|
On April 23 2013 06:23 wherebugsgo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 06:23 h3r1n6 wrote:On April 23 2013 06:10 wherebugsgo wrote:On April 23 2013 06:08 h3r1n6 wrote:On April 23 2013 06:05 wherebugsgo wrote:On April 23 2013 06:05 h3r1n6 wrote:On April 23 2013 06:01 wherebugsgo wrote:On April 23 2013 05:59 HardlyNever wrote:On April 23 2013 05:49 wherebugsgo wrote:On April 23 2013 05:46 Paljas wrote:
[quote]
There are no moral absolutes.
But you should belief that there are some.
Because thats makes you a decent human beeing. That statement is itself an absolute, though. If there are no moral absolutes: when is rape morally acceptable? murder? Who said we can't have absolute statements? What does that have to do with morality? And people can justify almost anything given the right circumstance. Would you kill someone who was about to kill 10 people if you had no other way to stop them? Is that still murder to you? no, and yes, it is still murder. How about, more specific: murdering an innocent person. You can get as specific as you like, there are definitely things you can find to be moral absolutes. It doesn't necessarily mean there are a lot of them. Apostasy in current day Islam is punishable by death. That is murder of an innocent person, but in their view it is just. I am aware. Not moral. I would classify Muslims who believe this the same way I would classify any psychopath. That doesn't make for absolute morals though. That just means that you think the morals you hold are absolute. read my edit. In Islam apostasy is a crime. So, the example doesn't hold. Alright, before I could give another example, I had to look up what murder is exactly defined as: murder
Law. the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. So by definition murder is an illegal/immoral (not necessarily the same, but usually the law reflects the morals of a society) killing of a human. Which makes legal/moral murder a paradox Probably same thing is true for rape, but guess what? My point stands.
What point still stands? You said absolute morals exist and wanted examples of murders or killing of innocents.
There are plenty examples of human sacrifice, genocide, honor killings in human history, but you call the perpetrators psychopaths, since they do not subscribe to your morals.
|
On April 23 2013 06:20 wherebugsgo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 06:13 HardlyNever wrote:On April 23 2013 06:08 wherebugsgo wrote:On April 23 2013 06:06 HardlyNever wrote:On April 23 2013 06:01 wherebugsgo wrote:On April 23 2013 05:59 HardlyNever wrote:On April 23 2013 05:49 wherebugsgo wrote:On April 23 2013 05:46 Paljas wrote:On April 23 2013 05:41 HardlyNever wrote:On April 23 2013 05:34 wherebugsgo wrote:
[quote]
try murder for one.
Why? Probably natural selection on that one. I'm not sure what you mean. What does natural selection have to do with the morality of murder? Could you explain how they are related? There are no moral absolutes. But you should belief that there are some. Because thats makes you a decent human beeing. That statement is itself an absolute, though. If there are no moral absolutes: when is rape morally acceptable? murder? Who said we can't have absolute statements? What does that have to do with morality? And people can justify almost anything given the right circumstance. Would you kill someone who was about to kill 10 people if you had no other way to stop them? Is that still murder to you? no, and yes, it is still murder. How about, more specific: murdering an innocent person. You can get as specific as you like, there are definitely things you can find to be moral absolutes. It doesn't necessarily mean there are a lot of them. No, you've made no ground. In order for there to be a moral absolute, the why is critical here. Why is it wrong to murder innocent people? On what authority? There doesn't need to be an authority. Society simply needs to agree on it. Which society has agreed that the murder of an innocent is not wrong? Can you name one? What is innocent? Maybe a child? Pick a society that had a dynasty in some part in its history and you will find a society that killed innocent children to end a dynasty. Did some people think it was wrong? I'm sure they did. Did others think it was morally right? Sure. How are you going to find a society that universally agrees on any one subject? That is impossible. No it isn't impossible. The society you live in is a direct contradiction to that very statement. People don't think murder is morally acceptable. They never have and to suggest otherwise is simply contrary to real world practical evidence. You can come up with fringe cases all you want, but unprovoked murder has never been and never will be morally acceptable.
You're dead wrong. There are people in this country that believe in the death penalty. That isn't murder?
Worse, you are asserting that the society in the time and place you currently live, has the correct moral code, and that all previous societies are incorrect, and any future changes might also be incorrect.
Innocence is subjective, therefore murder will always be subjective.
Edit: You still aren't getting to the why. You seem to suggest that if you can find something that everyone agrees on, no matter why, you will find something morally absolute. First, you won't find something everyone agrees on. You just won't. And as long as one person disagrees, you cannot claim a moral absolute. Furthermore, societies, as a whole, have agreed on a lot of things that we would now consider immoral. Just because a society agrees on it, doesn't make it morally correct. There may be something we all do right now that we think is perfectly fine, but a society 500 years from now will regard as incredibly morally reprehensible. Morals change over time and place.
|
On April 23 2013 06:27 h3r1n6 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 06:23 wherebugsgo wrote:On April 23 2013 06:23 h3r1n6 wrote:On April 23 2013 06:10 wherebugsgo wrote:On April 23 2013 06:08 h3r1n6 wrote:On April 23 2013 06:05 wherebugsgo wrote:On April 23 2013 06:05 h3r1n6 wrote:On April 23 2013 06:01 wherebugsgo wrote:On April 23 2013 05:59 HardlyNever wrote:On April 23 2013 05:49 wherebugsgo wrote:
[quote]
That statement is itself an absolute, though.
If there are no moral absolutes:
when is rape morally acceptable?
murder? Who said we can't have absolute statements? What does that have to do with morality? And people can justify almost anything given the right circumstance. Would you kill someone who was about to kill 10 people if you had no other way to stop them? Is that still murder to you? no, and yes, it is still murder. How about, more specific: murdering an innocent person. You can get as specific as you like, there are definitely things you can find to be moral absolutes. It doesn't necessarily mean there are a lot of them. Apostasy in current day Islam is punishable by death. That is murder of an innocent person, but in their view it is just. I am aware. Not moral. I would classify Muslims who believe this the same way I would classify any psychopath. That doesn't make for absolute morals though. That just means that you think the morals you hold are absolute. read my edit. In Islam apostasy is a crime. So, the example doesn't hold. Alright, before I could give another example, I had to look up what murder is exactly defined as: murder
Law. the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. So by definition murder is an illegal/immoral (not necessarily the same, but usually the law reflects the morals of a society) killing of a human. Which makes legal/moral murder a paradox Probably same thing is true for rape, but guess what? My point stands. What point still stands? You said absolute morals exist and wanted examples of murders or killing of innocents. There are plenty examples of human sacrifice, genocide, honor killings in human history, but you call the perpetrators psychopaths, since they do not subscribe to your morals.
But even in many of those societies those acts would not be considered moral.
And, as I said, the existence of an act does not mean it is moral. A person can murder someone in a given society. Cool, whatever. Doesn't mean it's a moral act. Something happening does not equate to it being moral.
On April 23 2013 06:29 HardlyNever wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 06:20 wherebugsgo wrote:On April 23 2013 06:13 HardlyNever wrote:On April 23 2013 06:08 wherebugsgo wrote:On April 23 2013 06:06 HardlyNever wrote:On April 23 2013 06:01 wherebugsgo wrote:On April 23 2013 05:59 HardlyNever wrote:On April 23 2013 05:49 wherebugsgo wrote:On April 23 2013 05:46 Paljas wrote:On April 23 2013 05:41 HardlyNever wrote:
[quote]
I'm not sure what you mean. What does natural selection have to do with the morality of murder? Could you explain how they are related?
