| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Robert" |
| Date: |
28 Dec 2003 10:00:17 PM |
| Object: |
Atheism and morality |
How do I argue with an atheist that something is right or wrong? I assume
that a true atheist must believe that there is no true "right" or "wrong",
but only what is best for the individual. It opens up some frightening
possibilities.
On what basis would I tell an atheist that, for example, raping and killing
a child, is wrong? Against the law of course. But lets say the person
thought that raping and killing a child was in their own best interests, and
they knew they could do it without getting caught. On what basis could I
argue that they should not do it even if they did not get caught? Seems
there would be no basis for arguing against it, and the most logical action
the person could take would be to do it.
Not being facetious. Really trying to understand.
.
|
|
| User: "Phylter" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and morality |
02 Jan 2004 03:38:37 AM |
|
|
"Robert" <bwooster1@remove.yahoo.com> astounded us with:
news:lFNHb.4227$wz4.1788075@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net:
How do I argue with an atheist that something is right or wrong?
You can *only* argue with an atheist about religion.
I am an atheist, I am a human being. To take a life is wrong, to subject
others with hurt is wrong, to break the law is wrong. You don't need religion
to tell you that. You've been duped into believing that you do.
What? Do you think we are fucking stupid? Aliens?
Here's a simple explanation, you used to believe in Santa Claus, so did I.
One day I figured that Santa Claus was pretend....
--
Phylter
Denizen of Darkness #44 & AFJC Antipodean Attaché
http://www.rudraigh.com/afjc/regulars.html
Change "freeway" to "hotmail" to respond
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Woden" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and morality |
28 Dec 2003 10:26:27 PM |
|
|
"Robert" <bwooster1@remove.yahoo.com> wrote in
news:lFNHb.4227$wz4.1788075@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net:
How do I argue with an atheist that something is right or wrong? I
assume that a true atheist
What's a "true atheist"?
must believe that there is no true "right"
or "wrong", but only what is best for the individual. It opens up
some frightening possibilities.
How is "right" or "wrong" defined? Can you provide something other than
subjective feelings about what is right or wrong?
On what basis would I tell an atheist that, for example, raping and
killing a child, is wrong? Against the law of course. But lets say
the person thought that raping and killing a child was in their own
best interests, and they knew they could do it without getting caught.
Why single out "atheists"? How do you convince anyone who wants to rape
and kill a child that this is wrong? How do you know it is wrong?
On what basis could I argue that they should not do it even if they
did not get caught? Seems there would be no basis for arguing against
it, and the most logical action the person could take would be to do
it.
Consider a couple of ideas. First is the logical and behavioral
advantage of following some version of the so called "golden rule" that
has been found in almost every society. "Treat others as you would
prefer to be treated." Second consider that as a social animal that has
survived because of our social behaviors and that as a result,
cooperative behavior is really in our best interest.
Not being facetious. Really trying to understand.
Where do you think moral behavior comes from?
--
Woden
"religion is a socio-political institution for the control of
people's thoughts, lives, and actions; based on
ancient myths and superstitions perpetrated through
generations of subtle yet pervasive brainwashing."
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and morality |
29 Dec 2003 03:02:30 AM |
|
|
"Robert" <bwooster1@remove.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:lFNHb.4227$wz4.1788075@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
How do I argue with an atheist that something is right or wrong?
It's usually easier if you utilize reason.
I assume
that a true atheist must believe that there is no true "right" or "wrong",
but only what is best for the individual. It opens up some frightening
possibilities.
Such as?
On what basis would I tell an atheist that, for example, raping and
killing
a child, is wrong?
If you need a rational argument, then point out that it is in the atheist's
best intrest to refrain.
Against the law of course. But lets say the person
thought that raping and killing a child was in their own best interests,
and
they knew they could do it without getting caught. On what basis could I
argue that they should not do it even if they did not get caught?
Be advised that your scenario is constructed in such a way that the atheist
is necessarily insane, and that his actions curiously have no consequences.
I can't see as an argument is going to do much good in such a situation.
Insane people do what they do.
Seems
there would be no basis for arguing against it, and the most logical
action
the person could take would be to do it.
Your scenario posits an insane atheist, and then points out the difficulty
in arguing the insane atheist away from his dire intent. Such an argument is
difficult whether the insane person is an atheist or not, so atheism is
really irrelevant to your scenario. A red herring, in other words.
You are really asking us how to argue an insane person out of doing
something. Reason usually DOESN'T work in these instances as insane people
are usually considered to be irrational.
Not being facetious. Really trying to understand.
Now I have a question. How does the theist avoid raping and killing
children? Is it only at the behest of their god? If so, that would suggest
that raping and killing children is what they would rather be doing.
Perhaps both the atheist and the theist don't rape and kill children for the
same reason: they're horrified at the very idea.
In other words, they're sane.
Their religion, or lack of it, really doesn't enter into it at all.
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Figinnn" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and morality |
29 Dec 2003 12:01:31 AM |
|
|
"Robert" <bwooster1@remove.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:lFNHb.4227$wz4.1788075@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
How do I argue with an atheist that something is right or wrong? I assume
that a true atheist must believe that there is no true "right" or "wrong",
but only what is best for the individual.
