Athiest World

  • 680 Replies
  • 119670 Views
?

britishgent

  • 409
  • Eli, Eli Lama Sabachthani?
Re: Athiest World
« Reply #390 on: December 05, 2008, 07:12:42 PM »
Quote
Yeah, they'd walk moonlit home to keep her from getting raped, then beat to death a black man for no apparent reason.
You previously stated the fact that he's black is apparent.
Global warming: Liberal hoax
The earth is not getting warmer after all; the effect is really just the prevalence of air conditioning. It just seems warmer when we go outside.

*

General Douchebag

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 10957
  • King of charred bones and cooked meat
Re: Athiest World
« Reply #391 on: December 05, 2008, 08:03:29 PM »
This is the Internet, that's the first pic you'll find if you google Mecca.
No but I'm guess your what? 90? Cause you just so darn mature </sarcasm>

Re: Athiest World
« Reply #392 on: December 06, 2008, 12:54:41 AM »
Quote

I don't see how 'the boy who cried wolf' applies here.

Only few can understand the purpose of the story and how it applies ;D
Have you heard about the story of the Two Children and the messy rooms?

There are two children and both have messy rooms.

The first child sees that his room is messy and that his room would be better if it was clean. He could more easily find the things he is looking for. So he cleans his room

The second child does not clean his room until his parents threaten him with punishment if he does not, and offer him a reward if he does. So he cleans his room.

Now, out of those two children would you consider to be the better child? The one who cleans his room because he works out that it is better to have a clean room, or one that only does what he is told under threat of punishment and offer of reward?

The Religious say that Atheists have no moral and ethical ground as their morals do not stem from a higher authority, and that if that authority was removed, then we would act immorally. This is like the second child, that they only do things because a higher authority tells them to do it under threat (hell) and rewards (heaven).

Atheists are like the First Child, they work out that a society works better if people can be trusted and behave in ethical ways to each other. They have worked out that it is better to have a "clean room" (safe and functioning society) so they behave ethically because it will give them that type of society.

It appears that the Religious (based on the OP and many conversations I ahve had with religious people) think of people (and themselves) like the second child, in that they can not do anything right without coercive force (rewards and punishment).

Personally, I would like to live in a world filled with the first child as this would mean that you can really trust people. If the world was filled with people like the second child, then as long as they fear the punishment and desire the rewards it will be safe. But in a world where that authority is not feared, then because the people are like the second child they will cause chaos.

Now, that authority's instructions could then be interpreted as someone wishes. This means that a single person who does not fear the authority could conceivably distort the meaning of the authority to their own ends, and as they have no moral or ethical restrictions (as they only place their in the authority and so not consider them for themselves), then they could convince many people to behave unethically.

And this is not just idle speculation. History is replete with such scenarios, where a single person claiming communication with a higher authority leads people into unethical behaviours. There is even a psychological study done that showed how this occurs (here is a speech a TED of the Psychologist that ran the study: http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/philip_zimbardo_on_the_psychology_of_evil.html ).
Everyday household experimentation.

?

britishgent

  • 409
  • Eli, Eli Lama Sabachthani?
Re: Athiest World
« Reply #393 on: December 06, 2008, 10:26:49 AM »
Some people don't break the law because they don't want to be arrested atheist or not. It isn't a "higher power" but i'm sure that in a world devoid of religion law and order wouldn't keep themselves.
Global warming: Liberal hoax
The earth is not getting warmer after all; the effect is really just the prevalence of air conditioning. It just seems warmer when we go outside.

*

Trekky0623

  • Official Member
  • 10061
Re: Athiest World
« Reply #394 on: December 06, 2008, 10:40:51 PM »
Quote

I don't see how 'the boy who cried wolf' applies here.

Only few can understand the purpose of the story and how it applies ;D
Have you heard about the story of the Two Children and the messy rooms?

There are two children and both have messy rooms.

The first child sees that his room is messy and that his room would be better if it was clean. He could more easily find the things he is looking for. So he cleans his room

The second child does not clean his room until his parents threaten him with punishment if he does not, and offer him a reward if he does. So he cleans his room.

Now, out of those two children would you consider to be the better child? The one who cleans his room because he works out that it is better to have a clean room, or one that only does what he is told under threat of punishment and offer of reward?

The Religious say that Atheists have no moral and ethical ground as their morals do not stem from a higher authority, and that if that authority was removed, then we would act immorally. This is like the second child, that they only do things because a higher authority tells them to do it under threat (hell) and rewards (heaven).

