Atheist Question
Posted on: Fri, 2006-10-13 18:44
Offline
Atheist Question
Do atheists believe in morals such as Right and Wrong? If no, why? If yes, why?
User login
Navigation
RRS Websites
This site is part of the Rational Response Squad network of sites. Your username/password will work at these sites:
Other sites...
Offline Who's online
There are currently 0 users and 34 guests online.
Because without them, society would have a hard time. I have my own personal reasons, such as I feel bad about certain actions. But in terms of an objective idea, morals are required. I'm not talking theistic morality, as in preventing people from doing things you don't want to do, I'm talking objective morality, as in preventing suffering and promoting happiness. Morality to me is simply that which ought be done in order to create a balanced, orderly society. There's more for each SPECIFIC issue, but in general, I don't do things I wouldn't want people doing to me, because in such a large world, that probably would happen without certain laws forbidding it.
Example
Since most people don't like being murdered, we have laws against murder
So you don't believe people are born with a natural sense of Right and Wrong?
I remember when my little cousin who was 2-3 years old would steal candy from our candy drawr. She knew she was doing something wrong because she would do it in secrecy when she thought no one was watching. We watched her do it a few times and then finally confronted her about it in the act. She immediately started crying and apologized.
I think it's obvious she was looking out for her own personal reasons, but she KNEW she had done wrong. No one had to tell her it was wrong what she was doing, she just knew.
Also, if you could tell me why you feel bad about certain actions?
Write and wrong is conditioning from your society. Had your cousin grown up in community that when and took things from one another all the time without asking she would think doing this was perfectly acceptable.
There is always some nurture over nature when it comes to moral obligations.
morals have got to do with evolution
primarily, it is to increase the chances of survival; but it's secondary result is to make things more convenient for each other
that is; people who help each other and don't fight each other are much better off
however:
"right" and "wrong" (unless you are talking about absolute truth) are subjective. they are just concepts used to describe things that people think should or should not be; and this depends on the person's circumstances, including their worldview and what's happening around them.
for example, if a person really heavily believes in a certain religeon (their worldview), and their religeon may tell them to kill all those who do not believe in his/her religeon.
in other words, this person sees killing the others as "right" - and it's because of his worldview and circumstances
however, the majority of people see it as "wrong"
and this is a good thing for survival
*edit*
double post (my wireless connection isn't very strong)
[quote=Kian]Write and wrong is conditioning from your society. Had your cousin grown up in community that when and took things from one another all the time without asking she would think doing this was perfectly acceptable.
There is always some nurture over nature when it comes to moral obligations.[/quote]
So your saying if my cousin and my family grew up in Mexico City or Baghdad stealing would not be wrong?
[quote]So your saying if my cousin and my family grew up in Mexico City or Baghdad stealing would not be wrong?[/quote]"wrong" is subjective, and depends on the circumstances and the person/peoples' worldview
[quote=Prerunner05]Do atheists believe in morals such as Right and Wrong? If no, why? If yes, why?[/quote]
This will help...
From: http://www.asktheatheist.com/question/where_do_atheists_get_their_morals_from
[quote=Prerunner05][quote=Kian]Write and wrong is conditioning from your society. Had your cousin grown up in community that when and took things from one another all the time without asking she would think doing this was perfectly acceptable.
There is always some nurture over nature when it comes to moral obligations.[/quote]
So your saying if my cousin and my family grew up in Mexico City or Baghdad stealing would not be wrong? [/quote]
no just saying that if your cousin grew up in a close and small environment where the community just took things from one another without asking and noone did anything to signify that it was something bad to do...then yea your cousin would be stealing things right now.....have you not seen people raised this way because they were literally taught this way durring childhood....that developmental stage is where we learn our most basic and key aspects of morality
[quote=Toryn][quote=Prerunner05][quote=Kian]Write and wrong is conditioning from your society. Had your cousin grown up in community that when and took things from one another all the time without asking she would think doing this was perfectly acceptable.
There is always some nurture over nature when it comes to moral obligations.[/quote]
So your saying if my cousin and my family grew up in Mexico City or Baghdad stealing would not be wrong? [/quote]
no just saying that if your cousin grew up in a close and small environment where the community just took things from one another without asking and noone did anything to signify that it was something bad to do...then yea your cousin would be stealing things right now.....have you not seen people raised this way because they were literally taught this way durring childhood....that developmental stage is where we learn our most basic and key aspects of morality[/quote]
exacta-mundo. merci toryn.
What is considered wrong here, isn't always wrong somewhere else (just as someone above said, it's subjective). Like the ancient minoan civilization ate babies... we may think thats 'wrong' but it was simply part of their culture.