As a theist, I too think that is pure poppycock ... the majority of people
regardless of their belief system (or lack thereof) would likely not
subscribe to that silly interpretation.
It opens up some frightening possibilities.
Opened up by ignorance.
On what basis would I tell an atheist that, for example, raping and
killing
a child, is wrong?
Why would you feel the need to tell someone this?
Against the law of course.
There are some laws on the books which are frankly unnecessary. You don't
have to be a brain surgeon to realize that raping and killing a child is
typically a rather bad idea.
But lets say the person
thought that raping and killing a child was in their own best interests,
and
they knew they could do it without getting caught.
That person would be insane, except in the rarest of circumstances (which I
cannot even think of at this time)
On what basis could I
argue that they should not do it even if they did not get caught? Seems
there would be no basis for arguing against it, and the most logical
action
the person could take would be to do it.
Once again, why would you need to argue this? Humanity does not require a
religious set of ethics to survive. In essense, religion is merely a set of
additional laws, many times coupled with some belief that breaking the laws
has negative divine consequences.
Do not mix the two. Your statements appear to imply that people who don't
believe in deities have no basic moral code. I think in general, that's
hard-coded into our beings. Indeed, the "moral code" built into many
religions has little or nothing to do with the actual belief in the deity
and is also frankly unnecessary.
Yes, humanity needs God to tell us not to go kill our neighbor and ***** his
wife and molest his children, right? Do you not think we should be able to
figure that out for ourselves?
You make the rest of us theists look stupid. Strip off the chains of being
scared of going to hell, for the love of God. Do what you believe in your
heart is right ... more often than not, that will lead you in the right
direction. You wanna follow your religion? Well start by doing what the
man told you to do ... love your God and love your neighbor. Loving your
neighbor can also mean just leaving them be. Love them enough to accept all
people for who they are. If there are divine consequences for our actions,
we'll all have to pony up. If hell exists (which I do not believe) I fully
expect many Christians to be there with me.
Not being facetious. Really trying to understand.
Well I hope you read the replies to you.
Figinn
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dr. DuFonet" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and morality |
29 Dec 2003 09:56:55 PM |
|
|
"Robert" <bwooster1@remove.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:lFNHb.4227$wz4.1788075@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
How do I argue with an atheist that something is right or wrong? I assume
that a true atheist must believe that there is no true "right" or "wrong",
but only what is best for the individual. It opens up some frightening
possibilities.
Why would you assume that an atheist believes that the only right or wrong
is what's best for the individual? Are you assuming that the only place
your value system is available is in believing in God? An atheist might
recognize that religious teachings are the product of mankink without
rejecting whatever laws. Atheism and morality are two different subjects. In
your second paragraph you seem to be calling atheists pedophiles. Pedophiles
are created by having been severely abused as children and then having
developed sexually in an abnormal way mostly as a result of conditioning.
Has nothing to do with atheism, but a lot to do with misunderstanding of
religion by those who think they are practising it..
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ron Baker, Pluralitas!" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and morality |
29 Dec 2003 01:18:43 AM |
|
|
"Robert" <bwooster1@remove.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:lFNHb.4227$wz4.1788075@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
How do I argue with an atheist that something is right or wrong? I assume
that a true atheist must believe that there is no true "right" or "wrong",
but only what is best for the individual. It opens up some frightening
possibilities.
On what basis would I tell an atheist that, for example, raping and
killing
a child, is wrong? Against the law of course. But lets say the person
thought that raping and killing a child was in their own best interests,
and
they knew they could do it without getting caught. On what basis could I
argue that they should not do it even if they did not get caught? Seems
there would be no basis for arguing against it, and the most logical
action
the person could take would be to do it.
Not being facetious. Really trying to understand.
Your efforts would be better directed toward Christians
because they are measureably more likely to rape and
murder children.
-Ron
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Clayton the Transitional Fossil Wannabe" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and morality |
29 Dec 2003 01:36:49 AM |
|
|
"Robert" <bwooster1@remove.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:lFNHb.4227$wz4.1788075@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
How do I argue with an atheist that something is right or wrong? I assume
that a true atheist must believe that there is no true "right" or "wrong",
but only what is best for the individual. It opens up some frightening
possibilities.
"Right" and "wrong" are qualifications, just like hot and cold, good and
evil, dark and light...qualifications based on a judgement formed by a
shared human experience. Just because morality is relative doesn't mean it
doesn't exist. Most atheists are outstandingly moral...it's just that their
morality is based on real lives, real people, real situation, the reality of
the human condition and trying to live in the best possible society. You'll
get better advice and debate from an atheist who's feet are grounded in the
real modern world then some theists who's floating on the delusions of
ignorant nomads from thousands of years ago in ancient incomprehensible
foreign cultures with societal ideals irrelevant in the modern world.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Hypatia Kosh" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and morality |
29 Dec 2003 12:45:38 AM |
|
|
"Robert" <bwooster1@remove.yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<lFNHb.4227$wz4.1788075@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>...
How do I argue with an atheist that something is right or wrong? I assume
that a true atheist must believe that there is no true "right" or "wrong",
but only what is best for the individual. It opens up some frightening
possibilities.
On what basis would I tell an atheist that, for example, raping and killing
a child, is wrong? Against the law of course. But lets say the person
thought that raping and killing a child was in their own best interests, and
they knew they could do it without getting caught. On what basis could I
argue that they should not do it even if they did not get caught? Seems
there would be no basis for arguing against it, and the most logical action
the person could take would be to do it.
