A must read post for ALL atheists!

[Quath]

If there are no objective morals then how would you objectively say "killing" is wrong?

It would be subjective to the agreement of society. If the society is based on the golden rule, you can decide on principle if killing is allowed or punished. So there is no need to say it is right or wrong (except to communicate a feeling about it) because the important thing is "what will the consequence be?"

Absolutely Not !, You oppose smashing baby is wrong because you don't want some one to smash you baby, I am opposing Homosexuals and Abortionists because I don't want my kid to be the victim of them . Why you are calling me narrow minded?

For homosexuality, you seem to be referring to pedophilia, which is illegal. If not, how is your kid a victim of homosexuality? If your kid is alive, how can it be a victim of abortion?

It is too childish response, I am not objecting Homosexuality because the bible calling it as evil, According to my 'golden rule' homosexuality is wrong (same as killing is wrong for you), IT JUST WRONG that's it!

Why do you say it is wrong? You just claim it without any proof. I can say murder is wrong because I would not want to be murdered. I can justify theft and slander the same way. But how do you justify homosexuality that way? All you can say is that you are harmed by the knowledge that people fall in love with the same gender. However, if that were a valid reason, then interracial marriage would still be illegal.

As per Darwin it is NOT wrong you can kill as long as you have power to kill , If the victim is fittest then let him survive or let him die , It just a matter of “survival for the fittest†not every one need to survive , Evolution welcomes the death of weak !

Power comes from "might makes right" but societies civilize by going with the golden rule. Within society, evolution has little effect. Someone with a bad heart and poor vision has just as much power in scoety as someone healthy.

I do see homosexual and abortion are bad cultures so can I punish you for that? As you are punishing Osama for killing (it is good as per his culture)

It is the culture that punishes, not the individuals. If you convince the culture that abortion and homosexuality are bad, they will make laws against that. However, most people are swayed by religions beliefs instead of logic, so you do get cultures like the Taliban where women are treated badly. Free up the logic and remove the religious beliefs and you wind up with more equality and a society that can prosper better.

As per your theory “Might makes right†if a might like “Stalinâ€Â, mass killing people is right?

Two different ways of looking at the definition of "right". One is looking at "right" as the making of laws or rules. The other is looking at "right" as morally acceptable.

Quath you cannot escape from Objective Morals, if there are no objective morals then the human race will be barbaric!! By taking the objective morals out of the equation you guys promoting people to live like animals (self rules)

If there are objective morals, then you should be able to list some. For example, is owning people as property morally acceptable? Is killing nonvirgin brides? Is killing the babies of your enemy? etc. Your answers will go with "it depends on..." which shows it is not objective.

Currently in America 'any thing is accepted' EXCEPT claiming exclusivity, If I say "Jesus is the only way" or “Adultery is wrong “ then I will be branded as Prejudice and narrow minded

Christianity is the majority of people in the USA. Do you think the majority can persecute the majority?

Repeating the same lie will not make a truth, as I pointed out , the Kingdom of Babylon is compared with a Women, So the babies referred by this verse is Evil doers living in Babylon

So you think that "infants" or "babies" means wicked adults? Are you just making that up? The context is clear that it is babies or infants. You want it to be symbolism, but it does not fit here and does not fit in with the rest of the Bible.

God has many times glorified the killing of children. Why should this be any different?

1 Samuel 15:2-3 - This is what the Lord of hosts has to say: 'I will punish what Amalek did to Israel when he barred his way as he was coming up from Egypt. Go, now, attack Amalek, and deal with him and all that he has under the ban. Do not spare him, but kill men and women, children and infants, oxen and sheep, camels and asses.'

Leviticus 26:21-22 - If even then you remain hostile toward me and refuse to obey, I will inflict you with seven more disasters for your sins. I will release wild animals that will kill your children and destroy your cattle, so your numbers will dwindle and your roads will be deserted.

Isaiah 13:15-18 - Anyone who is captured will be run through with a sword. Their little children will be dashed to death right before their eyes. Their homes will be sacked and their wives raped by the attacking hordes. For I will stir up the Medes against Babylon, and no amount of silver or gold will buy them off. The attacking armies will shoot down the young people with arrows. They will have no mercy on helpless babies and will show no compassion for the children.