I do not think that people are born with a hard-wired sense of right and wrong. Lawrence Kohlberg has the most accepted model of morality as follows:
Stage one: Avoiding punishment ["It wasn't me."]
Stage two: Self gratification ["What's in it for me?"]
Stage three: Protection of approval from others ["be a good boy"]
Stage four: Follow guidelines [because they maintain order]
Stage five: The greater good [democracy]
Stage six: Universal ethical principles [Golden Rule]
Your cousin was probably in between levels one and two, risking possible punishment for the candy. She did it secretly because she knew that if people saw her they would punish her for doing that. Because of this, I think that she was mainly using the first stage of morality: she did it secretly only because she knew it was wrong and that she would be punished, which she tried to avoid.
She probably knew it was wrong just because she had picked it up [i]somewhere[/i]. It's hard to go three years without having someone say "stealing is wrong" and punishing her for it.
Her reaction was to start crying when she was confronted, which means something different from how you or I might cry if caught doing something wrong. We might cry because we feel bad for what she did; she most likely was just upset because she did not want to undergo punishment.
The reasons we feel bad after we do certain things can also be explained by the moral stages. I'll use the example of theft:
Stage one: The person does not feel guilt, therefore they only feel bad if they are caught, and that is self-pity for their punishment.
Stage two: Again, no guilt because the person does not give favors. They feel no remorse unless they fail in stealing the object because they received nothing from their efforts.
Stage three: The subkect feels guilt because they realize that others judge them and they know they are being judged negatively (or would be) if people knew of their actions.
Stage four: Basically the same thing, except the person feels guilt from society overall because they feel that they have done something to harm it.
Stage five: The person feels bad only if the theft was not for the greater good, this time because it harms the majority of people.
Stage six: The person feels bad only if they violated their own moral precepts, for example realizing that someone else may need those tickets more than they do.
Atheist can not call something right or wrong but only say what they like or dislike and that is what it basically comes down to if the atheist world view is true. We are just matter in motion why should we care about what one biological bag does to another? I would also ask why is causing harm wrong?
I agree with a lot of the other freethinkers on here; there was also a good webpage explaining secular morality - http://ministerturnsatheist.org/moralitywithoutgod.html
Morals come from rights and rights come from ownership.
You don't own me, leave me alone. I don't own you, I'll leave you alone.
There is no social contract, on general principles of law and reason. If there was, it could only be binding if signed, and only according to the terms of the contract. Because the terms of the contract are unknown to anybody, the contract can necessarily be binding upon nobody even if signed, but it never was. So don't call it a contract.
There is an implicit understanding that if you don't leave other people alone, they start hitting and kicking and shooting at you in protest. But it's not a contract.
Interesting point Zhwazi, but when I looked up "contract" in the dictionary, the first result was
"an agreement between two or more parties for the doing or not doing of something specified."
Also, on the site, it said "contract behavior" meaning an implicit understanding between animals, not a contract in which the creatures decided on what was "right" and "wrong" amongst them.
I would also say it was partly due to natural selection. Like, one group of creatures is born with a tendency to be more "civilized" whereas some are not. The more "civilized" animals survive in a society and multiply, but the others die out since they can't cooperate with each other.
Well that basically comes down to whom people they have rights for. Fred thinks he has the right to beat you over the head wih a club and eat your unconcious corpse. An in regard to the last thing you said what if a person doesn't care about the results of his actions and it seems that it once again comes down to your opinions vs someone elses. Maybe you have more people who like what you like but it comes down just to that. Perhaps one day he'll get more people to agree with him and they can all enjoy doing evil (on the basis of the Christian world view) acts together because they have the numbers to back it up.
[quote=Presup]Well that basically comes down to whom people they have rights for. Fred thinks he has the right to beat you over the head wih a club and eat your unconcious corpse. An in regard to the last thing you said what if a person doesn't care about the results of his actions and it seems that it once again comes down to your opinions vs someone elses. Maybe you have more people who like what you like but it comes down just to that. Perhaps one day he'll get more people to agree with him and they can all enjoy doing evil (on the basis of the Christian world view) acts together because they have the numbers to back it up.[/quote]
If Fred was a rationalist, he would think about WHY he had such a right. His rationalist instincts would tell him he had no right to do so unless he had a valid reason (ie, being attacked).
[quote=Presup]Well that basically comes down to whom people they have rights for.[/quote]
That wording was confusing, could you rephrase that?
[quote]Fred thinks he has the right to beat you over the head wih a club and eat your unconcious corpse.[/quote]
Then he is an animal and doesn't have the rights a person does.