Not being facetious. Really trying to understand.
Well, some atheists like having a clean conscience. It's like Abraham
Lincoln said, everything we do is selfish. Helping people out when
they're in need makes us feel good, so our behavior appears to be
altruistic.
You have a point, in that logic will never deliver a moral system to
you, a priori. Fortunately logic is not the basis of human morality.
Our morality derives from millions of years of evolution, thousands of
years of culture, and a lifetime of socialization.
And I think that most of the atheists here would find your baby raping
fantasy pretty sick.
-Hypatia Kosh
--
Profanity is the inevitable linguistic crutch of the inarticulate
*****.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Owen Hughes" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and morality |
29 Dec 2003 12:39:46 AM |
|
|
How do I argue with an atheist that something is right or wrong? I assume
that a true atheist must believe that there is no true "right" or "wrong",
Yeah. If they believe in stuff like that we usually cut up their
membership card and ask for their official atheist beanie back.
but only what is best for the individual. It opens up some frightening
possibilities.
On what basis would I tell an atheist that, for example, raping and killing
a child, is wrong? Against the law of course. But lets say the person
thought that raping and killing a child was in their own best interests, and
they knew they could do it without getting caught. On what basis could I
argue that they should not do it even if they did not get caught? Seems
there would be no basis for arguing against it, and the most logical action
the person could take would be to do it.
Not being facetious. Really trying to understand.
Believing in right and wrong doesn't seem to slow catholic priests
down much on this front, does it?
The basis I'd argue this on (if I could be bothered) would basically
go something like:
1) Children below a certain age aren't held criminally responsible for
their actions
2) Children below a certain age can't consent to have sex for most of
the same reasons (mostly that they lack the ability and maturity to
properly think through the consequences of their actions and make an
informed decision)
3) Having sex with children below the age of consent is considered a
crime for this reason. If they can't decide to have sex with you then
you must be forcing your will on them.
4) Ditto rape & murder.
If you believe in the rights of the individual then in your example
you'd be infringing the child's rights as an individual.
You can't really believe in your own rights but not other people's can
you?
So... why did you pick this as an example? If you didn't believe in
whatever it is you believe in would you be out painting the town red
with dead babies?
Not being facetious. Really trying to understand.
.
|
|
|
| User: "the cutest atheist" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and morality |
30 Dec 2003 07:40:42 AM |
|
|
"Owen Hughes" <spm1138@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:caf1ce8c.0312282239.1dc517f5@posting.google.com...
How do I argue with an atheist that something is right or wrong? I
assume
that a true atheist must believe that there is no true "right" or
"wrong",
Yeah. If they believe in stuff like that we usually cut up their
membership card and ask for their official atheist beanie back.
mine have been taken several times. I always get em back, though. by raping
and killing kiddies
but only what is best for the individual. It opens up some frightening
possibilities.
On what basis would I tell an atheist that, for example, raping and
killing
a child, is wrong? Against the law of course. But lets say the person
thought that raping and killing a child was in their own best interests,
and
they knew they could do it without getting caught. On what basis could
I
argue that they should not do it even if they did not get caught? Seems
there would be no basis for arguing against it, and the most logical
action
the person could take would be to do it.
Not being facetious. Really trying to understand.
Believing in right and wrong doesn't seem to slow catholic priests
down much on this front, does it?
catholics can do whatever they like (the only unforgivable sin is blasphemy
of the holy fucking spirit) and get forgiven by confessing and saying a few
suckup lines to jebus' crackwhore of a mother
The basis I'd argue this on (if I could be bothered) would basically
go something like:
1) Children below a certain age aren't held criminally responsible for
their actions
2) Children below a certain age can't consent to have sex for most of
the same reasons (mostly that they lack the ability and maturity to
properly think through the consequences of their actions and make an
informed decision)
AND because it's physically dangerous to kids of a certain size to take a
*****. it's physically dangerous for women under 16 to have babies without
medical intervention, also
3) Having sex with children below the age of consent is considered a
crime for this reason. If they can't decide to have sex with you then
you must be forcing your will on them.
4) Ditto rape & murder.
If you believe in the rights of the individual then in your example
you'd be infringing the child's rights as an individual.
You can't really believe in your own rights but not other people's can
you?
So... why did you pick this as an example? If you didn't believe in
whatever it is you believe in would you be out painting the town red
with dead babies?
it would seem so. not just dead babies, but dead babies covered in semen.
Not being facetious. Really trying to understand.
if god were an existent entity, and asked me to harm another human being for
his glory/whatever, I would tell him/it to *****. in no uncertain terms.
compassion and morality really have nothing to do with god. ask job. ask
abraham. ask fucking jesus. god is a *****. immoral, unreliable, arbitrary
and immature. the bible tells me so. I have morality, and nothing forcing it
upon me except my own evolutionary conditioning and a desire to not see
others suffer. if you want to know how atheists manage the huge task of
being decent human beings without threat of punishment, look up secular
humanism. give it a go, even. celebrate being good minus the spectre of fear
shoving it up you.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Rathbun" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and morality |
29 Dec 2003 11:01:18 PM |
|
|
In alt.atheism on Mon, 29 Dec 2003 04:00:17 GMT,
"Robert" <bwooster1@remove.yahoo.com> wrote:
How do I argue with an atheist that something is right or wrong? I assume
that a true atheist must believe that there is no true "right" or "wrong",
but only what is best for the individual.