Jeremiah 51:20-26 - "You are my battle-ax and sword," says the LORD. "With you I will shatter nations and destroy many kingdoms. With you I will shatter armies, destroying the horse and rider, the chariot and charioteer. With you I will shatter men and women, old people and children, young men and maidens. With you I will shatter shepherds and flocks, farmers and oxen, captains and rulers. "As you watch, I will repay Babylon and the people of Babylonia for all the wrong they have done to my people in Jerusalem," says the LORD. "Look, O mighty mountain, destroyer of the earth! I am your enemy," says the LORD. "I will raise my fist against you, to roll you down from the heights. When I am finished, you will be nothing but a heap of rubble. You will be desolate forever. Even your stones will never again be used for building. You will be completely wiped out," says the LORD.

Are these passages also symbolic where infants are killed for God? Should people be happy doing what God has commanded? Therefore, they should be happy killing infants for God just as Psalms 137 states.

Quath

 

[Karma2Grace]

For homosexuality, you seem to be referring to pedophilia, which is illegal. If not, how is your kid a victim of homosexuality? If your kid is alive, how can it be a victim of abortion?

So if you have no kids then banging kids on a rock is OK?

I can say murder is wrong because I would not want to be murdered. I can justify theft and slander the same way. But how do you justify homosexuality that way?

Yes I (or my child) don’t want to be approached or attacked by other same gender people for having sex , I want my child to marry and have childrens (not impotent as homosexuals)

Would you be happy if your children decided become a Gay?

Someone with a bad heart and poor vision has just as much power in scoety as someone healthy

With your theory you cannot define ‘Bad’ , In a pluralistic world of atheism, there is no absolute truth or false so there is no absolute good or bad, If so you cannot even use the word ‘bad’ , It is illogical !

so you do get cultures like the Taliban where women are treated badly. “

You again used the word “Badly†, You cannot insist your version of Bad and Good on me ! since the truth is relative (as per you) I will create a reality (good and bad) for me , This is what ‘creating god’
Taliban is one good example , There might (likes of Osama ) made ‘Drugs’ and ‘Killings’ as right , Do you want that to be happened in USA?

Free up the logic and remove the religious beliefs and you wind up with more equality and a society that can prosper better.

I have a handy example, Take Russia and see the result of removing 'religian' and free up the logic , it is prospering now !!

One is looking at "right" as the making of laws or rules. The other is looking at "right" as morally acceptable.â€Â

You totally lost quath ! Since you have no absolute morals how would you say ‘morally acceptable? , You can say Moraly (for an atheiset !!) acceptable for quath

So you think that "infants" or "babies" means wicked adults? Are you just making that up? The context is clear that it is babies or infants. You want it to be symbolism, but it does not fit here and does not fit in with the rest of the Bible.

What you mean by context is clear, there are many times God refers people as children of a country, See some other verses

De 1:3 “In the fortieth year, on the first {day} of the eleventh month, Moses spoke to the children of Israel, according to all that the LORD had commanded him {to give} to themâ€Â

Joh 1:12 “But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His nameâ€Â

It is clear that Babylon is compare with the woman – do you agree?
Can a country get pregnant a boar children?

Let us sort out this before moving to other verses

 

[Quath]

So if you have no kids then banging kids on a rock is OK?

Ummm. If I do not have a kid, then my kid will not be a victim of being banged against a rock.

You said you didn't want your kid to be a victim of homosexuality or abortion. How are they going to be a victim?

Yes I (or my child) don’t want to be approached or attacked by other same gender people for having sex , I want my child to marry and have childrens (not impotent as homosexuals)

Yeah, I don't want old or ugly women asking me for sex either. Lets ban ugly and old women also. (This makes as much sense as what you are saying.)

Would you be happy if your children decided become a Gay?

Yes. It means that they know what they desire in life. It would be much sadder if they were attracted to someone, but were forbidden from society from loving that person. (As happened in the days interracial relationships were forbidden.)