[quote]An in regard to the last thing you said what if a person doesn't care about the results of his actions and it seems that it once again comes down to your opinions vs someone elses.[/quote]
My opinions about what I allow people to do with me vs someone else's opinions about what I should allow people to do with me. It's my fucking body, I have exclusive irresponsible say in whit I do with my body, not them. If they respect my ownership of myself, then they won't try to force their will on me. If they don't respect ownership, then they reject the concept of ownership, and they necessarily reject any claim in ownership of themselves if they dare to be consistent, meaning I would essentially own him and be able to do whatever I want to him.
[quote]Maybe you have more people who like what you like but it comes down just to that.[/quote]
How many people are on my side is irrelevant to the issue of justice. A lynch mob doesn't have justice on it's side just because it has more people in one area than it has enemies.
[quote]Perhaps one day he'll get more people to agree with him and they can all enjoy doing evil (on the basis of the Christian world view) acts together because they have the numbers to back it up.[/quote]
Let them do evil among themselves. But let them attempt to do evil to me, then I let them eat lead.
I meant to put in the word think there. So it was meant to say it comes down to whom people think have rights. In regards to what you said about fred why should he even care about your rights at all and who says these are the rights. It appears you repeatedly beg the question throughout your response by assuming there is some standard of right and wrong when that is what is trying to be proven. You use words such as evil and rights without proving that such things could possibliy exist within your world view. And in regards to your last statement what if a person does not care about being killed? It seems that just because you both differ in opinion about the subject that you are willing to kill him over it.So I will state the question again that has not been answered on what basis do you call something right or wrong or someone good or evil?
In short, the answer is a rationality between animals who understood they weren't to harm each other, etc. unless for a valid reason. That basic morality got more and more complex as the creatures evolved into more intelligent beings. (Also, I think most theists have become so dependent on their god-based morality that they cannot imagine being moral without the guidance of an archaic book.)
[quote=Presup]I meant to put in the word think there. So it was meant to say it comes down to whom people think have rights.[/quote]
People who aren't attacking each other unprovoked have rights. If you think I don't have rights, but you can't prove that, anything you do to me will result in me taking you to court if you're lucky and blowing your head off if you're not.
[quote]In regards to what you said about fred why should he even care about your rights at all and who says these are the rights. It appears you repeatedly beg the question throughout your response by assuming there is some standard of right and wrong when that is what is trying to be proven.[/quote]
Well "Morality" is "Preferred behavior". Preferred behavior certainly does exist. Most people prefer that you not steal their stuff, tell them what to do, or kill them. So that is the preferred behavior. Now that it can be said what the preferred behavior is, we can say with certainty that preferred behavior exists. And morality is preferred behavior, and morality is determination of right and wrong. So right and wrong do exist.
[quote]You use words such as evil and rights without proving that such things could possibliy exist within your world view.[/quote]
Ownership requires ownership of self; ownership of self requires you to own your past, present, and future, which are your property, liberty, and life, respectively. You only have rights to have these left alone and do what you want with them. Theft, slavery, and murder violate ownership of self, (property, liberty, and life, respectively) and so in a world where people can own anything, rights have to exist. And people can own things, so rights exist. Violation of rights is wrong.
[quote]what if a person does not care about being killed?[/quote]
Then they won't mind if I kill them, will they?
[quote]...on what basis do you call something right or wrong or someone good or evil?[/quote]
On the basis of whether they are respecting my rights or not.
I think there may be a little more to the definition of Morality, but generally it makes sense. I think the reason most people make the disconnect is because they don't take Morality to include Taboos, because of some overwhelming desire to have simple rules for every situation. Hmm... I need to ponder this more obviously, but I would like to say that everyone is over- simplifying. There are exceptions (it appears) to each general statement. If everyone recognizes this, I think the other side will make more sense.
well it basically once again comes down to subjectivism. One person prefers one thing while another prefers something else. Maybe you prefer your right protected but maybe a person prefers the negation of that. Also it basically seems by your first respose that you are in a way saying might makes right. So on this logic Hitler was basically justified i his actions since he has the man power to do so. And the response to your third to last comment is really complex. It goes something like this: Who cares? Why should I care about your "ownership of self" and I have a feeling that you are just going to once again say well if you don't you will have the person locked up or assault them. Ok but that is not a justifcation in the slightest for your actions. Once again your just showing that you like some things and get ma when people don't do what you like without any basis to be mad at them since that is what they prefer. Sorry this is out of order but in regards to your first comment how/why do people have rights? We're all just matter in motion. Biological bags that work according to what our brains tell us. In the big scheem of things according to your world view wew are no more sigificant than anthing else in the universe.
Also since this is taking so long any of you are welcom to im me so that this can be quicker. My aim screen name is TribulationSaint. Feel free to im me anytime with your respnses.
[quote=Presup]well it basically once again comes down to subjectivism.[/quote]
Intersubjective. Morality is intersubjective.
[quote]One person prefers one thing while another prefers something else.[/quote]
Yes.
