Religion/Spirituality Atheism Discussion

[BlvdBrawler]

You know its wrong..but how can you give an accounting for what is good and what is bad?

That's easy. Right and wrong are objective. Good and bad are subjective relative to one's perspective.

 

[BlvdBrawler]

No because personhood is inextricably bound to the question of morality.

In other words..you cant raise up a question of morality that doesnt have to do with personhood

Sure I can. It's just as wrong to light a baby kitten on fire as it is to light an infant on fire. It may not have the same cultural impact because we tend to place human life above animal life, but the magnitude of "wrongness" is no less severe.

And with that, I'm done with your ing.

 

[Propaganda]

No breh! Common sense is subjective culture! Morality is instilled through a sense of reprisal of wrong doing from a higher power whether it be God, Allah, Buddha, ect... If I am meant to die unto obscurity with no eternal repercussion than I can do whatever I please if within the precept of the society that I can get away with or feel embolden to get away with

this is a sad ass post, man. you need to be scared of what a higher being is gonna do to your soul to have a sense of morality? and you religious idiots have the nerve to condemn atheists' benevolence?

check yourselves, a$$holes.

 

[BlvdBrawler]

this is a sad ass post, man. you need to be scared of what a higher being is gonna do to your soul to have a sense of morality? and you religious idiots have the nerve to condemn atheists' benevolence?

check yourselves, a$$holes.

LOL, breh he was being facetious.

 

[blackslash]

Sure I can. It's just as wrong to light a baby kitten on fire as it is to light an infant on fire. It may not have the same cultural impact because we tend to place human life above animal life, but the magnitude of "wrongness" is no less severe.

And with that, I'm done with your ing.

See but you make that claim with the assumption that animal's are persons too

Mind you persons does not equal humans

 

[BlvdBrawler]

See but you make that claim with the assumption that animal's are persons too

That would be the polar opposite of what I said. Are you literate?

It may not have the same cultural impact because we tend to place human life above animal life, but the magnitude of "wrongness" is no less severe.

Mind you persons does not equal humans

Really?

 

[Type Username Here]

believe in objective morality and live as though humans are of any value?

Honest question..Im taking a lil break from my Hov stannery, sorry brehs

But anyways how can an atheist do things like fight for human rights?

Or believe in objective morality as a whole?

Correct me if Im wrong but atheists believe that we arent created we are jus here...products of time, chance and matter.

If thats the case, doesnt that mean objectively we are beings of no value
And without value, morality cant exist.

So how is it Im seeing Atheist nikkaz tryna talk about human rights, being good, and sht when based on the claim of their beliefs...that sht doesnt exist

Do you really want to know or are you attempting to make a point?

I'll answer your question thoroughly if you seek knowledge.

 

[blackslash]

Despite all the backlash, it's a good question. Many believers and religious people haven't considered where else these rights could come from, but it's just as simple as coming from a God, but a lot closer to reality.

Believers tend to think they have natural rights, bestowed upon them by God at birth. That's a simple enough answer for them. For atheists, these fundamental human rights spring from our rationality, the same thing that leads many of us to the truth that there is no god.

In order for people to live and maximize their happiness and potential, we must all agree to a certain set of rules that allows us all to coexist and live without fear. It's just the Social Contract Theory, and it all stems from rational human thought.

breh..atleast unlike these other emotional atheists you tried to politely answer my question

But ya my question/response to that is so does that mean the morality isnt necessarily a universal, transcendant law for us to live by?

Seeing as how in the naturalistic worldview there is no objective purpose for our existence
And we have no objective worth/rights

There are many different types of cultures..
different insticts we humans have
Whats the barometer transcendant of us that decides which is good or bad?

Can the naturalistic worldview answer this..or is it stuck with purposeless existence with no right or wrong, no worth except what your culture gives you(subjective worth)?

Btw thanks for answerin my questions

 

[Propaganda]

LOL, breh he was being facetious.

oh...oops.


L.

 

[blackslash]

That would be the polar opposite of what I said. Are you literate?






Really?

See when you say..its wrong to light a cat on fire

if I asked why?

What would be your response?

It would be a response that explains and gives reason to consider that cat as a person in some category..with which you are violating that person's rights

 

[BlvdBrawler]

See when you say..its wrong to light a cat on fire

if I asked why?

What would be your response?

It would be a response that explains and gives reason to consider that cat as a person in some category..with which you are violating that person's rights

Because it's wrong. That's the nature of objectivity, it doesn't require validation. Or did you mean something other than "objective morality"?

 

[blackslash]

Because it's wrong. That's the nature of objectivity, it doesn't require validation. Or did you mean something other than "objective morality"?

See you feel something is wrong but based on your worldview you cant give an accounting for it

Objective doesnt mean "doesnt require explanation"



You telling me you feel lighting a cat on fire is evil

People can feel something is wrong without giving an account

What im asking you is based on your NATURALISTIC worldview..how do you give an accounting for that being objectively wrong?

 

[tru_m.a.c]

Because it's just that, objective. One doesn't need to believe in God to know that curbstomping an infant would be wrong, that's just common sense and basic human morality.

am I the only one that laughed here

 

[OG Talk]

The biggest flaw in athiesm is pride...You will never meet a humble athiest...

Hubris and cynicism is what drives most of them...


But I don't think they are inherently evil or amoral...

 

[blackslash]

The biggest flaw in athiesm is pride...You will never meet a humble athiest...

Hubris and cynicism is what drives most of them...


But I don't think they are inherently evil or amoral...

Good thing thats not what Im arguin