There are no moral absolutes. But you should belief that there are some. Because thats makes you a decent human beeing. That statement is itself an absolute, though. If there are no moral absolutes: when is rape morally acceptable? murder? Who said we can't have absolute statements? What does that have to do with morality? And people can justify almost anything given the right circumstance. Would you kill someone who was about to kill 10 people if you had no other way to stop them? Is that still murder to you? no, and yes, it is still murder. How about, more specific: murdering an innocent person. You can get as specific as you like, there are definitely things you can find to be moral absolutes. It doesn't necessarily mean there are a lot of them. No, you've made no ground. In order for there to be a moral absolute, the why is critical here. Why is it wrong to murder innocent people? On what authority? There doesn't need to be an authority. Society simply needs to agree on it. Which society has agreed that the murder of an innocent is not wrong? Can you name one? What is innocent? Maybe a child? Pick a society that had a dynasty in some part in its history and you will find a society that killed innocent children to end a dynasty. Did some people think it was wrong? I'm sure they did. Did others think it was morally right? Sure. How are you going to find a society that universally agrees on any one subject? That is impossible. No it isn't impossible. The society you live in is a direct contradiction to that very statement. People don't think murder is morally acceptable. They never have and to suggest otherwise is simply contrary to real world practical evidence. You can come up with fringe cases all you want, but unprovoked murder has never been and never will be morally acceptable. You're dead wrong. There are people in this country that believe in the death penalty. That isn't murder? Worse, you are asserting that the society in the time and place you currently live, has the correct moral code, and that all previous societies are incorrect, and any future changes might also be incorrect. Innocence is subjective, therefore murder will always be subjective.
Now we're getting into semantics. Plenty of people would not classify the death penalty as murder.
It also doesn't fit my question since I asked for the murder of an INNOCENT person. You don't call for the death penalty on someone you think is innocent. (Even if you think murder is immoral)
This conversation is not going to go anywhere. We disagree. End of story.
|
On April 23 2013 02:40 LuckyFool wrote:
For me personally it always made more sense to believe in God and then die and find out he didn't exist than the other way around...unless it was ever proven without a shadow of a doubt there's no higher being, being Atheist always seemed like a risky cop out to me.
Believing without actually believing isn't going to get you anywhere but hell in christianity. I think you're incredibly wrong about atheism being a copout. A cop out is the definition of what you're doing, believing something in hopes that it'll happen, but if it doesn't whatever.
What if one of the other thousands of religions is right? What if the one that you currently believe in is right yet you're not really following all the beliefs like you should? If you're basing your knowledge off of the possible consequences of said belief i think thats really disingenuous to yourself.
Also how do you prove that there is no higher being? Thats not how the argument works. The higher being was proposed as an idea by people, therefor the people that claim he exists need to be the ones finding evidence for a higher beings existence. They've had plenty of time to come up with something, and I'm not even remotely convinced by any of it.
Pascals wager is something you really really should look up. It's awful and illogical.
|
On April 23 2013 06:32 PanN wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 02:40 LuckyFool wrote:
For me personally it always made more sense to believe in God and then die and find out he didn't exist than the other way around...unless it was ever proven without a shadow of a doubt there's no higher being, being Atheist always seemed like a risky cop out to me. Believing without actually believing isn't going to get you anywhere, on top of this, I think you're incredibly wrong. A cop out is the definition of what you're doing, believing something in hopes that it'll happen, but if it doesn't whatever. What if one of the other thousands of religions is right? What if the one that you currently believe in is right yet you're not really following all the beliefs like you should? Pascals wager really is completely awful and completely illogical.
I always found that one funny. How can someone pretend that an almighty deity wouldn't be able to see right through those shenanigans.
|
Edit: You still aren't getting to the why. You seem to suggest that if you can find something that everyone agrees on, no matter why, you will find something morally absolute. First, you won't find something everyone agrees on. You just won't. And as long as one person disagrees, you cannot claim a moral absolute. Furthermore, societies, as a whole, have agreed on a lot of things that we would now consider immoral. Just because a society agrees on it, doesn't make it morally correct. There may be something we all do right now that we think is perfectly fine, but a society 500 years from now will regard as incredibly morally reprehensible. Morals change over time and place.
I'm not denying any of these things!
I'm just saying that there are SOME things that will not change.
Some things have not changed!
like, if you want to argue semantics:
in the contexts of all of those societies, none of those atrocities you mentioned were considered murder.
gg no re.
|
On April 23 2013 06:30 wherebugsgo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 06:27 h3r1n6 wrote:On April 23 2013 06:23 wherebugsgo wrote:On April 23 2013 06:23 h3r1n6 wrote:On April 23 2013 06:10 wherebugsgo wrote:On April 23 2013 06:08 h3r1n6 wrote:On April 23 2013 06:05 wherebugsgo wrote:On April 23 2013 06:05 h3r1n6 wrote:On April 23 2013 06:01 wherebugsgo wrote:On April 23 2013 05:59 HardlyNever wrote:
[quote]
Who said we can't have absolute statements? What does that have to do with morality?
And people can justify almost anything given the right circumstance. Would you kill someone who was about to kill 10 people if you had no other way to stop them? Is that still murder to you?
no, and yes, it is still murder. How about, more specific: murdering an innocent person. You can get as specific as you like, there are definitely things you can find to be moral absolutes. It doesn't necessarily mean there are a lot of them. Apostasy in current day Islam is punishable by death. That is murder of an innocent person, but in their view it is just. I am aware. Not moral. I would classify Muslims who believe this the same way I would classify any psychopath. That doesn't make for absolute morals though. That just means that you think the morals you hold are absolute. read my edit. In Islam apostasy is a crime. So, the example doesn't hold. Alright, before I could give another example, I had to look up what murder is exactly defined as: murder
Law. the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. So by definition murder is an illegal/immoral (not necessarily the same, but usually the law reflects the morals of a society) killing of a human. Which makes legal/moral murder a paradox Probably same thing is true for rape, but guess what? My point stands. What point still stands? You said absolute morals exist and wanted examples of murders or killing of innocents. There are plenty examples of human sacrifice, genocide, honor killings in human history, but you call the perpetrators psychopaths, since they do not subscribe to your morals. But even in many of those societies those acts would not be considered moral. And, as I said, the existence of an act does not mean it is moral. A person can murder someone in a given society. Cool, whatever. Doesn't mean it's a moral act. Something happening does not equate to it being moral. Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 06:29 HardlyNever wrote:On April 23 2013 06:20 wherebugsgo wrote:On April 23 2013 06:13 HardlyNever wrote:On April 23 2013 06:08 wherebugsgo wrote:On April 23 2013 06:06 HardlyNever wrote:On April 23 2013 06:01 wherebugsgo wrote:On April 23 2013 05:59 HardlyNever wrote:On April 23 2013 05:49 wherebugsgo wrote:On April 23 2013 05:46 Paljas wrote:
[quote]
There are no moral absolutes.
But you should belief that there are some.