[quote]Maybe you prefer your right protected but maybe a person prefers the negation of that.[/quote]
They'll eat lead. If they want to do something to someone, they can do it to themselves. They have no right to do as they please with me. If you want absolute exclusive control over something, BUY IT. If you start using something in a store, you might prefer to use it now, but the person owning it disagrees, and you have to pay for it. I don't care if you don't respect my rights. If you don't, you eat lead.
[quote]Also it basically seems by your first respose that you are in a way saying might makes right.[/quote]
No. Might is how Rights are enforced. If might made right, I wouldn't be arguing about rights, would I? Anything that happened would be moral. Then there's no point arguing about ownership and rights.
[quote]So on this logic Hitler was basically justified i his actions since he has the man power to do so.[/quote]
That's not what I'm saying at all.
[quote]And the response to your third to last comment is really complex. It goes something like this: Who cares? Why should I care about your "ownership of self" and I have a feeling that you are just going to once again say well if you don't you will have the person locked up or assault them.[/quote]
If you don't respect my ownership of self, I won't respect your ownership of self. It's not complicated. Aggression should be responded to with retaliation. If you don't respect rights, you lose all of yours.
[quote]Ok but that is not a justifcation in the slightest for your actions.[/quote]
If you give up your rights, I don't have to justify my actions to anyone. There are people and there is property. If you attack me, you are not a person, you become my property, and because you make yourself my property, I don't have to justify my actions to anyone.
[quote]Once again your just showing that you like some things and get ma when people don't do what you like without any basis to be mad at them since that is what they prefer.[/quote]
I don't get mad at people that don't do what I like.
I get mad at people who get mad at people that don't do what they like.
There's a big difference here. I don't enforce my will on others, that's slavery. I enforce my will not to have others' will enforced on me. I do not initiate force. I only retaliate. You can very easily avoid my retaliations by leaving me alone. I won't force my will on you unprovoked.
[quote]Sorry this is out of order but in regards to your first comment how/why do people have rights? We're all just matter in motion. Biological bags that work according to what our brains tell us. In the big scheem of things according to your world view wew are no more sigificant than anthing else in the universe.[/quote]
Oh for chrissakes you're impossible. I'm not saying people are just fleshbags with brains. It appears to me that you're the one saying that. I'm saying people have rights, you're disagreeing with me. Without rights, people are fleshbags with brains. Do you think people have rights or not?
If people don't have rights, give me one good reason why I don't just take an AK and drive through downtown Miami killing people. If people have no rights, doing so is perfectly legitemate. There is nothing wrong with it whatsoever, after all, I would just be setting into motion coincidental chains of events which send high-veolicty copper-jacketed pieces of lead into sacks of flesh and bone, right? There's nothing wrong with that, if people do not have any rights.
"Rights" are the application of the golden rule of do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Do you want to kill me? Fine, I'll kill you. Do you think I'm your slave? I'll make you my bitch. If you think mine is yours, then you become mine. And if you are my property, I'll do whatever I want to you.
Do you own yourself? If not, who owns you? Does society own you? Does some government own you? Do your parents own you? No, you own yourself. Part of ownership is exclusivity. If X belongs to me, and Y belongs to you, you cannot simply take X and do whatever you want with it, and I cannot simply take Y and do whatever I want with it. If my body and my property are X, and your body and your property are Y, I don't give a flying fuck if you disagree with what should be done with X, ITS NOT YOURS TO CHOOSE WHAT TO DO WITH. If you disagree, fine. But the moment you try to enforce your disagreement, eat some fucking lead.
And do your computer and your tech support a big favor: Uninstall AIM right now. I care about my computer far too much to even want to touch that protocol.
Ok once again you are inconsistant. Again, again , again why in the world do people have value? You give these arbirtary titltes like they have meaning within your world view. If Evolution and bibg bang cosmology is true how in the world can you give any thing rights over something else. You are now just stating things and not backing them up. Since we're doing that I'll just say your wrong and that can be the end of or conversation. You also assume this rule of ownership for no reason whatsoever. Your just throwing out arbitrary rules that you like to live by and your trying to force them on other people without any justification. The next time you do this (because you have done it about 4 times now) I'm just going to put this: :() In the text and you will no my response of you once again being arbitrary and just making assumptions and once again BEGGING THE QUESTION. I suggest you look that up so you do not do this again and want people to take your arguements seriously.
I think Zhwazi is covering it pretty well especially since he's opponent seems to have gotten a straw man into his head and is arguing against that. I just have two questions for you Presuppy-
1) How does the fact that we are made of carbons, electrons, nerve cells, and chemicals lessen the worth of morals and ideals like equality?
