Religion/Spirituality Atheism Discussion

[Type Username Here]

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.
​

No friend, I haven't. I laid out that scientific progress has contributed significantly to "what should happen". There is overwhelming scientific and psychological evidence of the harm, mentally and physically, that such acts contribute do. As neuroscience becomes more efficient, we will gain much better tools to refine our morality and laws.

 

[Sensitive Blake Griffin]

shyt was EXACTLY what reading his writing was like. I could only comprehend a couple sentences from it all.

 

[Higher Tech]

You're not getting what Im saying

The question of evil and good revolves around value and worth. My question was... if our origin is "nothing" than objectively we have no value. So morality is a complete lie because to do wrong, you must have violate or offend a person of value. But we have no intrinsic value if we just evolved from time, matter, and chance.

So sorry..the "Im moral because Im human" doesnt answer the question.

It doesnt matter what your origin is. You co exist with other people, period. It would benefit you to not try to kill them all.

I seriously don't need a book about a dude with holey hands to tell me to be good.

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

No friend, I haven't. I laid out that scientific progress has contributed significantly to "what should happen".

But, we already know what 'should' happen in regards to my original question. Progress only allows us to understand why/when it doesn't.
​

 

[daze23]

we're social creatures that have been successful because we cooperate. not because we mindlessly kill each other and eat babies

 

[Shogun]

Read some David Hume. All these so-called brilliant points many of you think you're making should have been covered in your Western Civ 101 survey in college.

Pretty basic actually.

If you didn't attend college then you should do some reading of the European Enlightenment. And before you say it...i know, i know, white people are the devil. Either way, European Enlightenment thinkers shaped our modern way of thinking.

David Hume: Of the Dignity or Meanness of Human Nature (Hume was an Atheist...in the 18th century when it wasn't just the cool thing to do)

 

[Type Username Here]

But, we already know what 'should' happen in regards to my original question. Progress only allows us to understand why/when it doesn't.
​

Why didn't other cultures know what should happen?

For example, all over the Americas, infant sacrifices were considered morally acceptable and honorable to appease religious obligations. Why didn't they know what should happen?

I'll wait.

 

[Sensitive Blake Griffin]

Why didn't other cultures know what should happen?

For example, all over the Americas, infant sacrifices were considered morally acceptable and honorable to appease religious obligations. Why didn't they know what should happen?

I'll wait.

Don't chinese folks throw baby girls in the bushes too?

 

[Dirty_Jerz]

Morals and our ideas about them changeallthe 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.

thou shall not lust after another mans wife go

 

[daze23]

thou shall not lust after another mans wife go

you've never lusted after another man's wife?

 

[OG_StankBrefs]

Dafuncdoc stay wit da "I'm not religious..but " ' n.

 

[Dirty_Jerz]

you've never lusted after another man's wife?

Irrelevant

 

[Type Username Here]

Dafuncdoc stay wit da "I'm not religious..but " ' n.

His whole argument has to fall into the realm of divine morality. Its the only way his argument can be valid. He just doesn't want to admit it because he doesn't want to seem biased and easily dismissed.

He ignored relevant questions I asked and skimmed by my points. The reason? His agenda is to exalt religious nonsense disguised as something else.

 

[blackslash]

look at all these replies to my thread

I'll jus make a statement that for the most part addresses all the responses

On the atheistic side humans are just animals
Animals have no moral obligations to one another. When a lion kills a zebra, it kills the zebra but it does not murder the zebra. When a great white shark forcefully copulates with a female, it does not rape her.
There is no moral dimension to these actions. They're neither prohibited or obligatory.

So in this worldview, why think that we have any moral obligations to do anything?
Who or what imposes these moral duties upon us? Its very hard to see in this worldview how they can be anything more than just a subjective impression arising in us as a result of societal and parental conditioning.

On the atheistic view, certain actions such as incest and rape may not be biologically and socially advantageous...so in the course of human development they've become taboo. But that does absolutely nothing to prove that rape or incest is wrong..cuz after all, that kind of behavior goes on all the time in the animal kingdom.

If the moral principles that govern our behavior are rooted in habit, custom, feeling and fashion, then the rapist that goes against the herd morality is doing nothing more serious than acting unfashionably.

Now my post isnt towards those that agree with my post rather the atheists that believe in an objective morality.

I'll holla at you brehs when I can

 

[daze23]

On the atheistic side humans are just animals
Animals have no moral obligations to one another. When a lion kills a zebra, it kills the zebra but it does not murder the zebra. When a great white shark forcefully copulates with a female, it does not rape her.
There is no moral dimension to these actions. They're neither prohibited or obligatory.

uh, we kill a lot of animals for food too

'forceful copulation' in nature is an interesting subject. a lot of it has to do with various 'tests' the female puts the male through. basically they don't make it easy to ensure that only the 'fittest' will be able to mate with them

and no that doesn't mean she means "yes" when she says "no"