That works for me, as long as you let me define "true" in both clauses.
There is no way to get from "is" to "should", in rational discourse, without
introducing someone's opinion. Many sorts of theists consider God's opinions
to be universally normative, so they get an "absolute" frame of moral
reference simply by locking everything to a particular unchangeable standard
reference (as interpreted by local clergy).
Since I don't have any way of knowing what God's actual opinions might be,
assuming that both hypothetical entities exist, I rely on a more convenient
and unambiguous local opinion: my own.
Comparing my attitudes and behavior now with that during my tour of duty as a
Christian, I don't see a whole lot of difference; if anything I may actually
have become slightly more stodgy. Whether that's a function of unbelief or a
matter of chronological age is not a settled point.
As it happens, my quirky set of personal moral opinions has some strong fits
with the ones prevalent in the Christian groups I affiliated with. However,
the strong mismatches (especially the areas in which I felt that God and/or
his church were behaving immorally) were among the things that propelled me
out of belief.
What is best for me as an individual? Taken in a long enough view, nearly
everything that is best for me as an individual depends upon the success of
the society in which I live, and the personal success and well being of the
people I interact with. As a fundamental algorithm with general systems
applicability, "Don't do to another that which you would not wish to have done
to yourself" works nicely for me, and seems to be where my "moral compass"
points, when left to its own devices.
It opens up some frightening
possibilities.
Naah. At least, the number of seriously frightening Christians I have
encountered over the last 50 years far exceeds the number of alarming
atheists.
On what basis would I tell an atheist that, for example, raping and killing
a child, is wrong?
Why would you need to?
It is difficult to find any mention of a human society anywhere in which
sexual assault and murder of persons of any age is regarded as acceptable
behavior for individuals. (It may or may not be OK for the dominant religion
to do so. Consult local listings.)
If the atheist in question fails to see the wrongness of these things, then
he/she is broken in some way, and needs the attention of skilled
professionals. I really can't see much point in a dialog if this is the case.
Against the law of course. But lets say the person
thought that raping and killing a child was in their own best interests, and
they knew they could do it without getting caught.
As others have noted, there are recent famous incidents in which persons in
clerical orders have apparently not been deterred from rape of children
despite the presence of an apparently god-derived rigid moral framework in
their personal and professional lives.
On what basis could I
argue that they should not do it even if they did not get caught?
You're asking us?
If you have coherent beliefs about the origin and authority of moral impulses,
by all means put them into action and explain to this poor soul why his/her
ways will all end in tears. If the person truly is prone to sexual assault
and dangerous violence, however, you might want to think twice about the whole
project.
Seems
there would be no basis for arguing against it, and the most logical action
the person could take would be to do it.
If you are doing the arguing, then you'll need to argue from your viewpoint.
No sense in trying to
Not being facetious. Really trying to understand.
Same here.
mdr
--
The hits just keep on coming for poor "Nadine". See the sad tale
of email lists gone horribly wrong at <http://www.honet.com/Nadine/>
F - IW AA #2157 GEVNP
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Don Kresch" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and morality |
29 Dec 2003 06:40:25 AM |
|
|
In alt.atheism on Mon, 29 Dec 2003 04:00:17 GMT, "Robert"
<bwooster1@remove.yahoo.com> let us all know that:
How do I argue with an atheist that something is right or wrong? I assume
that a true atheist must believe that there is no true "right" or "wrong",
but only what is best for the individual.
You assume incorrectly.
On what basis would I tell an atheist that, for example, raping and killing
a child, is wrong?
On the basis that it violates a person's rights.
I doubt that you're really trying to understand. Please don't
lie.
Don
---
aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "George Ricker" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and morality |
29 Dec 2003 09:53:14 AM |
|
|
In article <lFNHb.4227$wz4.1788075@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>,
"Robert" <bwooster1@remove.yahoo.com> wrote:
How do I argue with an atheist that something is right or wrong? I assume
that a true atheist must believe that there is no true "right" or "wrong",
but only what is best for the individual. It opens up some frightening
possibilities.
Atheists don't believe in gods. That doesn't tell you anything about
what we as individuals think about morality.
Do you really believe the only options are that either there is an
absolute being who has issued absolute rules (your *true* "right" or
"wrong") or morality is a matter of individual whims and wishes? Where
do you think morals come from in the first place?
On what basis would I tell an atheist that, for example, raping and killing
a child, is wrong? Against the law of course. But lets say the person
thought that raping and killing a child was in their own best interests, and
they knew they could do it without getting caught. On what basis could I
argue that they should not do it even if they did not get caught? Seems
there would be no basis for arguing against it, and the most logical action
the person could take would be to do it.
On what basis would you hold such a discussion with anyone? Are you
really suggesting that the only thing that keeps people from raping and
killing children is their belief in a god of some description? Are you
really saying that the only reason you try to behave morally toward your
fellow human beings (assuming that you *do* act in such a manner) is
because something you call "God" wants it that way?
Now that's truly a frightening possibility.