2) You will currently say, perhaps, that it is wrong to kill an innocent child- perhaps because you think God tells you so. Now, if God told you to kill an innocent child and if you believe that everything that God says is right, would you do it? If no, why not? Are you willing to disobey God? For what, a higher and a different set of moral principles that are in fact superior to him. Or if yes, how can you say that you subscribe to a higher set of morals when they are whimsically resting upon the [i]subjective[/i] will of a being that can change at any time?
[quote=Presup]Ok once again you are inconsistant.[/quote]
Point out the inconsistency.
[quote]Again, again , again why in the world do people have value?[/quote]
Why do you have value? That's why everyone else does.
[quote]You give these arbirtary titltes like they have meaning within your world view. If Evolution and bibg bang cosmology is true how in the world can you give any thing rights over something else.[/quote]
Because there are micro-realms within objective reality, subjective realms, which some objects have and others do not.
[quote]You are now just stating things and not backing them up.[/quote]
You're just not listening to me. Why don't YOU try answering some of MY questions? You haven't done so, you're just sitting there saying "LOL UR RONG CUZ I SED SO."
[quote]Since we're doing that I'll just say your wrong and that can be the end of or conversation.[/quote]
If you are going to keep making no attempt to understand what I'm telling you, nobody cares if you say I'm wrong.
[quote]You also assume this rule of ownership for no reason whatsoever.[/quote]
I'm sure you already understand and apply the system of ownership, and would continue doing so even if everyone converted to atheism in a moment. I'm not sure why you're even questioning it.
[quote]Your just throwing out arbitrary rules that you like to live by and your trying to force them on other people without any justification.[/quote]
If people don't have rights, then what exactly is wrong with me forcing my beliefs down others' throats? You at one moment argue that people might be mere sacks of flesh, then assume I am correct and that my shoving my beliefs down others' throats is somehow wrong. End the doublethink.
[quote]The next time you do this (because you have done it about 4 times now) I'm just going to put this: :() In the text and you will no my response of you once again being arbitrary and just making assumptions and once again BEGGING THE QUESTION. I suggest you look that up so you do not do this again and want people to take your arguements seriously.[/quote]
Alright, let's start with the basics.
I think, therefore I am.
I have reason to believe that others think and exist as well.
I realize that my thoughts exist subjectively, but my actions are objective, in a realm which is in neither mine no anyone else's subjective realms.
I recognize that I have control over an object in objective reality, and that others appear to have similar control over similar objects.
All people (subjective mind + objective body) have no appearant or inherent leadership or control of other people, so it appears that all people are equal.
I have wants, and a body to achieve those wants. I recognize that others have similar wants. My wants are unlimited, so I have reason to believe others' are unlimited as well.
Because we appear to have exclusive control over our bodies, we appear to have absolute control over our bodies.
Because no other person appears to have inherent leadership control over our bodies, it appears that all people are equal.
Because all people are equal, no other person's wants are in any way superior to our own.
Our bodies are not infinite in number nor omnipresent nor homogenous in quality. They are scarce. This means that if another takes control of my body, I cannot simply continue doing as want. This means that if someone else takes control of my body, they believe that their interests supercede mine. (This is impossible because our subjective spheres are immeasurable between the two of us.)
Nobody else owns us, and we have no responsibility to other people as to what we do to our bodies.
Because our control over our bodies is exclusive, absolute, and irresponsible, we have what could be called exclusive absolute irresponsible dominion over our bodies.
Ownership is a name for exclusive absolute irresponsible dominion.
Exclusive absolute irresponsible dominion is ownership.
Thus, we appear own our bodies.
Our bodies appear to exist in the future, the present, and the past.
This manifests as life, liberty, and property.
If you lose your life, you lose your future.
If you lose your liberty, you lose your present.
If you lose your property, you lose that part of your past which produced that property.
Involuntary deprival of life is murder.
Involuntary deprival of liberty is slavery.
Involuntary deprival of property is theft.
If you do not respect the life, liberty, and property of others, you appear to not understand ownership.
If you do not understand ownership, you cannot own yourself.
If you do own yourself, you do not have exclusive control over your body.
If you do not have exclusive control over your body, someone else may claim you as property and take absolute irresponsible control over you.
