for a much longer time, fuck your and idiot when it comes to this huh? Why did cigarette companies need younger and younger smokers? because the longer you smoke the better chance you have of dying of cancer, they needed to keep people smoking as long as possible and the younger you get them the more money you make off of them, same goes with the pharmaceutical companies, if they can keep people alive for a longer period, then there is the possibility of making More money in the long run.
So? Just because you do not like it does not mean that it isn't true or that it wasn't right.
God allows us to do anything we want. But when we face Him after we die, we will get punished for it.
How do you know that? Have you died temporarily and saw that Hell did not exist?
Actually, that's incorrect. Abortions, same sex relationships, idolatry and pedophilia was much more commonplace in the Bronze Age than it is now.
Like that part where He sent his only begotten son to die for our sins?
If the bible says "Thou shalt not murder", then it means that DO NOT MURDER. Any person who wants to distort that is free to do as he pleases, but that is not God's fault.
Where did I disagree with your sociological claims? I'm just trying to help you get it through your thick skull that just because it IS the case that people have different ideas about morality does not mean that ALL ethical systems are true.
NO! It doesn't prove your point. And I'm afraid that I can only continue doing this for a little while longer because I am getting bored trying to explain this to you. I'll write it out in CAPS: JUST BECAUSE TWO OR MORE PEOPLE DISAGREE ABOUT AN IDEA DOES NOT MEAN THAT EVERYBODY IS CORRECT. IT SIMPLY MEANS THAT EVERYONE DISAGREES, BUT ALL CLAIMS BEING MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE, ONLY ONE PERSON CAN BE CORRECT.
Murder, rape, pedophilia, etc. are either wrong or they are not. THERE IS NO MIDDLE GROUND. You can't say that "Murder is wrong" is true for one person but not true for another person.
Okay, let's forget the bible for a moment and make sure, first of all, that your own view on morality is coherent. Actually, nevermind, because I know that it is not.
And how do you know that people who are chemically wired to have empathy are not the ones with the sickness? How do you know that the sociopaths aren't the ones who are healthy? You are just arbitrarily classifying people so that you may render people moral by virtue of a specific type of brain chemistry that they have.
So you have not solved the problem at all. You simply derived an unwarranted ought from an is. You are going from, "Most people are biologically wired to believe A" to "Therefore, A is morally correct." It's a fallacy.
It disproves your theory that morals are a result of evolution.
Okay, so if two groups have two mutually exclusive ideas on what is right and wrong, which one is correct? If you are going to say that they are both correct relative to the group, then by your logic, we would have no right to intervene if some third world country created a new Holocaust.... UNLESS you want to say tha according to our morality, it is okay to infringe upon other people's morality. Then you are back to a social darwinist idea that whoever wins a battle gets to decide what is right or wrong. Thus, if Hitler had took over the world, we would have to concede that it is morally permissible to kill Jews.
I think I will talk to Congress and ask why it is not okay to kill elderly people. It will be interesting to hear if their answer is, "Because if we kill them, then doctors will not make as much money."