Not being facetious. Really trying to understand.
OK, I'll assume that's the case. One measure of your sincerity will be
how you respond to those who have responded to your post. If you really
want to "understand" what atheists think (and we think as individuals,
not as a group), you should begin by asking us, not making assumptions.
--
George Ricker
The most accurate way to spell "one nation under 'God'" is T*H*E*O*C*R*A*C*Y.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and morality |
31 Dec 2003 12:47:31 AM |
|
|
In article <lFNHb.4227$wz4.1788075@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>,
"Robert" <bwooster1@remove.yahoo.com> wrote:
How do I argue with an atheist that something is right or wrong? I assume
that a true atheist must believe that there is no true "right" or "wrong",
but only what is best for the individual. It opens up some frightening
possibilities.
Morality comes from human reason and aspirations. I won't hit you over
the head with a rock if you don't hit me over the head with a rock.
Deal?
On what basis would I tell an atheist that, for example, raping and killing
a child, is wrong? Against the law of course.
That's a good deterrent.
But lets say the person
thought that raping and killing a child was in their own best interests, and
they knew they could do it without getting caught.
How could killing and raping a child possibly be in "one's best
interest"? All societies have had laws protecting children. To have
none would be detrimental to the society. A person who thought
otherwise is deranged and should be treated accordingly.
On what basis could I
argue that they should not do it even if they did not get caught? Seems
there would be no basis for arguing against it, and the most logical action
the person could take would be to do it.
No. I think that intelligent human beings could argue that such an
action is not in the interests of society or the group without a
sky-daddy telling them so.
Not being facetious. Really trying to understand.
--
John Hachmann, aa #1782
- Question authority. Now more than ever. -
.
|
|
|
| User: "bob young" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and morality |
31 Dec 2003 09:53:34 PM |
|
|
johac wrote:
In article <lFNHb.4227$wz4.1788075@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>,
"Robert" <bwooster1@remove.yahoo.com> wrote:
How do I argue with an atheist that something is right or wrong? I assume
that a true atheist must believe that there is no true "right" or "wrong",
but only what is best for the individual. It opens up some frightening
possibilities.
Morality comes from human reason and aspirations. I won't hit you over
the head with a rock if you don't hit me over the head with a rock.
Deal?
On what basis would I tell an atheist that, for example, raping and killing
a child, is wrong? Against the law of course.
That's a good deterrent.
But lets say the person
thought that raping and killing a child was in their own best interests, and
they knew they could do it without getting caught....
....no doubt that kind of priest that we hear about so frequently these days took
no notice of the 'good book' has no qualms!
How could killing and raping a child possibly be in "one's best
interest"? All societies have had laws protecting children. To have
none would be detrimental to the society. A person who thought
otherwise is deranged and should be treated accordingly.
On what basis could I
argue that they should not do it even if they did not get caught? Seems
there would be no basis for arguing against it, and the most logical action
the person could take would be to do it.
No. I think that intelligent human beings could argue that such an
action is not in the interests of society or the group without a
sky-daddy telling them so.
Not being facetious. Really trying to understand.
--
John Hachmann, aa #1782
- Question authority. Now more than ever. -
.
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and morality |
01 Jan 2004 01:08:32 AM |
|
|
In article <3FF39893.EA6F53B0@netvigator.com>,
bob young <alaspectrum@netvigator.com> wrote:
johac wrote:
In article <lFNHb.4227$wz4.1788075@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>,
"Robert" <bwooster1@remove.yahoo.com> wrote:
How do I argue with an atheist that something is right or wrong? I
assume
that a true atheist must believe that there is no true "right" or
"wrong",
but only what is best for the individual. It opens up some frightening
possibilities.
Morality comes from human reason and aspirations. I won't hit you over
the head with a rock if you don't hit me over the head with a rock.
Deal?
On what basis would I tell an atheist that, for example, raping and
killing
a child, is wrong? Against the law of course.
That's a good deterrent.
But lets say the person
thought that raping and killing a child was in their own best interests,
and
they knew they could do it without getting caught....
...no doubt that kind of priest that we hear about so frequently these days
took
no notice of the 'good book' has no qualms!
That's the strange part. The theists think that even if they commit
the most abominable sins, their god will forgive them. Atheists have
no such fallback position. We are responsible for our own actions and
must accept the consequences arising out of them.
--
John Hachmann, aa #1782
- Question authority. Now more than ever. -
.
|
|
|
| User: "William Klee" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and morality |
01 Jan 2004 02:47:58 AM |
|
|
In article
<jhachm-D9BF83.23083231122003@news-central.ash.giganews.com>, johac
<jhachm@remove.ixpres.com> wrote:
In article <3FF39893.EA6F53B0@netvigator.com>,
bob young <alaspectrum@netvigator.com> wrote:
johac wrote:
In article <lFNHb.4227$wz4.1788075@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>,
"Robert" <bwooster1@remove.yahoo.com> wrote:
How do I argue with an atheist that something is right or wrong? I
assume
that a true atheist must believe that there is no true "right" or
"wrong",
but only what is best for the individual. It opens up some frightening
possibilities.
Morality comes from human reason and aspirations. I won't hit you over
the head with a rock if you don't hit me over the head with a rock.
Deal?