How's that?
wow did you just say you think therefore you are? Ok before we go any further I want you to look up Descartes and then Russell so you know why that does not work. For the sort version I'll just let you know that it begs the question. And i regards to your response saying what is wrong with forcing people beliefs down their throat but your belief is what is in question. That is people have rights therefore and according to your world view it would not be rong to do so but to be consistant with your view you could not do that. And back to my firt point your whole last paragraph just seems like a bad version of Desartes with his conclusions but no support. I suggest you read his meditations, ask some one about it, or take a class about it. Also the rest of your reply assumes that we have the same world view which we do NOT. Therefore my beliefs in regards to the answers to these questions are going to be completely different and not just fallacious assertions. Sorry I'm again not in order but you have not established any foundation whatsoever just put forth arbitrary assertions andhalf minded version of a pilosophers arguments that most scholars laugh at now.
wow did you just say you think therefore you are? Ok before we go any further I want you to look up Descartes and then Russell so you know why that does not work. For the sort version I'll just let you know that it begs the question. And i regards to your response saying what is wrong with forcing people beliefs down their throat but your belief is what is in question. That is people have rights therefore and according to your world view it would not be rong to do so but to be consistant with your view you could not do that. And back to my firt point your whole last paragraph just seems like a bad version of Desartes with his conclusions but no support. I suggest you read his meditations, ask some one about it, or take a class about it. Also the rest of your reply assumes that we have the same world view which we do NOT. Therefore my beliefs in regards to the answers to these questions are going to be completely different and not just fallacious assertions. Sorry I'm again not in order but you have not established any foundation whatsoever just put forth arbitrary assertions andhalf minded version of a pilosophers arguments that most scholars laugh at now.
In regards to you white cow please tell me how I am attacking a strw man. Also I am not saying that man being biological bags lessens his vaosue I'm trying to figure out why we are better that anything in existenc. To your secon point first off this could not happen since for one God does not punish the innocent and command for their death and two none are innocent therefore all are worthy of the punishment of God and therefore what He commands would be required to be done. This could not happen in this day because of the establishment of the new covenant and we therefore apply diferent things to people in accord with the commands of the new.
In regards to you white cow please tell me how I am attacking a strw man. Also I am not saying that man being biological bags lessens his vaosue I'm trying to figure out why we are better that anything in existenc. To your secon point first off this could not happen since for one God does not punish the innocent and command for their death and two none are innocent therefore all are worthy of the punishment of God and therefore what He commands would be required to be done. This could not happen in this day because of the establishment of the new covenant and we therefore apply diferent things to people in accord with the commands of the new.
May I first say...double post...triple post...postacular...
[quote=Presup]wow did you just say you think therefore you are? Ok before we go any further I want you to look up Descartes and then Russell so you know why that does not work. For the sort version I'll just let you know that it begs the question.[/quote]
Existence exists, reality is existence, consiousness is identity.
How could I think and not exist?
[quote]And i regards to your response saying what is wrong with forcing people beliefs down their throat but your belief is what is in question.[/quote]
My belief that I don't want people shoving their beliefs down my throat? And I'm the one shoving my beliefs down other people's throats?
[quote]That is people have rights therefore and according to your world view it would not be rong to do so but to be consistant with your view you could not do that.[/quote]
My world view is don't shove shit down my throat and I won't shove shit down yours.
[quote]And back to my firt point your whole last paragraph just seems like a bad version of Desartes with his conclusions but no support.[/quote]
Show me how it's done then. I like learning.
[quote]I suggest you read his meditations, ask some one about it, or take a class about it.[/quote]
I don't have the time or money.
[quote]Also the rest of your reply assumes that we have the same world view which we do NOT. Therefore my beliefs in regards to the answers to these questions are going to be completely different and not just fallacious assertions.[/quote]
Answer them anyways. I didn't ask them because I wanted them to be ignored or to be rhetorical. Questions are asked because answers are demanded, not because excuses to not answer are in short supply.
[quote]Sorry I'm again not in order but you have not established any foundation whatsoever just put forth arbitrary assertions andhalf minded version of a pilosophers arguments that most scholars laugh at now. [/quote]
You're the best batter in the world until you step up to bat. I've seen squat from you. You've put forth essentially no assertions. Until you do, and until you can put forward something just a little more valid than what I've put forward, I don't care what you think of what I think.
If you think it's based on the Bible or God's word or whatever, just say so, that way we can all know that you believe in a load of bullshit and you're resorting to every petty defense you can just because a rational basis for rights and morality can exist and it's a threat to your dependancy on some old book. Do me a favor, make me look more credible, all you have to do is find an excuse for the Bible to decide right and wrong.
[quote=Presup]In regards to you white cow please tell me how I am attacking a strw man.[/quote]
Because you were treating me as if I were saying something which I quite obviously was not saying.
[quote]To your secon point first off this could not happen since for one God does not punish the innocent and command for their death and two none are innocent therefore all are worthy of the punishment of God and therefore what He commands would be required to be done.[/quote]
What leads you to believe that God does not punish the innocent? Does the bible say that? How do you know the Bible is right? How do you know that none are innocent? Wasn't Jesus supposedly innocent? If so, your principle is incorrect, and you have to make an arbitrary exception for Jesus, don't you?