Because thats makes you a decent human beeing. That statement is itself an absolute, though. If there are no moral absolutes: when is rape morally acceptable? murder? Who said we can't have absolute statements? What does that have to do with morality? And people can justify almost anything given the right circumstance. Would you kill someone who was about to kill 10 people if you had no other way to stop them? Is that still murder to you? no, and yes, it is still murder. How about, more specific: murdering an innocent person. You can get as specific as you like, there are definitely things you can find to be moral absolutes. It doesn't necessarily mean there are a lot of them. No, you've made no ground. In order for there to be a moral absolute, the why is critical here. Why is it wrong to murder innocent people? On what authority? There doesn't need to be an authority. Society simply needs to agree on it. Which society has agreed that the murder of an innocent is not wrong? Can you name one? What is innocent? Maybe a child? Pick a society that had a dynasty in some part in its history and you will find a society that killed innocent children to end a dynasty. Did some people think it was wrong? I'm sure they did. Did others think it was morally right? Sure. How are you going to find a society that universally agrees on any one subject? That is impossible. No it isn't impossible. The society you live in is a direct contradiction to that very statement. People don't think murder is morally acceptable. They never have and to suggest otherwise is simply contrary to real world practical evidence. You can come up with fringe cases all you want, but unprovoked murder has never been and never will be morally acceptable. You're dead wrong. There are people in this country that believe in the death penalty. That isn't murder? Worse, you are asserting that the society in the time and place you currently live, has the correct moral code, and that all previous societies are incorrect, and any future changes might also be incorrect. Innocence is subjective, therefore murder will always be subjective. Now we're getting into semantics. Plenty of people would not classify the death penalty as murder. It also doesn't fit my question since I asked for the murder of an INNOCENT person. You don't call for the death penalty on someone you think is innocent. (Even if you think murder is immoral) This conversation is not going to go anywhere. We disagree. End of story.
We're getting into semantics because that is the whole point of this discussion. No morality is absolute. Everyone is guilty of something by some moral code out there. What is innocent to you, is not innocent to someone else.
And there are plenty of people that WOULD classify the death penalty as murder, no matter what the circumstance (most of western europe). Therefore, you can't claim a moral absolute.
|
On April 23 2013 06:36 HardlyNever wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 06:30 wherebugsgo wrote:On April 23 2013 06:27 h3r1n6 wrote:On April 23 2013 06:23 wherebugsgo wrote:On April 23 2013 06:23 h3r1n6 wrote:On April 23 2013 06:10 wherebugsgo wrote:On April 23 2013 06:08 h3r1n6 wrote:On April 23 2013 06:05 wherebugsgo wrote:On April 23 2013 06:05 h3r1n6 wrote:On April 23 2013 06:01 wherebugsgo wrote:
[quote]
no, and yes, it is still murder.
How about, more specific: murdering an innocent person.
You can get as specific as you like, there are definitely things you can find to be moral absolutes. It doesn't necessarily mean there are a lot of them. Apostasy in current day Islam is punishable by death. That is murder of an innocent person, but in their view it is just. I am aware. Not moral. I would classify Muslims who believe this the same way I would classify any psychopath. That doesn't make for absolute morals though. That just means that you think the morals you hold are absolute. read my edit. In Islam apostasy is a crime. So, the example doesn't hold. Alright, before I could give another example, I had to look up what murder is exactly defined as: murder
Law. the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. So by definition murder is an illegal/immoral (not necessarily the same, but usually the law reflects the morals of a society) killing of a human. Which makes legal/moral murder a paradox Probably same thing is true for rape, but guess what? My point stands. What point still stands? You said absolute morals exist and wanted examples of murders or killing of innocents. There are plenty examples of human sacrifice, genocide, honor killings in human history, but you call the perpetrators psychopaths, since they do not subscribe to your morals. But even in many of those societies those acts would not be considered moral. And, as I said, the existence of an act does not mean it is moral. A person can murder someone in a given society. Cool, whatever. Doesn't mean it's a moral act. Something happening does not equate to it being moral. On April 23 2013 06:29 HardlyNever wrote:On April 23 2013 06:20 wherebugsgo wrote:On April 23 2013 06:13 HardlyNever wrote:On April 23 2013 06:08 wherebugsgo wrote:On April 23 2013 06:06 HardlyNever wrote:On April 23 2013 06:01 wherebugsgo wrote:On April 23 2013 05:59 HardlyNever wrote:On April 23 2013 05:49 wherebugsgo wrote:
[quote]
That statement is itself an absolute, though.
If there are no moral absolutes:
when is rape morally acceptable?
murder? Who said we can't have absolute statements? What does that have to do with morality? And people can justify almost anything given the right circumstance. Would you kill someone who was about to kill 10 people if you had no other way to stop them? Is that still murder to you? no, and yes, it is still murder. How about, more specific: murdering an innocent person. You can get as specific as you like, there are definitely things you can find to be moral absolutes. It doesn't necessarily mean there are a lot of them. No, you've made no ground. In order for there to be a moral absolute, the why is critical here. Why is it wrong to murder innocent people? On what authority? There doesn't need to be an authority. Society simply needs to agree on it. Which society has agreed that the murder of an innocent is not wrong? Can you name one? What is innocent? Maybe a child? Pick a society that had a dynasty in some part in its history and you will find a society that killed innocent children to end a dynasty. Did some people think it was wrong? I'm sure they did. Did others think it was morally right? Sure. How are you going to find a society that universally agrees on any one subject? That is impossible. No it isn't impossible. The society you live in is a direct contradiction to that very statement. People don't think murder is morally acceptable. They never have and to suggest otherwise is simply contrary to real world practical evidence. You can come up with fringe cases all you want, but unprovoked murder has never been and never will be morally acceptable. You're dead wrong. There are people in this country that believe in the death penalty. That isn't murder? Worse, you are asserting that the society in the time and place you currently live, has the correct moral code, and that all previous societies are incorrect, and any future changes might also be incorrect. Innocence is subjective, therefore murder will always be subjective. Now we're getting into semantics. Plenty of people would not classify the death penalty as murder. It also doesn't fit my question since I asked for the murder of an INNOCENT person. You don't call for the death penalty on someone you think is innocent. (Even if you think murder is immoral) This conversation is not going to go anywhere. We disagree. End of story. We're getting into semantics because that is the whole point of this discussion. No morality is absolute. Everyone is guilty of something by some moral code out there. What is innocent to you, is not innocent to someone else. And there are plenty of people that WOULD classify the death penalty as murder, no matter what the circumstance (most of western europe). Therefore, you can't claim a moral absolute.
Except it's not murder of AN INNOCENT PERSON.
Try to read my question harder next time.
Edit:
In case it wasn't clear.
Come up with a society that has existed or exists now, where a person is innocent of wrongdoing by the morality agreed upon by that specific society.
Come up with a situation in which it is morally acceptable to murder that person.
Jews in Nazi Germany? Not innocent in Nazi Germany. Thus the example of genocide in this case doesn't apply. Sure, they were innocent in our context. Doesn't succeed in this context.
This is what I mean about a moral absolute.
double edit: I think this effectively a pointless discussion and has been for a while. I'm regretting even answering the first response. I should have just ignored it-it's not intellectually interesting in the least and nothing productive is coming out of this.
