I actually believe in God
- Thread starter Greenkid777
- Start date
Beefbisquit
Well-Known Member
The reason it is objectively bad for people to engage in murder is precisely because there is a reason not to murder people. We are rational beings, with the capability to ponder on, and analyse our actions. The at of murder kills the person, which is objectively bad for victim and also the people connected to the victim.
Just because there is no punishment or reward in the afterlife doesn't mean there aren't reasons to do, or not do certain actions. There are other perfectly rational reasons to not be evil.
Just because there is no punishment or reward in the afterlife doesn't mean there aren't reasons to do, or not do certain actions. There are other perfectly rational reasons to not be evil.
Skuxx
Well-Known Member
I can't speak for all atheists... but I don't think there is a right or wrong when it comes to morals. It's about what you think and feel.
Samwell Seed Well
Well-Known Member
how weak is the mind that has to be told not to step on the bug as an adult vs know not to step on the bug
wow
just wow
but toothpaste has instructtions so i guess its par for the coarse
i stand by my opinion that most people are retarded
Skuxx
Well-Known Member
yes you are.
Greenkid777
Member
What are these rational reasons not to be evil? Why shouldn't I take from those who have more in order to fill my own needs/desires? Why shouldn't I end the existence of another, especially if I feel that the other is impeding on my needs and desires? Why should I feel bad for destroying another group if it secures the advancement of me and my group? You cannot possibly believe that all could have every desire and need filled simultaneously. There will always be advancement of one at the expense of another, history and nature itself teaches this quite well.
(As a side note, I do not actually believe in the validity of these statements. I simply wish to know how you could avoid this conclusion in the absence of God.)
Greenkid777
Member
Samwell Seed Well
Well-Known Member
says the guy who acts on his feelings vs what is rational and irrational (aka good or wrong learn how to define your pretensions crap )
your feelings are not a ticket to do anything you want . . that is the definition of impulsive
ya please proceed, to think and feel yur way through life vs having a thought process
Samwell Seed Well
Well-Known Member
people are innately selfish and fearfull
and when you make decisions based on greed or fear you end up with people who are devoid of Morales
i never needed to be told not to kill or hurt or be mean to people i always knew it was not niceor right thing to do, because i have empathy
and if you do then it doestn mean your bad person it just means your not good at reasoning and rationalizing what is irrational and what is rational actions/thoughts
and require guidance
who is the bigger fool
the man who follows the fool or the fool who leads
tyler.durden
Well-Known Member
Hey, GK. You speak as if you are not familiar with the science of biology or the intricacies of evolution by natural selection. Most biologists I have read take the view that human morality comes from an evolutionary advantage. Early humans tended to gather into tribes of roughly 150 or less, so chances were very high that all tribe members were genetically related. So, taking care of one another, and a certain amount of 'altruism' took place to ensure that one's genes were passed on (biologically the only intrinsic purpose of life). It was you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours to the mutual benefit of all tribe members. To this day, most of us can only really know about 150 people or less at any given time, and we still have the evolved urge to 'take care of and watch out for' other tribe members, which now is extended to society at large. Even though it is very unlikely that we share ancestral DNA with any particular individual in today's massive societies, this evolved morality and seeming altruism is still present in us. This morality is seen in most higher primates and mammals, tribe members look out for their own, and even piranhas in a feeding frenzy don't eat each other.
We can see how morality is independent of any religious teachings simply by how people are able to pick and choose the 'good' parts (love thy neighbor) of their holy texts from the 'bad' (kill entire towns that don't share our beliefs). If our morals came from these texts, then logically we wouldn't be able to decipher the wrong from the right of said texts. The more science one is familiar with, the easier it is to explain reality without the need of positing a creator or higher power...
Greenkid777
Member
You still fail to show any rational reason not to do as I described earlier. And it could be "rationally" argued that empathy is irrational.
Greenkid777
Member
It is precisely because of these ideas that I have trouble seeing how morality is rational with God excluded. If what you describe is true (in terms of an evolved morality and altruism) then it would agree with reason to impede upon those who I do not regard as "my own." After all, it is evident that man is reaching a state, due to resource consumption and overpopulation, where the earth is not able to sustain us. It would only make sense to decide who is "mine" and in a sense disregard those who do not fall into this criteria.
I would like to share an example from a piece of literature I'm currently reading. In the book, Crime and Punishment, the main character (Raskolnikov) decides to commit the murder of a pawnbroker. This pawnbroker is old, decrepit, and a generally malevolent old hag in general (takes advantage of the misfortune of others) . She is neither a productive member of society, or well liked by anyone (and thus would be un-missed in Raskolnikov's reasoning). The reason he murders her is because of her substantial wealth, which he seizes and plans to use for the betterment of the productive members of society who have fallen into misfortune (including himself). Was Raskolnikov wrong in doing this? I would say yes, though his intentions could be considered noble (in a twisted sort of way), due to the sanctity of life declared by the Ten Commandments. But in the absence of God, I don't see how this would be in a sense wrong. After all, his actions would help many who needed it. Would the benevolence outweigh the malevolence? From an evolutionary viewpoint, I think so.
Samwell Seed Well
Well-Known Member
in society's around the world strength in numbers helps survival
killing people off doestn improve strength in numbers and even creates turmoil that cause s more conflict , resulting in more loss of "strength of numbers "
when you arbitrarily kill people you inevitably might require to survive later in life(any number of possible scenarios ) then killing people irreparably effects your future
if logic and reason are not sufficient enough to understand that limiting your possible survival by taking others lives is foolish
not divine
then you sir should always be religious , we dont need any nuts running around not knowing how to amicably exist in life
Caspernode
Member
Nicely put.