[quote]In regards to you white cow please tell me how I am attacking a strw man[/quote]
First of, your spelling is horrible. Sorry, it's the truth. Then, what Zhwazi said.
[quote]Also I am not saying that man being biological bags lessens his vaosue I'm trying to figure out why we are better that anything in existenc[/quote]
Well, since we dont have our values lessened by being "biological bags" where does the questioning of values and morals come in at all? Now, who is saying that we are better than anything in existance? We are equally evolved much like any other species.
[quote]To your secon point first off this could not happen since for one God does not punish the innocent and command for their death and two none are innocent therefore all are worthy of the punishment of God and therefore what He commands would be required to be done. This could not happen in this day because of the establishment of the new covenant and we therefore apply diferent things to people in accord with the commands of the new.[/quote]
You're not answering the question. Please tell me- if God told you to splatter a baby girl's brains all over a brick wall, would you do it?
Sorry for the spelling since I rushed throught it and people came ovr. Ok to start off that is not a straw man for one do I suggest you actually look it up and then tell me which part of your position I am not accuratley talking about and I will then justify my claims. In regards to the second response I know that God exists based on the impossibility of the contrary and that by denying Him you would have to affirm His existence.
and in regards to white cows second respnse yes because His standards are Holy good true and always justified.My question though is would he do this and the answer is no as I have shown previously. IIn regars to what you said about us be equal to other organisms I would ask you like Paul manata did is it ok to eat broccoli for enjoyment? Then is it ok to eat humans for enjoyment? And if you say no to the second I want to know why? If you are going to say because we experience pain I would ask why is it wrong for one to cause pain to someone esle. You have also yet to show on what standard you call something right or wrong? Please I would like to hear a response that is not just subjectivism.
Mk. Just in case you don't know what a strawman IS, here goes. A strawman argument is one which springs from something out of context, minor, or misrepresented within an argument, normally with long jumps of logic or 'slippery slopes'.
Your current strawman argument is of the third kind, namely the extension you make from us being carbon life forms all the way to everything being meaningless and subjective.
Go on, prove the impossibility of the contrary. Really. Provide me with 5 reasons why the world cannot exist without 'God' and how God fills each of those voids.
Secondly, how does denying him affirm his existence? If you apply that logic you must in turn apply it to all premises, thereby making and denouncement of something a definite proof of its truth. I can guess your argument is going to refer to Satan getting people to disagree, but in that case, you have no proof of which side is REALLY correct. In that case, it is equally likely that the bible is written by Satan, and that it is God who getting us to deny the existence of Satan, who has played the greatest trick on you by making Christians think him to be God.
Btw, I hope that the 'impossibility of the contrary' does not refer to the easily refutable transcendental argument of Kant, because if it is, this debate will be oh so easy and oh so boring.
[quote=Presup]Sorry for the spelling since I rushed throught it and people came ovr. Ok to start off that is not a straw man for one do I suggest you actually look it up and then tell me which part of your position I am not accuratley talking about and I will then justify my claims.[/quote]
You seem to think that I think people are worthless fleshbags.
[quote]In regards to the second response I know that God exists based on the impossibility of the contrary and that by denying Him you would have to affirm His existence.[/quote]
You have to use the word "exist" differently in each instance of that sentence to use it to justify belief in the Bible.
God "exists" in that he physically manifests as a pattern of neural activity which we percieve or refer to as "god".
We say god does not "exist" in that we do not believe that the pattern of neural activity which to us is the idea "god" corresponds to any real object which is similar to our perception of god.
So denying god's existence necessarily requires creating a god in one's own mind, it is created in one's own mind to determine whether anything similar exists outside the mind. When we find that we can't identify anything of the sort, we deny his existence.
Heh, you don't even see your own contradiction. For his actions to be justified, that must mean they can be ascertained through something separate from hiself.
Yes, it is ok for us to eat broccoli.This argument is moronic. Broccoli is not alive when you eat it. And yes, I would not be morally offended(but most would, so don't take this as a standard for atheists, committing ANOTHER straw,an argument) were cannibalism legalized, only on already dead people who were disease free. I would think it's gross and icky, but have no global objection to it.
Z already showed you above why causing pain to(and killing) others is wrong. It's a conflict of rights. There is a perfectly logical mode of ascertaining rights, and it is listed above.
He HAS shown a method of showing right from wrong. It's basically the equivalent of the Golden Rule. It's a very evolutionary concept. The most efficient type of creature is the type that favors justice, ake the type of creature which always works together with other members of its society, until wronged by a specific member, at which point it ceases helping that member. This certainly explains why we value certain things we value, such as justice, and don't favor things such as lying or cheating. We see coopoeration as a good thing because it is a good thing FOR us.
[quote=Presup]and in regards to white cows second respnse yes because His standards are Holy good true and always justified.[/quote]
How do you know?