Going to stop posting about this now.
|
On April 23 2013 06:38 wherebugsgo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 06:36 HardlyNever wrote:On April 23 2013 06:30 wherebugsgo wrote:On April 23 2013 06:27 h3r1n6 wrote:On April 23 2013 06:23 wherebugsgo wrote:On April 23 2013 06:23 h3r1n6 wrote:On April 23 2013 06:10 wherebugsgo wrote:On April 23 2013 06:08 h3r1n6 wrote:On April 23 2013 06:05 wherebugsgo wrote:On April 23 2013 06:05 h3r1n6 wrote:
[quote]
Apostasy in current day Islam is punishable by death. That is murder of an innocent person, but in their view it is just. I am aware. Not moral. I would classify Muslims who believe this the same way I would classify any psychopath. That doesn't make for absolute morals though. That just means that you think the morals you hold are absolute. read my edit. In Islam apostasy is a crime. So, the example doesn't hold. Alright, before I could give another example, I had to look up what murder is exactly defined as: murder
Law. the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. So by definition murder is an illegal/immoral (not necessarily the same, but usually the law reflects the morals of a society) killing of a human. Which makes legal/moral murder a paradox Probably same thing is true for rape, but guess what? My point stands. What point still stands? You said absolute morals exist and wanted examples of murders or killing of innocents. There are plenty examples of human sacrifice, genocide, honor killings in human history, but you call the perpetrators psychopaths, since they do not subscribe to your morals. But even in many of those societies those acts would not be considered moral. And, as I said, the existence of an act does not mean it is moral. A person can murder someone in a given society. Cool, whatever. Doesn't mean it's a moral act. Something happening does not equate to it being moral. On April 23 2013 06:29 HardlyNever wrote:On April 23 2013 06:20 wherebugsgo wrote:On April 23 2013 06:13 HardlyNever wrote:On April 23 2013 06:08 wherebugsgo wrote:On April 23 2013 06:06 HardlyNever wrote:On April 23 2013 06:01 wherebugsgo wrote:On April 23 2013 05:59 HardlyNever wrote:
[quote]
Who said we can't have absolute statements? What does that have to do with morality?
And people can justify almost anything given the right circumstance. Would you kill someone who was about to kill 10 people if you had no other way to stop them? Is that still murder to you?
no, and yes, it is still murder. How about, more specific: murdering an innocent person. You can get as specific as you like, there are definitely things you can find to be moral absolutes. It doesn't necessarily mean there are a lot of them. No, you've made no ground. In order for there to be a moral absolute, the why is critical here. Why is it wrong to murder innocent people? On what authority? There doesn't need to be an authority. Society simply needs to agree on it. Which society has agreed that the murder of an innocent is not wrong? Can you name one? What is innocent? Maybe a child? Pick a society that had a dynasty in some part in its history and you will find a society that killed innocent children to end a dynasty. Did some people think it was wrong? I'm sure they did. Did others think it was morally right? Sure. How are you going to find a society that universally agrees on any one subject? That is impossible. No it isn't impossible. The society you live in is a direct contradiction to that very statement. People don't think murder is morally acceptable. They never have and to suggest otherwise is simply contrary to real world practical evidence. You can come up with fringe cases all you want, but unprovoked murder has never been and never will be morally acceptable. You're dead wrong. There are people in this country that believe in the death penalty. That isn't murder? Worse, you are asserting that the society in the time and place you currently live, has the correct moral code, and that all previous societies are incorrect, and any future changes might also be incorrect. Innocence is subjective, therefore murder will always be subjective. Now we're getting into semantics. Plenty of people would not classify the death penalty as murder. It also doesn't fit my question since I asked for the murder of an INNOCENT person. You don't call for the death penalty on someone you think is innocent. (Even if you think murder is immoral) This conversation is not going to go anywhere. We disagree. End of story. We're getting into semantics because that is the whole point of this discussion. No morality is absolute. Everyone is guilty of something by some moral code out there. What is innocent to you, is not innocent to someone else. And there are plenty of people that WOULD classify the death penalty as murder, no matter what the circumstance (most of western europe). Therefore, you can't claim a moral absolute. Except it's not murder of AN INNOCENT PERSON. Try to read my question harder next time.
Because you still haven't defined innocent. By some moral philosophies, simply being born the wrong religion is a crime, therefore making someone inherently not innocent. By standard Catholic doctrine, everyone is born with original sin, and therefore not innocent (this doesn't mean they should be killed, but simply that they aren't innocent).
Edit: Did you just disprove yourself in your edit above? You just pointed out that the very concept of innocence is a moving target, yet you are trying to pin moral absolutism on this moving concept of innocence? How can it be both a mutable definition, and a moral absolute?
|
This thread quickly went to shit. I'm glad some people at least answered the OP's question about how people became atheists, instead of arguing over the existence of god.
I was never raised religious (thank god) but I kinda had a feeling when I was 10-12 that he kinda existed. He made me feel bad every time I jerked off and I'd say I was sorry and w/e. But I started thinking about how dumb it was that that was all I had to do to get into heaven. Why should I believe in a religion based upon such a stupid idea as forgiveness for ANYTHING you could possibly do. Why should I believe in a religion that sends generally good, non-believing people to hell for eternity because they didn't believe in something which has continuously shown little to no physical evidence for its validity.
I started having questions about how dumb it all was. Why would god send people to hell for such petty reasons. Billions of people are going to hell in that case for not being Christian. Wtf is up with that. Why doesn't he appear to the billions of people to prove he's actually real so he can save them from hell. He must not care I guess.
I never associated myself as an actual atheist (just a non-practicing christian) until a few years ago. All the hate and ignorance that devout Christians have toward other religious groups or people with different sexual preferences ticked me off. I didn't want to be associated with those idiots. That was that.
I enjoy being an atheist. I don't have to apologize for my actions to imaginary people in the sky. I don't have to live in ignorance and blindly follow a 2000 year old book for guidance without questioning it AT ALL. I don't have to waste my time going to church or anything religious. I've had people tell me they feel sorry for me because I believe this is the only life I have and that there is no life after death. That pisses me off. Go feel sorry for someone who needs it.
Also I think that if god had wanted us to worship him unconditionally, he wouldn’t have given us free will.
Edit: And the Lord said unto John, "Come forth and receive eternal life." But John came fifth and won a toaster.
|
I'm atheist because I born in an officially atheist country (communist country).
Where people thought you are weird/loser if you believed in spirits, and they thought of you as a traitor if you believed in a "western" god.
|
On April 23 2013 06:25 HardlyNever wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 06:12 Treehead wrote:On April 23 2013 04:41 wherebugsgo wrote:
So? It's not that much better than in its history. Plenty of official Christian doctrine, plenty of Christian institutions, represent Christianity when they, today, in 2013, deny civil rights and suppress minorities.
As for your atheist question, there probably weren't that many atheists back then, at least not public ones. You know why? Because most religions would kill them for being nonbelievers. There aren't many famous atheists in history because atheists have long been discriminated against, just like any other minority in existence.
Here's the difference, though: you are arguing that morality only exists within the context of religion. I am a walking contradiction to that statement. I am not religious at all, and I think most people would agree that I am not by any means an immoral person. I'm not going to kill anyone, I'm not going to steal, and I'm certainly not going to infringe upon the rights of any other person. Yet, I'm not religious, nor have I ever looked toward religion for moral guidance.
In fact, your earlier posts hinted toward Christian moral superiority. Plenty of Christians use Christianity to say that gays, blacks, women, oral sex, abortion, Democrats, Muslims, Jews, and plenty of other minorities/others are morally inferior to them.
When have you seen atheism, a lack of belief in God, used as a justification for the same?
