Religion/Spirituality Atheism Discussion

[Type Username Here]

I asked an atheist when would it be appropriate to rape a baby.

He's still trying to justify his non-answer.

​

Dumbest question I've ever read.

What were you trying to prove exactly?

Your questions smells of lack of philosophical understanding on key schools of thought.

 

[MIAlien]

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

I don't think morality is universal. It's based on the rationality and habits of our culture and society. We strive for some sort of universal set of human rights or standards, but it's difficult to achieve. These aren't things that are given to us. These are things that we agree upon. Morality and human rights are constantly changing and shifting with people as they evolve and grow. As time goes on, we try to fashion these rights and weave them together, so that future generations can have something closer to universal human rights. We evolve and learn what is best for us.

For example, last year, the UN declared that humans have a fundamental right to Internet Access. That would've seemed ridiculous a decade ago, but we've recognized the importance of the Internet on learning, communication, and the availability of free pornographic materials.

I think the closest thing humans have to universal rights are listed in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

 

[BlvdBrawler]

I was being serious

Humans are naturally evil and selfish in nature!

Oh.

Well... uh, damn.

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

Dumbest question I've ever read.

What were you trying to prove exactly?

Your questions smells of lack of philosophical understanding on key schools of thought.

The answer (or lack, thereof) was FAR dumber.....

http://www.the-coli.com/higher-learning/60619-so-if-man-kills-another-man.html#.UKvCroeA6uQ

Starts at post #39.

Also, what school of thought would one have to understand to recognize the moral implications of raping a baby?​

 

[Type Username Here]

The answer (or lack, thereof) was FAR dumber.....

http://www.the-coli.com/higher-learning/60619-so-if-man-kills-another-man.html#.UKvCroeA6uQ

Starts at post #35.

Also, what school of thought would one have to understand to recognize the moral implications of raping a baby?​

Morality is a human creation. Morality sometimes arises from biological and evolutionary causes. Since we are driven by genetics, and maintaining the survival of our species is the paramount driving force of all life, killing a baby only has moral implications because there are biological implications, even if its not always evident.

There are plenty of people who have chemical imbalances who find it morally acceptable to do these things. It has also been documented throughout human history that infanticide and pedophilia have been accepted in certain cultures as moral behavior. In fact, it was scientific progress that has lead to the biggest contributions into the advancement morality involving these atrocious acts.

An ethics middle school class might be a good place to start FunkDoc.

I'll reply in full, with sources and documentation when I get home to a computer.

 

[blackslash]

Anyone who wants to continue the discussion and whos actually really interested in this sort of discussion jus PM a brother

As for now

Be easy brethren

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

Morality is a human creation. Morality sometimes arises from biological and evolutionary causes. Since we are driven by genetics, and maintaining the survival of our species is the paramount driving force of all life, killing a baby only has moral implications because there are biological implications, even if its not always evident.

There are plenty of people who have chemical imbalances who find it morally acceptable to do these things. It has also been documented throughout human history that infanticide and pedophilia have been accepted in certain cultures as moral behavior. In fact, it was scientific progress that has lead to the biggest contributions into the advancement morality involving these atrocious acts.

An ethics middle school class might be a good place to start FunkDoc.

I'll reply in full, with sources and documentation when I get home to a computer.

You're doing the same thing they did, confusing fact with value.

Let me make it easier: Either raping a baby is/has been/and always will be wrong, or it isn't.​

 

[Type Username Here]

You're doing the same thing they did, confusing fact with value.

Let me make it easier: Either raping a baby is/has been/and always will be wrong, or it isn't.​

Here's what you are trying to do:

Youre asking people to solve a quantum physics question when you don't know how to even perform addition. No answer I could give you would leave you satisfied because you lack basic, and I mean basic understanding of philosophy.

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

Here's what you are trying to do:

Youre asking people to solve a quantum physics question when you don't know how to even perform addition. No answer I could give you would leave you satisfied because you lack basic, and I mean basic understanding of philosophy.