[quote]In regars to what you said about us be equal to other organisms I would ask you like Paul manata did is it ok to eat broccoli for enjoyment?[/quote]
I didn't say equal to other organisms and never meant it. I use the word "person" to mean any self-aware lifeform that can understand and respect ownership. That rule was mostly created because in the event aliens do exist, I wouldn't say that aliens don't have the same rights as humans just because they're not humans. After applying that rule I've found that it applies to animals like bottlenose dolphins, some great apes, and possibly elephants.
Ownership is really the issue with me. "Right" and "Wrong" in my personal opinion falls under the respect or violation of ownership rights. There is nothing inherently wrong about any act itself, it is whether the act was done to one's property or not. By acting against another's property (i.e. attacking them), you become their property (i.e. to do with whatever they please).
[quote]Then is it ok to eat humans for enjoyment?[/quote]
If the human being eaten forfieted their personhood by aggressing against someone else, I wouldn't consider eating them to be that wrong. I mean, if it's okay to blow their brains out in self-defense, what you do with the body at that point is up to you.
If the human being eaten did no such thing, and is still alive, that would constitute aggression and the human attempting to eat the other becomes property of the one being eaten, and so anything the person being eaten did to the first would be just fine, including eating him.
But I just can't imagine that a lot of people actually want to eat someone else.
[quote]You have also yet to show on what standard you call something right or wrong?[/quote]
Right and wrong as opinions, in my case, right is anything that isn't wrong, and wrong is anything that aggresses against the life, liberty, or property of someone else. That's the standard I use.
Right and wrong as a kind of metaphysical set of rules which is constant throughout the universe, such as cause/effect or identity, do not exist. This is irrelevant to me, because I don't base my sense of morality on the idea of such a set of rules.
[quote]Please I would like to hear a response that is not just subjectivism.[/quote]
First you say "what do YOU call right and wrong" and then say "I want something that didn't come out of your head." WTF?
God is subjective. Try to respond to your own questions factoring that into account.
Ok I'm done with these forums because this is basically pointless since you just jump around and avoid without actually answering the questions. Name a time and a place in any chat room and if I can I will be there because this is taking way to much time and is a waste. Give me a speakinging system chat room or anything other than these forums.
I think Zhwazi did a pretty good job of answering your questions thoroughly, perhaps you didn't read them fully. Why don't you try and dismantle the responses point-by-point?
well noor your welcome to the sam invitation. Name time and place and I will try my best to be in that room. He did a hrrbile job but that's my view and to show this he can name the chat room. I suggest jake's room at atheist netwok. Another possibility is matt slicks room at carm.org. But please I'm open to suggestions. Even a talk program such as pal talk or maybe even ventrillo.
When did I mention I was going to be in any chat room? I don't participate in them. I only asked what was wrong with Zhwazi's responses, and it seems that you never actually took apart his replies. You just kept repeating the same question even after thorough answers.
well you thought his position was worth arguing so I gave you the same invitation. Also repeated myself because his answer was not sufficient
I've also noticed that even this site has a link to a chat room and I would love to take any of you on in there
Forums are better. It gives both sides time to think through their responses.
Tell ya what: You try to rebut a few of my answers on here and I'll consider an IM or chat. But so far I don't see anything else to argue about. You're just telling me I'm wrong or my answers are "insufficient" and not why, if you can't even say why, your criticism of my answers holds no more water than me saying your beliefs are patently absurd and I just don't want to respond to them anymore. But I'm not doing that because I'm too proud to make an ass of myself like that.
[quote=noor]I think Zhwazi did a pretty good job of answering your questions thoroughly, perhaps you didn't read them fully. Why don't you try and dismantle the responses point-by-point?[/quote]
Because he can't.
Howabout this? You write out your argument(and don't just say 'impossibility of the contrary'). Explain what it means, go in depth to the logical positivism or relativism 'self-conflicts', show
how your beliefs avoid such 'self-contradictions', and I'll get back to you with a rebuttal within a day.
However, if you have nothing more than the horrid 'impossibility of the contrary' argument, i'd suggest not wasting your time. But put an argument here, and i'll get back to it, point by point. Secondly, if you are going to respond, respond to the points, point out the logical contradictions, very clearly, showing the warrants, and where the assumptions or loogic are prone to flaws. Blanket statements of the correctness or incorrectness of arguments serve to explain nothing.
[quote=AgnosticAtheist1][quote=noor]I think Zhwazi did a pretty good job of answering your questions thoroughly, perhaps you didn't read them fully. Why don't you try and dismantle the responses point-by-point?[/quote]
Because he can't.[/quote]
Ya know, I think the point in noor asking that was to get him to admit it, not because he didn't already know the answer.