It has not been my experience that many churches now, in 2013, deny civil rights and suppress minorities. You may be able to find some who do - but it's a bit like my finding a atheist who believes something crazy and then claiming that's your atheism. More to the point, ignorance is ignorance - and while most churches weed that out, every large group of people has some bad ones. That doesn't excuse them - but it doesn't mean that's Christianity, either. I'm not arguing that morality only exists within the context of religion. I am arguing that it takes more than an individual to create a strong system of morality (which was what the OP was claiming). It takes a community. You're not killing or stealing, and everyone has their legal rights - great. But does that make you moral? You think so - but is that enough to make it true? And also, isn't the line "I think most people would agree that..." a fallacy, as you pointed out earlier? You can not kill, steal, or spoil anyone's rights and still be someone most people would agree is a terrible person - doubly so if you don't mind bending the meaning of the words "kill" or "steal" - which most people are willing to do under the right conditions. Also, I hope you're not actually asking me to cite times I've seen it implied that people have used atheism to say that Christianity is morally inferior - because there are several in this thread. And that's not a bad thing, people ought to view their way of thinking as the best way. The bad part is when they use that inferiority to shut out a part of their mind which has valuable critical thinking to do. Many christians do this, walking away from discussion instead of addressing it. But many atheists are just as dismissive - citing "evidence" of christianity's wrongdoing through the ages (as though christianity was one living breathing entity, instead of a body of many different people at many different times) as a reason they don't have to listen to their arguments. Belief in our superiority is natural. It's acting on that belief out of turn which becomes unfortunate. You can think I'm wrong all you want. It's when you say I'm wrong without due evidence to support you that you've done wrong. I can think muslims pray to the wrong god all I want - it's when I yell at them over it, or disrespect their beliefs publicly that I've crossed a line. I'd argue Christianity is immoral in some of its most basic tenants. Now in the 21st century it seems like you can believe almost anything and still call yourself a Christian, so you may move the goal posts on me at any given time and still call yourself a Christian. Not much I can do about that. Here are a few starters for what, I believe, are core principles of any Christian, that are immoral in my view. Again, you may not actually believe any of these (but then I honestly don't know what it means to be Christian): 1. Jesus died for your sins. This is immoral to me because it means someone can take the blame for your faults, and you are absolved of them. It is reminiscent of scapegoating, and even human sacrifice. We, as a species, have sinned, but this guy died for them, now we're in the clear. Yay. 2. People that don't believe what you believe are going to hell, no matter what. Specifically, that Jesus Christ is our lord and savior. Even if they are "good" people, they still burn for all eternity, because they don't happen to believe when someone tells them that a virgin had a baby 2000 years ago and that baby was the son of god. A lot of religions are guilty of this, but we're talking about Christianity, so I'll stick with this. This is simply the standard "if you don't believe what I believe, you are screwed" mentality. I find this immoral because why should anyone believe what you believe, based on no evidence, yet be required to believe this odd story in order to not burn in hell for all eternity. I have some others, but I'm dying to see what you say about those two.
1. Jesus died for your sins.
Jesus is not dead. The body died, but he lives. This is pretty basic Christianity. But the point you're making is that we killed him with our sin - yes, that's true. But where did "now we're in the clear, yay" come from? We still sin. It's still wrong to sin. What has changed is that we no longer die for it. And it wasn't scapegoating - we didn't *make* him do it (how do you make a god do anything?). He did it as a gift. That you state this in such ridiculous terms (given how little knowledge you have of the religion) is more than a little disrespectful.
2. People that don't believe what you believe are going to hell, no matter what.
Who goes to heaven and who goes to hell is not determined by us. Nor do I claim to understand the process. You would like me to account for how god determines who gets into heaven? I can't. I know what I've been told, which is that worshiping false gods is a sin, and yet I know many for whom I hope this sin is forgiven. You want me to tell you I know it will be? I can't. You want me to tell you I worship the god of fire and brimstone who will send some friends of mine to hell for their beliefs? I can't do that either. This is something I don't understand. But there are things I don't understand about Christianity. That doesn't make it wrong. Perhaps as item 3, you could ask me to start accounting for deaths of certain famous people. I'm sure I'm a knowledgeable source for such material.
|
On April 23 2013 06:55 Treehead wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 06:25 HardlyNever wrote:On April 23 2013 06:12 Treehead wrote:On April 23 2013 04:41 wherebugsgo wrote:
So? It's not that much better than in its history. Plenty of official Christian doctrine, plenty of Christian institutions, represent Christianity when they, today, in 2013, deny civil rights and suppress minorities.
As for your atheist question, there probably weren't that many atheists back then, at least not public ones. You know why? Because most religions would kill them for being nonbelievers. There aren't many famous atheists in history because atheists have long been discriminated against, just like any other minority in existence.
Here's the difference, though: you are arguing that morality only exists within the context of religion. I am a walking contradiction to that statement. I am not religious at all, and I think most people would agree that I am not by any means an immoral person. I'm not going to kill anyone, I'm not going to steal, and I'm certainly not going to infringe upon the rights of any other person. Yet, I'm not religious, nor have I ever looked toward religion for moral guidance.
In fact, your earlier posts hinted toward Christian moral superiority. Plenty of Christians use Christianity to say that gays, blacks, women, oral sex, abortion, Democrats, Muslims, Jews, and plenty of other minorities/others are morally inferior to them.
When have you seen atheism, a lack of belief in God, used as a justification for the same?
It has not been my experience that many churches now, in 2013, deny civil rights and suppress minorities. You may be able to find some who do - but it's a bit like my finding a atheist who believes something crazy and then claiming that's your atheism. More to the point, ignorance is ignorance - and while most churches weed that out, every large group of people has some bad ones. That doesn't excuse them - but it doesn't mean that's Christianity, either. I'm not arguing that morality only exists within the context of religion. I am arguing that it takes more than an individual to create a strong system of morality (which was what the OP was claiming). It takes a community. You're not killing or stealing, and everyone has their legal rights - great. But does that make you moral? You think so - but is that enough to make it true? And also, isn't the line "I think most people would agree that..." a fallacy, as you pointed out earlier? You can not kill, steal, or spoil anyone's rights and still be someone most people would agree is a terrible person - doubly so if you don't mind bending the meaning of the words "kill" or "steal" - which most people are willing to do under the right conditions. Also, I hope you're not actually asking me to cite times I've seen it implied that people have used atheism to say that Christianity is morally inferior - because there are several in this thread. And that's not a bad thing, people ought to view their way of thinking as the best way. The bad part is when they use that inferiority to shut out a part of their mind which has valuable critical thinking to do. Many christians do this, walking away from discussion instead of addressing it. But many atheists are just as dismissive - citing "evidence" of christianity's wrongdoing through the ages (as though christianity was one living breathing entity, instead of a body of many different people at many different times) as a reason they don't have to listen to their arguments. Belief in our superiority is natural. It's acting on that belief out of turn which becomes unfortunate. You can think I'm wrong all you want. It's when you say I'm wrong without due evidence to support you that you've done wrong. I can think muslims pray to the wrong god all I want - it's when I yell at them over it, or disrespect their beliefs publicly that I've crossed a line. I'd argue Christianity is immoral in some of its most basic tenants. Now in the 21st century it seems like you can believe almost anything and still call yourself a Christian, so you may move the goal posts on me at any given time and still call yourself a Christian. Not much I can do about that. Here are a few starters for what, I believe, are core principles of any Christian, that are immoral in my view. Again, you may not actually believe any of these (but then I honestly don't know what it means to be Christian): 1. Jesus died for your sins. This is immoral to me because it means someone can take the blame for your faults, and you are absolved of them. It is reminiscent of scapegoating, and even human sacrifice. We, as a species, have sinned, but this guy died for them, now we're in the clear. Yay. 2. People that don't believe what you believe are going to hell, no matter what. Specifically, that Jesus Christ is our lord and savior. Even if they are "good" people, they still burn for all eternity, because they don't happen to believe when someone tells them that a virgin had a baby 2000 years ago and that baby was the son of god. A lot of religions are guilty of this, but we're talking about Christianity, so I'll stick with this. This is simply the standard "if you don't believe what I believe, you are screwed" mentality. I find this immoral because why should anyone believe what you believe, based on no evidence, yet be required to believe this odd story in order to not burn in hell for all eternity. I have some others, but I'm dying to see what you say about those two. 1. Jesus died for your sins. Jesus is not dead. The body died, but he lives. This is pretty basic Christianity. But the point you're making is that we killed him with our sin - yes, that's true. But where did "now we're in the clear, yay" come from? We still sin. It's still wrong to sin. What has changed is that we no longer die for it. And it wasn't scapegoating - we didn't *make* him do it (how do you make a god do anything?). He did it as a gift. That you state this in such ridiculous terms (given how little knowledge you have of the religion) is more than a little disrespectful. 2. People that don't believe what you believe are going to hell, no matter what. Who goes to heaven and who goes to hell is not determined by us. Nor do I claim to understand the process. You would like me to account for how god determines who gets into heaven? I can't. I know what I've been told, which is that worshiping false gods is a sin, and yet I know many for whom I hope this sin is forgiven. You want me to tell you I know it will be? I can't. You want me to tell you I worship the god of fire and brimstone who will send some friends of mine to hell for their beliefs? I can't do that either. This is something I don't understand. But there are things I don't understand about Christianity. That doesn't make it wrong. Perhaps as item 3, you could ask me to start accounting for deaths of certain famous people. I'm sure I'm a knowledgeable source for such material.
