|
|
#1
11-02-2006, 06:56 AM
|
|||
|
|||
atheistic morality two
if you are a true atheist, then murder is no worse/better than giving the homeless guy a thousand bucks. what hitler did was not wrong. some of you (atheists) rightfully understand this, others protest at length. in the end it is obvious. in the end, the genocide of hundreds of thousands (or more), is no more morally repugnant (from a good atheist's perspective) than the little boy who shares his snacks at lunch with the starving kid. most of you are not really 'philosophers'. and even if you were, you'd be only barely more enlightened (if at all). sklansky talks forever about his acutely difficult moral hypotheticals. but in the end (if he really is atheistic), he has no reasonable reason to care. in reality, your philosophy is incredibly wicked, since you really cannot possibly have any legitimate ground to criticize the nations of our world who kill thousands, perhaps millions, without legitimate right. in fact, you cannot truly even deem it wrong at all, except in your pointless and arbitrary skull that futilely determines good and evil. arrogant d-bags. you can not truly condemn the murder of millions of jews, 3k americans, etc etc ad infinitum throughout history. you may as well support the killing. would not be at all any more inconsistent w/ your atheistic precepts than condemnation of the death. why do you all foolishly cling to heinous, evil philosophy that has no grounding in reality?
|
|
#2
11-02-2006, 07:07 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: atheistic morality two
"sklansky talks forever about his acutely difficult moral hypotheticals. but in the end (if he really is atheistic), he has no reasonable reason to care."
Two problems (that most atheists won't bring up because they deny your premises) even if you are right. 1.It doesn't matter if I have a reasonable reason to care. If I care, I care. 2.If no personal God means that Hitler wasn't a bad guy that simply means that Hitler probably wasn't a bad guy.
|
|
#3
11-02-2006, 07:19 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: atheistic morality two
siegfriedandroy,
This has been covered already. Only an atheist framework, but surely not a revealed religion one, will allow for a truly moral attitude and actions. To believe in a book, being the bible, the bagavat-gita, War and Peace, The Story of O, Catch-22, and use that as a basis for morality is simply surrendering/denying your own capabilities to be moral, to the author/s of the book(s). Of course, if you don't have a moral sense of yourself, I can understand where you come from.
|
|
#4
11-02-2006, 07:21 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: atheistic morality two
Posts like this easily illustrate to others that morality is real, regardless of whether or not god exists.
|
|
#6
11-02-2006, 07:35 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: atheistic morality two
It seems to be an obsession with a lot of people that there needs to be some grand moral code. You're right, I could walk outside and stab my neighbor to death and it wouldn't make any difference, but from a personal philosophy standpoint this is certainly not a reason to believe in God. All morality is entirely dependent on the society you live in. Consider for a moment that the comet that killed off the dinosaurs missed the earth. Our timid and by our standards "moral" mammalian ancestors were forced to remain in their holes and dens. Nothing close to human beings ever evolved. Instead the dinosaurs after 60 million years became intelligent and developed a technically advanced civilization. How do you think their moral code would differ from ours? They might create their own religions with a great dinosaur god, who ravaged and killed like crazy. This would be moral for them, would you not agree?
The way atheists should approach morality is objectively deciding what is prosperous for our society. We developed our "conscience" because natural selection favored those who didn't do the things undesirable to our species (rape, kill, steal etc.). In the super long term, like 30 billion years from now when the universe as we know it is gone, I don't think it matters what we do in terms of morality. I think every human being is hardwired to do good, and when they do good things they feel better, so it doesn't make much sense to go nuts and start killing everyone.
|
|
#7
11-02-2006, 07:41 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: atheistic morality two
[ QUOTE ]
The way atheists should approach morality is objectively deciding what is prosperous for our society. We developed our "conscience" because natural selection favored those who didn't do the things undesirable to our species (rape, kill, steal etc.). [/ QUOTE ] Just in case, someone misunderstand my previous post, I don't think morality has anything to do with what I think is good in evolutionary terms. OTOH, by definition, whatever I see and act upon as moral, is part of evolution, beneficial to the species or not. My moral choices are not based on what may or may not happen in however many million/billion years. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]
|
|
#8
11-02-2006, 07:56 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: atheistic morality two
How kind of you.
Are we supposed to believe that, if there is no "God" to lay down principles of right and wrong, we can't find any foundation for those principles? It seems repugnant to me to think that moral valuations which are shared by almost all human beings have to be laid down by some detached deity with a bizarre interest in the doings of mankind. Wouldn't that make those valuations somewhat arbitrary? Human concepts of good and bad, moral and immoral, arise out of our interest in the health of our species. It is part of our survival strategy to chastise those who put other human lives at risk. I fail to see how atheists cannot "truly condemn" the kind of crimes you speak about, and yet religious fanatics can, simply because they can point to some inviolable list of rules against which these things can be measured. I suggest you develop your understanding of atheist philosophy before making any more posts like this, because they just make you look stupid. Also, since it's generally known which posters on here are atheist and which are not, your post could be interpreted as a personal attack.
|
|
#9
11-02-2006, 09:26 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: atheistic morality two
It could be, I don't think it is generally. Frustration in articulating the need for a common moral standard too.
I love. I like helping people. I have pretty high moral standards. But there's no crime that cannot be justified under the right circumstances. But within my moral standard, there are two specific ones. Rape and abuse. But I've trod those territories in other threads, so nothing new. I'm certainly not a theist though. If that by default makes me an atheist, so be it. I don't care, really, what I'm labeled as. I do good things at varying costs to my own expected value, because those losses are recoverable for me, personally. As for why, I don't know. It feels right, so I do it. Making other people I care about happier, even random strangers... If it's a net gain in happiness and comfort, good. My own standards for such are ridiculously low compared to many. A requirement that you believe in a deity or that you be theist never really weighs too heavily in my actions. I'll allow for a probability of God existing, but would never change my actions and justifications to tailor to standards set out by such. That just seems irrelevant. So does that make God irrelevant to the human condition? Perhaps.
|
|
#10
11-02-2006, 09:47 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Telling stories with no grounding in Reality Part 2
[ QUOTE ]
why do you all foolishly cling to heinous, evil philosophy that has no grounding in reality? [/ QUOTE ] This is the only thing really worthwhile in your post, and it's called projection. It is a very interesting question. Simply put it helps us sleep at night, and it is something that all types of people share the blame in telling stories to kids in an effort to make them feel better.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