Atheists are like the First Child, they work out that a society works better if people can be trusted and behave in ethical ways to each other. They have worked out that it is better to have a "clean room" (safe and functioning society) so they behave ethically because it will give them that type of society.

It appears that the Religious (based on the OP and many conversations I ahve had with religious people) think of people (and themselves) like the second child, in that they can not do anything right without coercive force (rewards and punishment).

Personally, I would like to live in a world filled with the first child as this would mean that you can really trust people. If the world was filled with people like the second child, then as long as they fear the punishment and desire the rewards it will be safe. But in a world where that authority is not feared, then because the people are like the second child they will cause chaos.

Now, that authority's instructions could then be interpreted as someone wishes. This means that a single person who does not fear the authority could conceivably distort the meaning of the authority to their own ends, and as they have no moral or ethical restrictions (as they only place their in the authority and so not consider them for themselves), then they could convince many people to behave unethically.

And this is not just idle speculation. History is replete with such scenarios, where a single person claiming communication with a higher authority leads people into unethical behaviours. There is even a psychological study done that showed how this occurs (here is a speech a TED of the Psychologist that ran the study: http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/philip_zimbardo_on_the_psychology_of_evil.html ).

Everyone knows right from wrong.  Wrong means you hurt someone emotionally or physically.  Right is when you help.

Here's a quote from the movie K-PAX in which Mark Powell (Jeff Bridges) is questioning Prot (Kevin Spacey) about how a society can function without law, to which Prot replies:

Quote
Every being in the universe knows right from wrong, Mark.

:)

Re: Athiest World
« Reply #395 on: December 07, 2008, 12:33:42 AM »
Everyone knows right from wrong.  Wrong means you hurt someone emotionally or physically.  Right is when you help.

Here's a quote from the movie K-PAX in which Mark Powell (Jeff Bridges) is questioning Prot (Kevin Spacey) about how a society can function without law, to which Prot replies:

Quote
Every being in the universe knows right from wrong, Mark.

:)
Does a Dog know right from wrong? Does a Wolf? If a Wolf ate a Human would that be right or would it be wrong? If a Dog ate a Human, would that be right or wrong? If another Human ate a Human would that be right or wrong?

Hmm, maybe right and wrong are not as clear cut as you might think.

If you were in the Donner Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donner_Party) and you could save the lives of everyone by killing someone and eating them, would that be right or wrong? What if they died of natural causes would it be ok to eat them then (you haven't caused them harm)?

I think you ahve an overly simplified view of the world, and a dangerously simple one at that.
Everyday household experimentation.

*

ﮎingulaЯiτy

  • Arbitrator
  • Planar Moderator
  • 9074
  • Resident atheist.
Re: Athiest World
« Reply #396 on: December 07, 2008, 01:00:17 AM »
...Then become mostly a vegetarian and eat already dead meat.  ;)
If I was asked to imagine a perfect deity, I would never invent one that suffers from a multiple personality disorder. Christians get points for originality there.

*

Wendy

  • 18492
  • I laugh cus you fake
Re: Athiest World
« Reply #397 on: December 07, 2008, 01:53:03 AM »
Everyone knows right from wrong.  Wrong means you hurt someone emotionally or physically.  Right is when you help.

Here's a quote from the movie K-PAX in which Mark Powell (Jeff Bridges) is questioning Prot (Kevin Spacey) about how a society can function without law, to which Prot replies:

Quote
Every being in the universe knows right from wrong, Mark.

:)
Does a Dog know right from wrong? Does a Wolf? If a Wolf ate a Human would that be right or would it be wrong? If a Dog ate a Human, would that be right or wrong? If another Human ate a Human would that be right or wrong?

Hmm, maybe right and wrong are not as clear cut as you might think.

If you were in the Donner Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donner_Party) and you could save the lives of everyone by killing someone and eating them, would that be right or wrong? What if they died of natural causes would it be ok to eat them then (you haven't caused them harm)?

I think you ahve an overly simplified view of the world, and a dangerously simple one at that.