What you've described is a heavily neutered form of Christianity.
You could probably come up with some version of it that cannot really be easily dismissed, but then again there would be no real reason for believing in it. Similar to how there's no reason for you to believe in Zeus, or Odin, or Vishnu, or the FSM. None of those things matter in the slightest to you: you don't spend a lick of time thinking about them.
|
I don't think I can answer because I've never actually been a theist. I was raised is a pretty relaxed Jewish family, though I did go to weekly religious school and have a bar mitzvah. I can't remember ever believing God actually existed.
I remember once when I was pretty young I asked the teacher if I could be Jewish if I didn't believe in God, answer was no obviously lol. Still is nice to observe some of the traditions though (had my yearly matzoh fix a few weeks back for Passover, and even gave up bread for the week because why not.)
|
On April 23 2013 06:55 Treehead wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 06:25 HardlyNever wrote:On April 23 2013 06:12 Treehead wrote:On April 23 2013 04:41 wherebugsgo wrote:
So? It's not that much better than in its history. Plenty of official Christian doctrine, plenty of Christian institutions, represent Christianity when they, today, in 2013, deny civil rights and suppress minorities.
As for your atheist question, there probably weren't that many atheists back then, at least not public ones. You know why? Because most religions would kill them for being nonbelievers. There aren't many famous atheists in history because atheists have long been discriminated against, just like any other minority in existence.
Here's the difference, though: you are arguing that morality only exists within the context of religion. I am a walking contradiction to that statement. I am not religious at all, and I think most people would agree that I am not by any means an immoral person. I'm not going to kill anyone, I'm not going to steal, and I'm certainly not going to infringe upon the rights of any other person. Yet, I'm not religious, nor have I ever looked toward religion for moral guidance.
In fact, your earlier posts hinted toward Christian moral superiority. Plenty of Christians use Christianity to say that gays, blacks, women, oral sex, abortion, Democrats, Muslims, Jews, and plenty of other minorities/others are morally inferior to them.
When have you seen atheism, a lack of belief in God, used as a justification for the same?
It has not been my experience that many churches now, in 2013, deny civil rights and suppress minorities. You may be able to find some who do - but it's a bit like my finding a atheist who believes something crazy and then claiming that's your atheism. More to the point, ignorance is ignorance - and while most churches weed that out, every large group of people has some bad ones. That doesn't excuse them - but it doesn't mean that's Christianity, either. I'm not arguing that morality only exists within the context of religion. I am arguing that it takes more than an individual to create a strong system of morality (which was what the OP was claiming). It takes a community. You're not killing or stealing, and everyone has their legal rights - great. But does that make you moral? You think so - but is that enough to make it true? And also, isn't the line "I think most people would agree that..." a fallacy, as you pointed out earlier? You can not kill, steal, or spoil anyone's rights and still be someone most people would agree is a terrible person - doubly so if you don't mind bending the meaning of the words "kill" or "steal" - which most people are willing to do under the right conditions. Also, I hope you're not actually asking me to cite times I've seen it implied that people have used atheism to say that Christianity is morally inferior - because there are several in this thread. And that's not a bad thing, people ought to view their way of thinking as the best way. The bad part is when they use that inferiority to shut out a part of their mind which has valuable critical thinking to do. Many christians do this, walking away from discussion instead of addressing it. But many atheists are just as dismissive - citing "evidence" of christianity's wrongdoing through the ages (as though christianity was one living breathing entity, instead of a body of many different people at many different times) as a reason they don't have to listen to their arguments. Belief in our superiority is natural. It's acting on that belief out of turn which becomes unfortunate. You can think I'm wrong all you want. It's when you say I'm wrong without due evidence to support you that you've done wrong. I can think muslims pray to the wrong god all I want - it's when I yell at them over it, or disrespect their beliefs publicly that I've crossed a line. I'd argue Christianity is immoral in some of its most basic tenants. Now in the 21st century it seems like you can believe almost anything and still call yourself a Christian, so you may move the goal posts on me at any given time and still call yourself a Christian. Not much I can do about that. Here are a few starters for what, I believe, are core principles of any Christian, that are immoral in my view. Again, you may not actually believe any of these (but then I honestly don't know what it means to be Christian): 1. Jesus died for your sins. This is immoral to me because it means someone can take the blame for your faults, and you are absolved of them. It is reminiscent of scapegoating, and even human sacrifice. We, as a species, have sinned, but this guy died for them, now we're in the clear. Yay. 2. People that don't believe what you believe are going to hell, no matter what. Specifically, that Jesus Christ is our lord and savior. Even if they are "good" people, they still burn for all eternity, because they don't happen to believe when someone tells them that a virgin had a baby 2000 years ago and that baby was the son of god. A lot of religions are guilty of this, but we're talking about Christianity, so I'll stick with this. This is simply the standard "if you don't believe what I believe, you are screwed" mentality. I find this immoral because why should anyone believe what you believe, based on no evidence, yet be required to believe this odd story in order to not burn in hell for all eternity. I have some others, but I'm dying to see what you say about those two. 1. Jesus died for your sins. Jesus is not dead. The body died, but he lives. This is pretty basic Christianity. But the point you're making is that we killed him with our sin - yes, that's true. But where did "now we're in the clear, yay" come from? We still sin. It's still wrong to sin. What has changed is that we no longer die for it. And it wasn't scapegoating - we didn't *make* him do it (how do you make a god do anything?). He did it as a gift. That you state this in such ridiculous terms (given how little knowledge you have of the religion) is more than a little disrespectful. 2. People that don't believe what you believe are going to hell, no matter what. Who goes to heaven and who goes to hell is not determined by us. Nor do I claim to understand the process. You would like me to account for how god determines who gets into heaven? I can't. I know what I've been told, which is that worshiping false gods is a sin, and yet I know many for whom I hope this sin is forgiven. You want me to tell you I know it will be? I can't. You want me to tell you I worship the god of fire and brimstone who will send some friends of mine to hell for their beliefs? I can't do that either. This is something I don't understand. But there are things I don't understand about Christianity. That doesn't make it wrong. Perhaps as item 3, you could ask me to start accounting for deaths of certain famous people. I'm sure I'm a knowledgeable source for such material.