[quote:36c30]Someone with a bad heart and poor vision has just as much power in scoety as someone healthy

With your theory you cannot define ‘Bad’ , In a pluralistic world of atheism, there is no absolute truth or false so there is no absolute good or bad, If so you cannot even use the word ‘bad’ , It is illogical ![/quote:36c30]
You are mixing definitions. I do not mean morally bad, but non functional. I think you know that.

You again used the word “Badly†, You cannot insist your version of Bad and Good on me ! since the truth is relative (as per you) I will create a reality (good and bad) for me , This is what ‘creating god’
Taliban is one good example , There might (likes of Osama ) made ‘Drugs’ and ‘Killings’ as right , Do you want that to be happened in USA?

This is a legitimate question. I am going by the "Golden Rule" type of definition. If I were a woman, I would want the rights I have now. It is subjective, but it is based on the golden rule. If people agree to that rule, they can agree on a common definition of good and bad usually.

I have a handy example, Take Russia and see the result of removing 'religian' and free up the logic , it is prospering now !!

It seems to me they replaced religion with blind ideology to communism, which was not an improvement. They lacked the ability to have logic and free thinking when you had to follow their beliefs.

What you mean by context is clear, there are many times God refers people as children of a country, See some other verses

It is clear that God killed childen and glorified in it from what happened in the OT.

De 1:3 “In the fortieth year, on the first {day} of the eleventh month, Moses spoke to the children of Israel, according to all that the LORD had commanded him {to give} to themâ€Â

Most translations I have seen leave out children. yet they keep "infant" in the psalm verse.

Joh 1:12 “But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His nameâ€Â

This is New Testament, but even then, this is the children of God, not of a town or city.

It is clear that Babylon is compare with the woman – do you agree?
Can a country get pregnant a boar children?

Good point. One problem is in the translation. The NIV does not show daughter. Another is the verse just mentioned when Babylon captured Jerusalem and they shouted to level and destroy Jerusalem. So this is for revenge.

The Israelites tended to kill the women (non-virgin) and children of their enemy. So even if this meant the citizens of Babylon, it would also include the infants and babies.

Quath

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

Soma, I'm afraid I've never noticed my cardiac muscle making any moral or ethical decisions.

K2G, you're arguing very poorly. If your reasoning doesn't emply a false analogy then it's a false premise.

 

[Solo]

Well, videocrafter, I care about what Soma has to say about things.

Perhaps you would do well to be concerned with opinions and viewpoints disparate from your own- else you will eventually become a narrow, rigid, ignorant fool. That is the fate of those who simply attack and never listen.

There you go, attacking again!

 

[Karma2Grace]

Ummm. If I do not have a kid, then my kid will not be a victim of being banged against a rock.

So you don’t care about banging children on rocks!


Before we move forward, I would like you to define what is moral and what is immoral (if any)
The Golden Rules (?) are constant or can be changed?
Who is the author of Golden rules?
How did you arrived at Golden rules?

 

[Quath]

So you don’t care about banging children on rocks!

No, I said my child will not be a victim of this if I do not have a child.

Before we move forward, I would like you to define what is moral and what is immoral (if any)

Morality is subjective. I am going with the olden Rule when i talk about my subjective morality.

The Golden Rules (?) are constant or can be changed?

It is a principle and the rules that come from it can change. For example, Muslims don't like naked women faces while Christians tend to like other body parts covered. Applying the principle will usuall make two different rules based on culture.

Who is the author of Golden rules?

There have been many authors. This is found in just about every culture and society.

How did you arrived at Golden rules?

Reading about it and deriving it from the idea that I want as much as i can get, but to work with others and get the benefits from society, the best deal I can get is the Golden Rule one.

Quath

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

I disagree with you on the subjectivity of morals or at least moral ideas in general. I'm of the opinion that there exist objective ethics that, when applied serve to make a society run better and favorably toward all its members. A society that implements and enforces rules about conduct between its members can keep its members from killing each other, stealing from each other, etc. to an extent that a society without any law at all could not and in failing to do so would have a reduced standard of living in that community.

I'm also of the opinion that such rules become apparent as a society goes through successive generations and changes itself to better fit the world around it.