On what basis would I tell an atheist that, for example, raping and
killing
a child, is wrong? Against the law of course.
That's a good deterrent.
But lets say the person
thought that raping and killing a child was in their own best
interests,
and
they knew they could do it without getting caught....
...no doubt that kind of priest that we hear about so frequently these days
took
no notice of the 'good book' has no qualms!
That's the strange part. The theists think that even if they commit
the most abominable sins, their god will forgive them. Atheists have
no such fallback position. We are responsible for our own actions and
must accept the consequences arising out of them.
Sometimes I think xians commit so many "sins" because they want to make
sure they're getting as much mileage as possible out of this alleged
sacrifice that supposedly happend not quite 2K years ago.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Liz" |
|
| Title: AQotM Nomination (Was: Re: Atheism and morality) |
01 Jan 2004 09:34:18 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 02:47:58 -0600, William Klee <fnord2k@yahoo.com>
in news message <010120040247586602%fnord2k@yahoo.com> wrote:
I nominate the following by William Klee for AQotM contest for
January:
Sometimes I think xians commit so many "sins" because they want to make
sure they're getting as much mileage as possible out of this alleged
sacrifice that supposedly happend not quite 2K years ago.
Forgiveness means never having to say you're sorry. Any seconds?
Überwench #658 Now a *real* atheist!
Dame Liz the Undaunted BAAWA
Charter Member of SMASH
and Queen of the known universe
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "bob young" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and morality |
01 Jan 2004 05:41:05 AM |
|
|
johac wrote:
In article <3FF39893.EA6F53B0@netvigator.com>,
bob young <alaspectrum@netvigator.com> wrote:
johac wrote:
In article <lFNHb.4227$wz4.1788075@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>,
"Robert" <bwooster1@remove.yahoo.com> wrote:
How do I argue with an atheist that something is right or wrong? I
assume
that a true atheist must believe that there is no true "right" or
"wrong",
but only what is best for the individual. It opens up some frightening
possibilities.
Morality comes from human reason and aspirations. I won't hit you over
the head with a rock if you don't hit me over the head with a rock.
Deal?
On what basis would I tell an atheist that, for example, raping and
killing
a child, is wrong? Against the law of course.
That's a good deterrent.
But lets say the person
thought that raping and killing a child was in their own best interests,
and
they knew they could do it without getting caught....
...no doubt that kind of priest that we hear about so frequently these days
took
no notice of the 'good book' has no qualms!
That's the strange part. The theists think that even if they commit
the most abominable sins, their god will forgive them. Atheists have
no such fallback position. We are responsible for our own actions and
must accept the consequences arising out of them.
quite so, we rely on modern law, they rely on outdated laws of a non existant
god, who, in some cases lets them off. nice one!
--
John Hachmann, aa #1782
- Question authority. Now more than ever. -
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Chris Bastian" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and morality |
29 Dec 2003 05:08:02 AM |
|
|
In article <lFNHb.4227$wz4.1788075@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>,
"Robert" <bwooster1@remove.yahoo.com> wrote:
How do I argue with an atheist that something is right or wrong? I assume
that a true atheist must believe that there is no true "right" or "wrong",
but only what is best for the individual. It opens up some frightening
possibilities.
You choose (intentionally?) to confuse "atheism" (the disbelief in a
deity) with "immorallity" (Conflicting with generally or traditionally
held moral principles), and seem to suggest that one cannot either
construct or adopt a moral framework absent a theological basis.
Consider the following: the Bibe in numerous sections makes reference
to the treatment of slaves. It does NOT say that slavery is inherently
immoral. Somehow, absent the lack of a theological underpinning, civil
society came to the conclusion that slavery was wrong and should be
abolished.
You also seem to imply that moral codes identified as theological in
their basis (e.g. the 10 Commandments) must be disavowed by atheists
because they don't believe in the alleged deity who conveyed them. Most
atheists I suspect would interpret ancient theological texts as civil
codes dressed up with religious grab to be more coercive on the populace
of the time. Doesn't make the underlying rules any less "right".
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "chibiabos" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and morality |
28 Dec 2003 11:09:53 PM |
|
|
In article <lFNHb.4227$wz4.1788075@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>, Robert
<bwooster1@remove.yahoo.com> wrote:
How do I argue with an atheist that something is right or wrong? I assume
that a true atheist must believe that there is no true "right" or "wrong",
but only what is best for the individual.
Very few atheists would agree with that assumption.
It opens up some frightening possibilities.
Only to those who think like you.
On what basis would I tell an atheist that, for example, raping and killing
a child, is wrong? Against the law of course. But lets say the person
thought that raping and killing a child was in their own best interests, and
they knew they could do it without getting caught. On what basis could I
argue that they should not do it even if they did not get caught? Seems
there would be no basis for arguing against it, and the most logical action
the person could take would be to do it.
Not being facetious. Really trying to understand.
Your assumptions about atheists are way off the mark, so you're asking
irrelevent questions.
Atheists do not live in a vacuum. We live in a society, just like you
do. Absent the occasional aberration, we conform to the rules of
society in order to continue to enjoy its benefits, just like you do.
(It is not logical to commit serious crime on the assumption that you
won't get caught. Intelligent people know that the odds are not in
their favor.)