Greenkid777
Member
You don't seem to understand that I'm not talking about arbitrarily killing people. Please go back and actually read the posts. And believing that you need everyone you meet to survive is not only incredibly ignorant but impossible. In fact, I would be willing to bet that there is more people out there decreasing your chances of survival than increasing it.
Samwell Seed Well
Well-Known Member
i never siad everyone you meet , so your presumption it self is incredibly ignorant
you would be wrong, maybe you choose to be around very different crowd then i do, once again your choice not divine right
"One may believe that the murder of another for outright personal gain is wrong. But another may say that if said gain is used to take care of his and his own, then the positives (the furtherance of his and his own) outweigh the negatives (the decimation of another, in which the first has no personal connection or care).
" greenkid
where you fail to see your facade and fallacy is that your scenario is all about you and your gain and not the loss of the said person you take no time to postulate that the death of one man, and the loss to those who rely or live in his life, for another family gains could plausibly have much greater effects then just one mans family prospered
you only take into account one view one perspective and this is where oyu fail,
your self centered and ego centric view that a death isnt arbitrary because if helped you and yours is about as back ass wards as can be.
perception is not reason , and if you perceive your gain by anothers death , all it shows is your self centered views
it is never positive to kill another in order to protect your own
with that logic if you ship Chinese people in containers and kill 80% and use the money to build an orphanage is ok, well its not and that's why we have real laws that dont allows that
it is entirely rational or irrational based on the context of the situation
and i doubt you will understand
you seem to want to make every rational or irrational thought you have been ok because you think it or did it
and it is simply not, if i killed someone so save my own child that death should not be celebrated, and i can celebrate my kid being here without wishing other person dead, its called unbiased and objective
they call that a god complex
you would be wrong, maybe you choose to be around very different crowd then i do, once again your choice not divine right
"One may believe that the murder of another for outright personal gain is wrong. But another may say that if said gain is used to take care of his and his own, then the positives (the furtherance of his and his own) outweigh the negatives (the decimation of another, in which the first has no personal connection or care).
" greenkid
where you fail to see your facade and fallacy is that your scenario is all about you and your gain and not the loss of the said person you take no time to postulate that the death of one man, and the loss to those who rely or live in his life, for another family gains could plausibly have much greater effects then just one mans family prospered
you only take into account one view one perspective and this is where oyu fail,
your self centered and ego centric view that a death isnt arbitrary because if helped you and yours is about as back ass wards as can be.
perception is not reason , and if you perceive your gain by anothers death , all it shows is your self centered views
it is never positive to kill another in order to protect your own
with that logic if you ship Chinese people in containers and kill 80% and use the money to build an orphanage is ok, well its not and that's why we have real laws that dont allows that
it is entirely rational or irrational based on the context of the situation
and i doubt you will understand
you seem to want to make every rational or irrational thought you have been ok because you think it or did it
and it is simply not, if i killed someone so save my own child that death should not be celebrated, and i can celebrate my kid being here without wishing other person dead, its called unbiased and objective
they call that a god complex
Samwell Seed Well
Well-Known Member
ar·bi·trar·y
ˈärbiˌtrerē/
adjective
adjective: arbitrary
1.
based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system
and unless you go around killing anyone or thing that is a possible threat to you kid( and lets be honest children 1-27 have the high mortality rates) , it is just a personal whim, not a reason or a system
many many thigns could hurt your kids, better kill em
guns
alchohal
drugs
cults
condoms
birthcontrol
mcdonlds
drivers on the road
other kids and thei bullying(you gonnabeat up a kid like the mother of that girl who bullied a girl to death)
the list goes on
ˈärbiˌtrerē/
adjective
adjective: arbitrary
1.
based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system
and unless you go around killing anyone or thing that is a possible threat to you kid( and lets be honest children 1-27 have the high mortality rates) , it is just a personal whim, not a reason or a system
many many thigns could hurt your kids, better kill em
guns
alchohal
drugs
cults
condoms
birthcontrol
mcdonlds
drivers on the road
other kids and thei bullying(you gonnabeat up a kid like the mother of that girl who bullied a girl to death)
the list goes on
SirGreenThumb
Well-Known Member
It's like you read my mind....
I seen a billboard the other day that said:
["If God exists, then why is there suffering?"] {OHHHHH DATS A BINGO}
If you highlight this you will see that not only do I not believe that there is a god, I also think the bible is one big contradiction.
Greenkid777
Member
The thing is, you keep talking about about committing "evil" to bring about "good" as being "not ok." That is simply your opinion and your ideals. And seeing as your just a man, your words hold no weight. Yes, there is a great multitude of people who would agree with you. But there is also a great deal that would have no problem committing atrocities to further their cause. History has shown this. Who is right then? My argument is, without a higher power, there is no correct answer as it is simply opinion vs. opinion (But seeing as I do believe in a higher power, this question is easily answered).
Frankly, the only thing I'm having trouble understanding is your rape of english grammar.
Samwell Seed Well
Well-Known Member
i never said evil or good once
you can take your sophistry elsewhere my friend
you use two buzz words i didnt use and then throw one in i did to try to associate them when i specifically used the word ok as in your own perception of your own actions
when you have a real point let me know
as you attack me and try to discredit me, in the form of "my rape of the English language"(more buzz words) without having and substance to your own words
it really just shows your only discord .......malicous vindictive passive aggressive BS
you can take your sophistry elsewhere my friend
you use two buzz words i didnt use and then throw one in i did to try to associate them when i specifically used the word ok as in your own perception of your own actions
when you have a real point let me know
as you attack me and try to discredit me, in the form of "my rape of the English language"(more buzz words) without having and substance to your own words
it really just shows your only discord .......malicous vindictive passive aggressive BS
Similar threads