 

[Daniel]

I wrote this on 9/1/05 and thought it would be appropriate here:

Testimonial From A Compassionate Atheist

I was watching the news this morning (as I always do) and saw images of what's going on in New Orleans. I can honestly say I feel really bad for all those people and what might happen to that city, and is already happening to that city. I don't pray, but I do hope and wish that everything turns out alright. And just like watching the horrors of 9/11 on TV or what went on in Rwanda, or Thailand, or watching the L.A. riots, I dislike seeing people suffering and hurting each other.

All this made me think. There is a certain contingent of theists who believe that atheists, because they have no God, cannot possibly have morals or feel anything approaching compassion or altruism. It is presumptuous, and just plain rude, of theists to assert that anyone who does not believe as they do, is a bad person. One may well ask why we feel feelings of compassion, generosity, altruism, etc. and there are quite a few ethical philosophers and now scientists who try to determine why. I have no simple answer, but I do know that, deep withing me, I also feel the same kinds of feelings which religious leaders claim as exclusively their own.

It is not necessary to have a god or belief in a god in order to have compassionate feelings and a desire to help humankind. Religion is not needed to validate any of those kinds of feelings. I myself was raised atheist. I have never attended a church. I was never baptized, confirmed, circumcised, etc.--in other words, I've never gone through any of those religious rituals. The only times I've stepped into houses of worship have been for weddings or funerals and the like. Does that necessarily make me an "evil" person? Isn't it a bit anachronistic and narrow-minded to believe that we need religion at all in our lives?

 

[DivineNames]

All this made me think. There is a certain contingent of theists who believe that atheists, because they have no God, cannot possibly have morals or feel anything approaching compassion or altruism. It is presumptuous, and just plain rude, of theists to assert that anyone who does not believe as they do, is a bad person.

Is this really the theist charge with regard to the issue of morality within atheism? I don't think it is really to say that atheists are all immoral, (some may think that however...), I believe that the thrust of the argument is that atheism, as a position, does not allow any basis for 'objective' morality.

Whether or not that is the case... whether or not a Deity can really give you an 'objective' morality... ??

 

[Chupacabra]

Whether or not that is the case... whether or not a Deity can really give you an 'objective' morality... ??

I think the ultimate answer is no. There is no reason to assume that the existence of an supernatural being proves that morality is objective. All it means is that a being more powerful than ourselves feels that some things are wrong and some aren't, and to claim that is constitutes an objective and absolute basis for morality is absurd. In fact, to claim that an all-powerful being's morality is the ultimate one epitomizes moral realism (the whole "might makes right" philosophy). If there is a personal god, then he would determine morality with his conscience, just as every individual human must do. It'd probably be a good idea to read Thoreau's "On Civil Disobedience", seeing as it goes on about the individual conscience and the idea of absolute morality.

 

[DivineNames]

In fact, to claim that an all-powerful being's morality is the ultimate one epitomizes moral realism (the whole "might makes right" philosophy).

Did you mean moral relativism?

 

[Soma-Sight]

Why would "anyone" care what Soma-Sight has to say about "anything"?

Why not answer the TOPIC rather than resort to personal attacks!

Do you think I am a JW or something? :roll:

 

[Karma2Grace]

Morality is subjective. I am going with the olden Rule when i talk about my subjective morality.

Then my question is how would you objectively say Murder and Rape is wrong?

There have been many authors. This is found in just about every culture and society...

In some culture people welcome people, in some culture people eat people, do you have any personal preferences?

 

[Solo]

God's morality is written on the hearts of each person, and at birth each one is as moral as they are going to be; however, after being in the world for a period of time one has the propensity to be less than moral in decisions that are made, and as one becomes more selfish as opposed to more loving a change occurs. One begins to live more in the human nature apart from God's morality. As one continually lives ones life opposed to the morality of God, God allows the conscience of such a one to be seared to the point where morality is left up to whatever the sinner chooses according to his flesh.


1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; 2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; 3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth. 1 Timothy 4:1-3

 

[Quath]

Morality is subjective. I am going with the olden Rule when i talk about my subjective morality.

Then my question is how would you objectively say Murder and Rape is wrong?

I don't think you can say it objectively for the most part. I can envision cases where killing someone or rape could be considered good. (Most cases are outrageous or unlikely.)