-chib
--
Member of SMASH:
Sarcastic Middle-aged Atheists with a Sense of Humor
(email: change out to in)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "William Klee" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and morality |
29 Dec 2003 12:39:00 PM |
|
|
In article <lFNHb.4227$wz4.1788075@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>, Robert
<bwooster1@remove.yahoo.com> wrote:
How do I argue with an atheist that something is right or wrong? I assume
that a true atheist must believe that there is no true "right" or "wrong",
but only what is best for the individual.
Why do you assume that? Before questioning atheists, you should
question your assumptions.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and morality |
29 Dec 2003 08:26:33 AM |
|
|
In article <lFNHb.4227$wz4.1788075@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>, Robert says...
How do I argue with an atheist that something is right or wrong? I assume
that a true atheist must believe that there is no true "right" or "wrong",
but only what is best for the individual. It opens up some frightening
possibilities.
On what basis would I tell an atheist that, for example, raping and killing
a child, is wrong? Against the law of course. But lets say the person
thought that raping and killing a child was in their own best interests, and
they knew they could do it without getting caught. On what basis could I
argue that they should not do it even if they did not get caught? Seems
there would be no basis for arguing against it, and the most logical action
the person could take would be to do it.
Not being facetious. Really trying to understand.
So, are you telling us that the ONLY reason you don't go out and rape and murder
children is because you believe you'll be punished in the afterlife?
Now, THAT'S scary.
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mekkala" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and morality |
29 Dec 2003 01:10:17 PM |
|
|
On 28 Dec 2003, "Robert" <bwooster1@remove.yahoo.com> screwed up his
face, groaned, pushed hard, and farted out the following message in
news:lFNHb.4227$wz4.1788075@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net:
On what basis would I tell an atheist that, for example, raping and
killing a child, is wrong?
What does this question tell us? It tells us that certain people can't
figure out why it's wrong to rape and kill a child. It tells us that
those people (if they are to be prevented from raping and killing
children) must be given reasons to avoid such behavior, or else they'll
have no clue there's anything wrong with it. Since these people are so
(monu)mentally retarded as to be completely unable to comprehend logical
reasons not to go around raping and killing children, the rules given
them must be very, very simple, so as not to cause undue confusion in
their very small brains.
Enter religion; for what answer is simpler than "God says thou shalt
not"?
--
Mekkala, Atheist #2148
"Atheism is ... the bed-rock of sanity in a world of madness."
--Emmett F. Fields
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Popelish" |
|
| Title: Nomination AQOTM was:Re: Atheism and morality |
29 Dec 2003 07:49:58 PM |
|
|
Mekkala wrote:
What does this question tell us? It tells us that certain people can't
figure out why it's wrong to rape and kill a child. It tells us that
those people (if they are to be prevented from raping and killing
children) must be given reasons to avoid such behavior, or else they'll
have no clue there's anything wrong with it. Since these people are so
(monu)mentally retarded as to be completely unable to comprehend logical
reasons not to go around raping and killing children, the rules given
them must be very, very simple, so as not to cause undue confusion in
their very small brains.
Enter religion; for what answer is simpler than "God says thou shalt
not"?
This simple minded question comes up often enough that this direct
explanation deserves to be carved into some rock and placed in some
public place (but not in the court house). I nominate it for atheist
quote of the month.
--
John Popelish
.
|
|
|
| User: "Harry Leopold" |
|
| Title: Re: Nomination AQOTM was:Re: Atheism and morality |
29 Dec 2003 09:56:12 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 19:49:58 -0600, John Popelish wrote
(in message <3FF0DA16.76FB3FBD@rica.net>):
From: John Popelish <jpopelish@rica.net>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Mekkala wrote:
What does this question tell us? It tells us that certain people can't
figure out why it's wrong to rape and kill a child. It tells us that
those people (if they are to be prevented from raping and killing
children) must be given reasons to avoid such behavior, or else they'll
have no clue there's anything wrong with it. Since these people are so
(monu)mentally retarded as to be completely unable to comprehend logical
reasons not to go around raping and killing children, the rules given
them must be very, very simple, so as not to cause undue confusion in
their very small brains.
Enter religion; for what answer is simpler than "God says thou shalt
not"?
This simple minded question comes up often enough that this direct
explanation deserves to be carved into some rock and placed in some
public place (but not in the court house). I nominate it for atheist
quote of the month.
I like it, I second it.
--
Harry F. Leopold
aa #2076
AA/Vet #4
The Prints of Darkness
"No gods were harmed during the making of this post" - Ernest Fairchild
.
|
|
|
| User: "*nemo*" |
|
| Title: Re: Nomination AQOTM was:Re: Atheism and morality |
31 Dec 2003 04:52:31 AM |
|
|
In article <0001HW.BC16537C0054A921F02845B0@news.central.cox.net>,
Harry Leopold <hleopold@cox.net> wrote:
On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 19:49:58 -0600, John Popelish wrote
(in message <3FF0DA16.76FB3FBD@rica.net>):
From: John Popelish <jpopelish@rica.net>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Mekkala wrote:
What does this question tell us? It tells us that certain people can't
figure out why it's wrong to rape and kill a child. It tells us that
those people (if they are to be prevented from raping and killing
children) must be given reasons to avoid such behavior, or else they'll
have no clue there's anything wrong with it. Since these people are so
(monu)mentally retarded as to be completely unable to comprehend logical
reasons not to go around raping and killing children, the rules given
them must be very, very simple, so as not to cause undue confusion in
their very small brains.