I'd have to take a few years of philosophy to understand the moral implications of raping a baby?

Maybe you'd like to take a stab at the question so I'd have the benefit of an informed response.
​

 

[Type Username Here]

I'd have to take a few years of philosophy to understand the moral implications of raping a baby?
​

I just answered your question above. You said it wasn't good enough. This tells me you have no concept of basic philosophical thinking, reason or logic.

So yes, in your case, reading might help.

The moral implications are man made, in response to biological conditions.

Let me stoop to your level:

Will killing or raping a baby stop the Earth from orbiting the sun? Will it make the laws of gravity suddenly cease to work? Does existence or the universe care?

We make morality. Either we derive it from biological coding, or we rationalize it in some form.

 

[the cac mamba]

I came back for u breh

see but you're not even answering the question..and ofc like most over emotional atheists..when u question thier beliefs instead of answering they resort to insults

According to the naturalistic worldview there is nothing objectively wrong with human suffering

In the naturalistic worldview morality is nothing more than mere personal preference, like having a taste for chocolate rather than vanilla.

Without God morality is nothing more than a mere illusion

why dont you address that fact that there are a thousand gods out there whose idea of what is moral and what isnt all contradict each other, and whose people commit acts that all contradict each other

so what use is morality if its just gonna land you in some other god's hell

 

[Sensitive Blake Griffin]

Imagine a place with no human beings and a place where there is only a painting of the mona lisa next to a rock

Which one is more valuable? Answer..theres no answer..because humans dnt exist in that scenario..in other words..a transcendent being doesnt exist to determine which one is more valuable.

Now..you assume to be a good/moral person but hats something I never really understood. If you're saying theres such a thing as evil arent you assuming there's such a thing as good? When you say there's such a thing as good arent you assuming that there is a moral law to differentiate between good and evil? But then dont you assume a moral law giver?

Because when a person makes a question of evil it is by and about a person. Which means the concept of person hood is inextricably bound to the moral impetus of the question. And you cant have the moral impetus in the question unless you have essential worth to person hood. And the only way to have essential worth to person hood is if there is a transcendent, moral, valuable, intrinsically worthy first cause by virtue of which we have that intrinsic worth. Not because its been given by state, culture or any other power. So if intrinsic worth is indispensable for the validity of the question the only way to justify intrinsic worth is if we're created by a being of worth and therefore the the question of evil is only valid if worth is intrinsic. And worth is not intrinsic if we randomly evolved from time +matter + chance.

Morals and our ideas about them change all the time. You give me an absolute moral "Thou shalt not kill" and I'll give you a scenario where you'd probably kill someone. It depends on the situation. So I don't think there are transcendent morals.

As for all the other bullshyt you're typing about, I don't really understand most of it. Not trying to hate, just being honest. I read your last paragraph about a hundred times and it doesn't make sense.

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

I just answered your question above. You said it wasn't good enough. This tells me you have no concept of basic philosophical thinking, reason or logic.

So yes, in your case, reading might help.

The moral implications are man made, in response to biological conditions.

Let me stoop to your level:

Will killing or raping a baby stop the Earth from orbiting the sun? Will it make the laws of gravity suddenly cease to work? Does existence or the universe care?

We make morality. Either we derive it from biological coding, or we rationalize it in some form.

I didn't say your answer wasn't 'good enough'. I stated you were confusing fact (what has happened) with value (what should happen), which you still are.
​

 

[Sensitive Blake Griffin]

A bum on the side of the street begging for money

The religious person: I'm gonna give this bum some money because that is a good deed and I will get into heaven for doing it!

Atheist: I'm gonna give this bum some money so he can get some food for himself

this good deed intrinsically releases dopamine and other brain chemicals that make us happier.

Morals came about as a result of evolution. There is a direct survival benefit to being nice to each other.

 

[Ghpstface]

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