1. Ok, this whole thing never made sense to me. And your answer doesn't make it any clearer. Why did he die for our sins? I don't get it. What did that accomplish, and why is it important? Are you saying previously that when people sinned they died? And I'm pretty sure Pontius Pilate ordered him to be executed. Are you saying he orchestrated the whole thing? What evidence is there for that? Maybe you can explain it.
2. It doesn't matter whether you understand it or not; you believe it. That makes it immoral, to me. You still believe that people who do not believe what you do will go to hell (or is this not accurate? Again, anyone can be a christian now I think). You basically gave a non-answer, to my sensibilities. You say you don't decide who gets in and who doesn't, but you still believe what you have been told. How can you believe what you don't understand? This concept is completely foreign to me. I mean in a basic sense. If someone told me, such and such works in such a way, and here is why, I would either a) ask them to explain it further or b) not really believe it until I understand it. Like lets say... quantum mechanics. I don't really fully understand quantum mechanics. But it's been explained to me in such a way, and I've seen enough evidence, that I can sort of grasp what is going on (at least I think I do), so I believe it. How can you believe something you don't understand at all? That boggles my mind.
|
On April 22 2013 23:38 vOdToasT wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2013 23:22 Treehead wrote:On April 22 2013 22:58 woreyour wrote:I am mature enough to know what is right or wrong. I don't need that to be "moral"; I just don't need to be an asshole. And best of all, I can fap without feeling bad about it.  100% of the people who say that they are mature enough to "know right from wrong" are just not mature enough to know that the distinction isn't always easy. You have a strange sense of what morality is - it is intended to be the set of rules which prevent a person from being "an asshole". Also, please read this: http://www.teamliquid.net/blogs/viewblog.php?id=346001Consider that sociopaths also view their version of morality (whereby some people are just supposed to die) to be completely legitimate. Now, explain why your views are superior without using statements like "everyone knows..." and "well obviously...". This is where religion/morality comes in. It gives people a context in which to discuss right and wrong. Outside of religion, there is no good and evil, there is only legal and illegal. That is a logical fallacy. Just because a being who created us says that something is moral, does not make it moral. If god was real and he really did order and / or condone the genocide and rape and slavery that's in the bible, it does not mean that it would be moral. It would still be evil. Morality can never be defined by an authority, no matter who it is. I don't know how moral the original poster is, but his morality can't be worse than that of catholicism.
It's not actually a logical fallacy. You should look up divine command theory. Basically, if morality is defined by God, then no matter how often you say "premarital sex is not evil", that doesn't change how evil premarital sex is (assuming that the Christian God is the real and true God). Morality in that case is not a democracy, it's an absolute defined by God rather than humans.
2. It doesn't matter whether you understand it or not; you believe it. That makes it immoral, to me. You still believe that people who do not believe what you do will go to hell (or is this not accurate? Again, anyone can be a christian now I think). You basically gave a non-answer, to my sensibilities. You say you don't decide who gets in and who doesn't, but you still believe what you have been told. How can you believe what you don't understand? This concept is completely foreign to me. I mean in a basic sense. If someone told me, such and such works in such a way, and here is why, I would either a) ask them to explain it further or b) not really believe it until I understand it. Like lets say... quantum mechanics. I don't really fully understand quantum mechanics. But it's been explained to me in such a way, and I've seen enough evidence, that I can sort of grasp what is going on (at least I think I do), so I believe it. How can you believe something you don't understand at all? That boggles my mind.
So believing something which you consider to be bad makes him immoral? I believe the Holocaust really happened, and that people in some countries die unjustly; that doesn't make me immoral for believing those things, does it?
Unless you're saying that it's immoral for him to believe something which he doesn't understand.
|
talked to people. reasoned that I didn't need religion to be reasonable cause I know I'm a good person.
however, a little bit after I also reasoned there isn't enough proof to be atheist so instead don't even deny the existence of God.
|
On April 23 2013 07:09 HardlyNever wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 06:55 Treehead wrote:On April 23 2013 06:25 HardlyNever wrote:On April 23 2013 06:12 Treehead wrote:On April 23 2013 04:41 wherebugsgo wrote:
So? It's not that much better than in its history. Plenty of official Christian doctrine, plenty of Christian institutions, represent Christianity when they, today, in 2013, deny civil rights and suppress minorities.
As for your atheist question, there probably weren't that many atheists back then, at least not public ones. You know why? Because most religions would kill them for being nonbelievers. There aren't many famous atheists in history because atheists have long been discriminated against, just like any other minority in existence.
Here's the difference, though: you are arguing that morality only exists within the context of religion. I am a walking contradiction to that statement. I am not religious at all, and I think most people would agree that I am not by any means an immoral person. I'm not going to kill anyone, I'm not going to steal, and I'm certainly not going to infringe upon the rights of any other person. Yet, I'm not religious, nor have I ever looked toward religion for moral guidance.
In fact, your earlier posts hinted toward Christian moral superiority. Plenty of Christians use Christianity to say that gays, blacks, women, oral sex, abortion, Democrats, Muslims, Jews, and plenty of other minorities/others are morally inferior to them.
When have you seen atheism, a lack of belief in God, used as a justification for the same?