Enter religion; for what answer is simpler than "God says thou shalt
not"?
This simple minded question comes up often enough that this direct
explanation deserves to be carved into some rock and placed in some
public place (but not in the court house). I nominate it for atheist
quote of the month.
I like it, I second it.
Recorded.
--
Nemo - EAC Commissioner for Bible Belt Underwater Operations.
Atheist #1331 (the Palindrome of doom!)
BAAWA Knight! - One of those warm Southern Knights, y'all!
Charter member, SMASH!!
http://home.earthlink.net/~jehdjh/Relpg.html
Draco Dormiens Nunquam Titillandus
Quotemeister since March 2002
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Martin Thomas" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and morality |
31 Dec 2003 10:46:02 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 19:10:17 GMT in alt.atheism
Mekkala <joremovedathiskimtoreply@attbi.com> wrote:
On 28 Dec 2003, "Robert" <bwooster1@remove.yahoo.com> screwed up his
face, groaned, pushed hard, and farted out the following message in
news:lFNHb.4227$wz4.1788075@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net:
On what basis would I tell an atheist that, for example, raping and
killing a child, is wrong?
What does this question tell us? It tells us that certain people can't
figure out why it's wrong to rape and kill a child. It tells us that
those people (if they are to be prevented from raping and killing
children) must be given reasons to avoid such behavior, or else they'll
have no clue there's anything wrong with it. Since these people are so
(monu)mentally retarded as to be completely unable to comprehend logical
reasons not to go around raping and killing children, the rules given
them must be very, very simple, so as not to cause undue confusion in
their very small brains.
Enter religion; for what answer is simpler than "God says thou shalt
not"?
In some situations that may have done more good than harm, at
least in the short term.
I can well understand why Christian Europe was so anxious to
convert thee Vikings to Christianity. The Vikings were extremely
vicious, routinely torturing prisoners to death as an offering to
their gods. At the same time they were the best fighters in
Europe and they were very skilled craftsmen, making the best
ships in the world. The armies of Europe could not stand up to
them - so the missionaries were sent in.
But it is time for humanity to grow up, the psychological damage
of believing in Hell is a heavy burden we would all be better off
without.
-
Martin Thomas
mart666t@netscape.NO.HAWKERS.net
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Brainfried" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and morality |
28 Dec 2003 10:44:53 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 04:00:17 +0000, Robert wrote:
How do I argue with an atheist that something is right or wrong? I
assume that a true atheist must believe that there is no true "right" or
"wrong", but only what is best for the individual. It opens up some
frightening possibilities.
On what basis would I tell an atheist that, for example, raping and
killing a child, is wrong? Against the law of course. But lets say the
person thought that raping and killing a child was in their own best
interests, and they knew they could do it without getting caught. On
what basis could I argue that they should not do it even if they did not
get caught? Seems there would be no basis for arguing against it, and
the most logical action the person could take would be to do it.
Not being facetious. Really trying to understand.
Of course there is right and wrong, but we don't let a fictitious book
confuse us.
Simple. Live and let live and leave alone. It's common sense.
It's the Bible that confuses people.
Look what the Bible has to say about it.
http://www.evilbible.com/Rape.htm
http://www.evilbible.com/Murder.htm
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "MarkA" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and morality |
29 Dec 2003 05:48:48 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 04:00:17 +0000, Robert wrote:
How do I argue with an atheist that something is right or wrong? I assume
that a true atheist must believe that there is no true "right" or "wrong",
but only what is best for the individual. It opens up some frightening
possibilities.
On what basis would I tell an atheist that, for example, raping and
killing a child, is wrong? Against the law of course. But lets say the
person thought that raping and killing a child was in their own best
interests, and they knew they could do it without getting caught. On what
basis could I argue that they should not do it even if they did not get
caught? Seems there would be no basis for arguing against it, and the
most logical action the person could take would be to do it.
Not being facetious. Really trying to understand.
Many bible-thumpers are really stuck on the idea of "absolute" right and
wrong, which is religion-based and good, versus "relative" right and
wrong, which is humanistic, liberal, and bad. The fun begins when you try
to get them to commit to just what "absolute morals" are. It doesn't take
much inspection to find out that it means "whatever I believe is
right/wrong in the current culture."
It turns out that the only difference between "absolute" and "relative"
morals are that the bible-thumpers who like to crow about absolute morals
don't like dealing with the fact that the real world is full of
inconvenient shades of gray, that require *individuals* to make
*thoughtful* choices based on a *rational* system of ethics.
--
MarkA
(still caught in the maze of twisty little passages, all different)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "spakka" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and morality |
29 Dec 2003 06:14:48 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 04:00:17 +0000, Robert wrote:
How do I argue with an atheist that something is right or wrong? I assume
that a true atheist must believe that there is no true "right" or "wrong",
but only what is best for the individual. It opens up some frightening
possibilities.
On what basis would I tell an atheist that, for example, raping and killing
a child, is wrong?
Why is it always raping and killing children with you people? Why
don't you ever choose, say, shoplifting or tax evasion for your argument?
Very disturbing.
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
