Atheists

Discussion in 'General Chat' started by Longshoremen, Jun 15, 2010.

  1. Because most people don't enjoy taking the life of something living. Some things you just know isn't right. We understand that other person is a human, just like us, and to just randomly take someones life takes something truly messed up in your head. Religion plays no role in it. Again, I'm atheist, and I still think it's wrong.
     
  2. That's why I said it's highly debatable. Certain things like cold blooded murder are pretty much cut and dry. But, when you get into grey areas like putting a rapist to death, that's another issue that isn't so black and white.
     
  3. No one's saying that atheists shouldn't have the right to express their views. All we're doing is acknowledging that there are certain sects of new atheism that are increasingly religion-like in the way their people act, and there are many who have blatant disrespect for people with different beliefs than their own - in much the same way that many ignorant religious people do.
     
  4. So in the end it comes down to what we "know isn't right". I would argue that depending on your social background, upbringing etc. people probably have vastly different ideas of what we "know isn't right". And while murder might be an extreme example, i'm pretty sure once you get into more mundane stuff you run into a whole host of differences.

    The spartans for instance, Ill take that as an example. They just killed the weak and disabled babies, I'm sure there were a number of people in that society who didn't know it wasn't right. they just did it.
     
  5. It is absolutely true that we don't need religion to tell us good from evil - in fact it totally depends what your definition of good and evil is in the first place.

    My definition of evil is any act that contributes to the suffering of humans and the natural world.

    My definition of good is any act that contributes to the wellbeing of humans and the natural world.

    So yeah, clearly, one does not need religion to live within that spectrum and know your place in it.
     
  6. Because it has happened before in history and it has lead nowhere, nothing positive came out of it. Actually it just led to more killing.

    You're confusing social darwinism, which is social evolution through artificial selection, and good old regular darwinism which is natural selection. By choosing to kill the impaired and the weak then WE are the ones doing the selection and not nature, which will lead nowhere in the evolution chain.
     
  7. Like I just said, everyone, even within individual religions, has their own unique interpretation of what good and evil is (no matter how minute the difference in interpetation between some people may be).

    There is no right or wrong answer on what good and evil is, because everyone has a different definition on good and evil. And hence, we don't actually need religion to tell us what good and evil is, because people will come up with their own unique definitions regardless.
     
  8. At the end of the day it is completely up to us to decide what "right" and "wrong" is. There is no divine morality, what might be moral today could be immoral tomorrow. If divine morality existed then it would be constant on every society all the time.
     
  9. lets start with the australians... they descend from convicts/degenerates, nothing good can come out of that.
     
  10. look, all im saying is that without some sort of moral base, its incredibly easy for people to argue that some things are ok that others think are completely wong, because in the end it all comes down to what people think.
     
  11. We're also hardwired for empathy.
     
  12. i dont disagree with your first comment, but w/r to your last one, why would it?
     
  13. i dont disagree with your first comment, but w/r to your last one, why would it?
     
  14. There really is no way to tell where we would be without religion, but I think saying that a secular society is the reason for our increased adherence to socially acceptable morals or laws is completely wrong.

    There is no way to compare the last 50 years to anything prior. The communication, technology, and knowledge has seriously changed all the rules. Now we have modern police forces, medicine to treat mental disorders, statistical data to compare, vastly increased social networking, and much more to lose then ever before if we get caught doing something socially unacceptable.
     
  15. Speak for yourself.
     
  16. Yeah, and all im saying is that moral base doesn't necessarily have to have anything to do with religion.
     
  17. The nice thing about the human brain is however it's wired to begin with, we can re-wire it. For good or for awesome.
     
  18. The way I see divine morality is as god's given laws. If god is all- knowing and omnipotent then those laws have always existed and will always exist, then why would his laws need to be changed at all? they would be consistent, if they existed we would have figured out by now what these laws are and everyone would abide by them, there would be no need for lawmakers.
     
  19. Steroids for brains, you got some there?
     
  20. Your implication is that absolute morality is the only morality? Unfortunately it will ultimately come down to what people think anyway. Because while some people say they know what God thinks, and hold His word up to be absolute law, it's incredibly easy for people to argue that He thinks otherwise when others would think that's completely wrong. And such cases have reared their ugly head many times, and led to many wars - but please don't misconstrued that to say I think those wars were caused by religion, because I do not.

    Evil people will do evil deeds, and if religion is a tool they think they can use they will use it. And good people will do good deeds, and if religion is a tool they think they can use they probably will too. Because should a God exist, as much as His law may be universal, no matter how regimented people are in their attempts to uphold it, their views on what it is are nevertheless fragmented, and they can be persuaded to uphold false versions thereof. In the end, they can only be stopped when people take up force in opposition, when they think it's abhorrent because of what they think. And I know the emphasis on that last word might be lost in plain text, so I'd like to mention it. That is what law is, that is sometimes what war is, but it can be much more mundane: it's what building codes are too.
     
  21. so you're assuming it would be a natural law that we would invariably and instinctively abide by? i guess i interpreted it differently.
     
  22. I think that's the way Danno is interpreting it by his "base morals." As is God ingrained these base morals on us that we invariable and instinctively abide by.
     
  23. Just because something cannot be disproved does not mean it exists.
     

Share This Page