It has not been my experience that many churches now, in 2013, deny civil rights and suppress minorities. You may be able to find some who do - but it's a bit like my finding a atheist who believes something crazy and then claiming that's your atheism. More to the point, ignorance is ignorance - and while most churches weed that out, every large group of people has some bad ones. That doesn't excuse them - but it doesn't mean that's Christianity, either. I'm not arguing that morality only exists within the context of religion. I am arguing that it takes more than an individual to create a strong system of morality (which was what the OP was claiming). It takes a community. You're not killing or stealing, and everyone has their legal rights - great. But does that make you moral? You think so - but is that enough to make it true? And also, isn't the line "I think most people would agree that..." a fallacy, as you pointed out earlier? You can not kill, steal, or spoil anyone's rights and still be someone most people would agree is a terrible person - doubly so if you don't mind bending the meaning of the words "kill" or "steal" - which most people are willing to do under the right conditions. Also, I hope you're not actually asking me to cite times I've seen it implied that people have used atheism to say that Christianity is morally inferior - because there are several in this thread. And that's not a bad thing, people ought to view their way of thinking as the best way. The bad part is when they use that inferiority to shut out a part of their mind which has valuable critical thinking to do. Many christians do this, walking away from discussion instead of addressing it. But many atheists are just as dismissive - citing "evidence" of christianity's wrongdoing through the ages (as though christianity was one living breathing entity, instead of a body of many different people at many different times) as a reason they don't have to listen to their arguments. Belief in our superiority is natural. It's acting on that belief out of turn which becomes unfortunate. You can think I'm wrong all you want. It's when you say I'm wrong without due evidence to support you that you've done wrong. I can think muslims pray to the wrong god all I want - it's when I yell at them over it, or disrespect their beliefs publicly that I've crossed a line. I'd argue Christianity is immoral in some of its most basic tenants. Now in the 21st century it seems like you can believe almost anything and still call yourself a Christian, so you may move the goal posts on me at any given time and still call yourself a Christian. Not much I can do about that. Here are a few starters for what, I believe, are core principles of any Christian, that are immoral in my view. Again, you may not actually believe any of these (but then I honestly don't know what it means to be Christian): 1. Jesus died for your sins. This is immoral to me because it means someone can take the blame for your faults, and you are absolved of them. It is reminiscent of scapegoating, and even human sacrifice. We, as a species, have sinned, but this guy died for them, now we're in the clear. Yay. 2. People that don't believe what you believe are going to hell, no matter what. Specifically, that Jesus Christ is our lord and savior. Even if they are "good" people, they still burn for all eternity, because they don't happen to believe when someone tells them that a virgin had a baby 2000 years ago and that baby was the son of god. A lot of religions are guilty of this, but we're talking about Christianity, so I'll stick with this. This is simply the standard "if you don't believe what I believe, you are screwed" mentality. I find this immoral because why should anyone believe what you believe, based on no evidence, yet be required to believe this odd story in order to not burn in hell for all eternity. I have some others, but I'm dying to see what you say about those two. 1. Jesus died for your sins. Jesus is not dead. The body died, but he lives. This is pretty basic Christianity. But the point you're making is that we killed him with our sin - yes, that's true. But where did "now we're in the clear, yay" come from? We still sin. It's still wrong to sin. What has changed is that we no longer die for it. And it wasn't scapegoating - we didn't *make* him do it (how do you make a god do anything?). He did it as a gift. That you state this in such ridiculous terms (given how little knowledge you have of the religion) is more than a little disrespectful. 2. People that don't believe what you believe are going to hell, no matter what. Who goes to heaven and who goes to hell is not determined by us. Nor do I claim to understand the process. You would like me to account for how god determines who gets into heaven? I can't. I know what I've been told, which is that worshiping false gods is a sin, and yet I know many for whom I hope this sin is forgiven. You want me to tell you I know it will be? I can't. You want me to tell you I worship the god of fire and brimstone who will send some friends of mine to hell for their beliefs? I can't do that either. This is something I don't understand. But there are things I don't understand about Christianity. That doesn't make it wrong. Perhaps as item 3, you could ask me to start accounting for deaths of certain famous people. I'm sure I'm a knowledgeable source for such material. 1. Ok, this whole thing never made sense to me. And your answer doesn't make it any clearer. Why did he die for our sins? I don't get it. What did that accomplish, and why is it important? Are you saying previously that when people sinned they died? And I'm pretty sure Pontius Pilate ordered him to be executed. Are you saying he orchestrated the whole thing? What evidence is there for that? Maybe you can explain it. 2. It doesn't matter whether you understand it or not; you believe it. That makes it immoral, to me. You still believe that people who do not believe what you do will go to hell (or is this not accurate? Again, anyone can be a christian now I think). You basically gave a non-answer, to my sensibilities. You say you don't decide who gets in and who doesn't, but you still believe what you have been told. How can you believe what you don't understand? This concept is completely foreign to me. I mean in a basic sense. If someone told me, such and such works in such a way, and here is why, I would either a) ask them to explain it further or b) not really believe it until I understand it. Like lets say... quantum mechanics. I don't really fully understand quantum mechanics. But it's been explained to me in such a way, and I've seen enough evidence, that I can sort of grasp what is going on (at least I think I do), so I believe it. How can you believe something you don't understand at all? That boggles my mind.
Do you see that in your pot you have made yourself/society the judges of God's morality? You disbelieve in God because he does not act as you would like him to.
I'm not going to get tangled in this, but i think it's interesting how many people reject God rather than really trying to understand. Which might be related to all the "I turned 12, mastered logic and disproved the existence of God" posts.
Lol i should not post in these threads!
|
On April 23 2013 07:29 Birdie wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2013 23:38 vOdToasT wrote:On April 22 2013 23:22 Treehead wrote:On April 22 2013 22:58 woreyour wrote:I am mature enough to know what is right or wrong. I don't need that to be "moral"; I just don't need to be an asshole. And best of all, I can fap without feeling bad about it. 100% of the people who say that they are mature enough to "know right from wrong" are just not mature enough to know that the distinction isn't always easy. You have a strange sense of what morality is - it is intended to be the set of rules which prevent a person from being "an asshole". Also, please read this: http://www.teamliquid.net/blogs/viewblog.php?id=346001Consider that sociopaths also view their version of morality (whereby some people are just supposed to die) to be completely legitimate. Now, explain why your views are superior without using statements like "everyone knows..." and "well obviously...". This is where religion/morality comes in. It gives people a context in which to discuss right and wrong. Outside of religion, there is no good and evil, there is only legal and illegal. That is a logical fallacy. Just because a being who created us says that something is moral, does not make it moral. If god was real and he really did order and / or condone the genocide and rape and slavery that's in the bible, it does not mean that it would be moral. It would still be evil. Morality can never be defined by an authority, no matter who it is. I don't know how moral the original poster is, but his morality can't be worse than that of catholicism. It's not actually a logical fallacy. You should look up divine command theory. Basically, if morality is defined by God, then no matter how often you say "premarital sex is not evil", that doesn't change how evil premarital sex is (assuming that the Christian God is the real and true God). Morality in that case is not a democracy, it's an absolute defined by God rather than humans. Show nested quote +2. It doesn't matter whether you understand it or not; you believe it. That makes it immoral, to me. You still believe that people who do not believe what you do will go to hell (or is this not accurate? Again, anyone can be a christian now I think). You basically gave a non-answer, to my sensibilities. You say you don't decide who gets in and who doesn't, but you still believe what you have been told. How can you believe what you don't understand? This concept is completely foreign to me. I mean in a basic sense. If someone told me, such and such works in such a way, and here is why, I would either a) ask them to explain it further or b) not really believe it until I understand it. Like lets say... quantum mechanics. I don't really fully understand quantum mechanics. But it's been explained to me in such a way, and I've seen enough evidence, that I can sort of grasp what is going on (at least I think I do), so I believe it. How can you believe something you don't understand at all? That boggles my mind. So believing something which you consider to be bad makes him immoral? I believe the Holocaust really happened, and that people in some countries die unjustly; that doesn't make me immoral for believing those things, does it? Unless you're saying that it's immoral for him to believe something which he doesn't understand.
No, I believe it is immoral for someone to believe that if someone does not believe what they believe, that non-believer suffers for all eternity (that is a lot of "believes"). I don't believe in any religion, and I don't particularly like most religious people, but I think it would be immoral for me to say or believe that anyone who doesn't agree with my position of agnostic atheism will suffer for all eternity. That strikes me as morally wrong.
And if you are just tuning in to the discussion, it should be quite clear that I think morality is subjective. But he asked what I felt about Christian doctrine was immoral, so I told him. It doesn't mean it is absolutely true.
|
I was raised to have as much freedom as I'd like. With regards to pretty much every aspect of my life, including religion. I haven't come across any compelling rational argument to be religious. So I am not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