But when I talk about wrong from my subjective morality, I apply the Golden Rule and expect others that agree to follow the Golden Rule to be able to arrive that most murders and rapes are wrong (but not all).

In some culture people welcome people, in some culture people eat people, do you have any personal preferences?

Personally, I see nothing wrong with it if the person dies of a natural cause. It sounds icky to me, but I see nothing wrong with eating human meat that would just be eaten by worms otherwise. Where I see a problem is when people are killed to become food. That breaks the Golden Rule.

Quath

 

[Karma2Grace]

I don't think you can say it objectively for the most part. I can envision cases where killing someone or rape could be considered good. (Most cases are outrageous or unlikely.)

Can you throw me some examples, When it is right to murder some (not killing as self defense) one or rape somebody?

But when I talk about wrong from my subjective morality, I apply the Golden Rule and expect others that agree to follow the Golden Rule to be able to arrive that most murders and rapes are wrong (but not all).

When you expect others to agree and follow the Golden Rule (?) you are invoking objectivity don't you?

...Where I see a problem is when people are killed to become food. That breaks the Golden Rule.

Why it is a problem? Why do you ‘object’ others when they break Golden Rules?

 

[Quath]

Can you throw me some examples, When it is right to murder some (not killing as self defense) one or rape somebody?

For murder, euthenasia is a common example. Another could be assassination. (Maybe assassinating Hitler would have been a good thing.) Another could be to stop an infectious plague from getting out.

Rape is harder to find exceptions to. One would be a situation which our species would die out if a woman was not forced to get pregnant. Another would be to fulfil a woman's rape fantasy.

When you expect others to agree and follow the Golden Rule (?) you are invoking objectivity don't you?

In a sense, I expect for them to follow it from their own self interest. If they chose a different set of morality, they have to deal with society. If society is a golden rule based one, they get punished. If not, then it would probably be a society I would try to avoid.

...Where I see a problem is when people are killed to become food. That breaks the Golden Rule.

Why it is a problem? Why do you ‘object’ others when they break Golden Rules?

It would violate the golden rule for people to kill people for food. I would not want to be killed and eaten, so I will not do that to thers.

I object to the breaking of the rule since it is the fairest compromise society has been able to come up with. If we move away from that social contract, my life may come into danger.

Quath

 

[Karma2Grace]

For murder, euthenasia is a common example. Another could be assassination. (Maybe assassinating Hitler would have been a good thing.) Another could be to stop an infectious plague from getting out.

Rape is harder to find exceptions to. One would be a situation which our species would die out if a woman was not forced to get pregnant. Another would be to fulfill a woman's rape fantasy.

You are arguing in a circle! You want to assassinate Hitler or Stalin because you think their morals (of killing people) are wrong so you execute your morals on them!

When you expect others to agree and follow the Golden Rule (?) you are invoking objectivity don't you?
In a sense, I expect for them to follow it from their own self interest. If they chose a different set of morality, they have to deal with society. If society is a golden rule based one, they get punished. If not, then it would probably be a society I would try to avoid.

So if a society is not your golden rule based then you will avoid the society

...Where I see a problem is when people are killed to become food. That breaks the Golden Rule.

But savages have different Golden rules; they will eat you as their food!

It would violate the golden rule for people to kill people for food. I would not want to be killed and eaten, so I will not do that to thers.

You lost! You are a Prejudice to use your Golden rules to judge others!

 

[Quath]

You are arguing in a circle! You want to assassinate Hitler or Stalin because you think their morals (of killing people) are wrong so you execute your morals on them!

I don't see killing people as a rule is wrong. The Golden Rule is a philosophy. It does not list what it bad, it just gives a method for determining how people should get along.

The philosophy is that a society makes an agreement to follow the Golden Rule. The application is deciding whether Hitler is violating it. The hard part is that this pits one society against another. It puts one society's values over another.

So if a society is not your golden rule based then you will avoid the society

Right. A golden rule society is one in which I have the highest chance of happiness.

But savages have different Golden rules; they will eat you as their food!

They may have different values, but if the follow the golden rule, they can not eat me as food if I don't want it. It would be a violation of the rule.

You lost! You are a Prejudice to use your Golden rules to judge others!

I can't tell if you don't understand or don't want to understand.

Quath