A dog and a wolf both know right from wrong. Neither a dog nor a wolf will attack any other being if not for two reasons: They are hungry, or they feel that the creature is a threat to them. If they did, we wouldn't have been able to domesticate dogs from the start. Unless you're one of those cooky christians who believes that dogs were there from the start, 6000 years ago. The Donner party did the right thing. It is better that some survive than that all die. Also, cannibalism has been needlessly stigmatized by the misled belief that humans are somehow 'above' other beings.
Here's an explanation for ya. Lurk moar. Every single point you brought up has been posted, reposted, debated and debunked. There is a search function on this forum, and it is very easy to use.

Re: Athiest World
« Reply #398 on: December 07, 2008, 01:54:50 AM »
Also, cannibalism has been needlessly stigmatized by the misled belief that humans are somehow 'above' other beings.
Athiests confirmed to support cannibalism.

*

Wendy

  • 18492
  • I laugh cus you fake
Re: Athiest World
« Reply #399 on: December 07, 2008, 01:56:17 AM »
No no, I support cannibalism. And not the "kill your enemies and eat their brains" kind, but rather the kind made by necessity. Food is scarce, and there is meat, should a human die of natural causes. Also, I'm not an atheist, you should know that.
Here's an explanation for ya. Lurk moar. Every single point you brought up has been posted, reposted, debated and debunked. There is a search function on this forum, and it is very easy to use.

*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30590
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: Athiest World
« Reply #400 on: December 07, 2008, 02:03:13 AM »
Everyone knows right from wrong.  Wrong means you hurt someone emotionally or physically.  Right is when you help.

Here's a quote from the movie K-PAX in which Mark Powell (Jeff Bridges) is questioning Prot (Kevin Spacey) about how a society can function without law, to which Prot replies:

Quote
Every being in the universe knows right from wrong, Mark.

:)
Does a Dog know right from wrong? Does a Wolf? If a Wolf ate a Human would that be right or would it be wrong? If a Dog ate a Human, would that be right or wrong? If another Human ate a Human would that be right or wrong?

Hmm, maybe right and wrong are not as clear cut as you might think.

If you were in the Donner Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donner_Party) and you could save the lives of everyone by killing someone and eating them, would that be right or wrong? What if they died of natural causes would it be ok to eat them then (you haven't caused them harm)?

I think you ahve an overly simplified view of the world, and a dangerously simple one at that.

You actually proved his point. They ate dead people to save themselves. This was right, they ignored cultural norms to save people. As for dogs and wolves, they will not hurt you out of spite. They will hurt you to survive. Even the meanest dog will only hurt you out of a warped sense of protecting its territory. I have a 100 lb dog that would fight to save any little kid. As I got older he switched from protecting me to protecting my little siblings, even from me if we were playing.

Re: Athiest World
« Reply #401 on: December 07, 2008, 02:05:14 AM »
...Then become mostly a vegetarian and eat already dead meat.  ;)
Everyone knows right from wrong.  Wrong means you hurt someone emotionally or physically.  Right is when you help.

Here's a quote from the movie K-PAX in which Mark Powell (Jeff Bridges) is questioning Prot (Kevin Spacey) about how a society can function without law, to which Prot replies:

Quote
Every being in the universe knows right from wrong, Mark.

:)
Does a Dog know right from wrong? Does a Wolf? If a Wolf ate a Human would that be right or would it be wrong? If a Dog ate a Human, would that be right or wrong? If another Human ate a Human would that be right or wrong?

Hmm, maybe right and wrong are not as clear cut as you might think.

If you were in the Donner Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donner_Party) and you could save the lives of everyone by killing someone and eating them, would that be right or wrong? What if they died of natural causes would it be ok to eat them then (you haven't caused them harm)?

I think you ahve an overly simplified view of the world, and a dangerously simple one at that.


A dog and a wolf both know right from wrong. Neither a dog nor a wolf will attack any other being if not for two reasons: They are hungry, or they feel that the creature is a threat to them. If they did, we wouldn't have been able to domesticate dogs from the start. Unless you're one of those cooky christians who believes that dogs were there from the start, 6000 years ago. The Donner party did the right thing. It is better that some survive than that all die. Also, cannibalism has been needlessly stigmatized by the misled belief that humans are somehow 'above' other beings.
Ahh, so you agree with me that Right and Wrong are not absolute (and btw I am an Atheist, not a Christian).

If right and wrong are not absolutes, then how can one be certain that what their actions are, are right? What might be right for one person might be very wrong for another. Also, if you are not fully aware of the situation, you might not be able to determine if it is really right or wrong you are doing. Further more, if you circumstances change, and because right and wrong are dependent on context, then what you though was right only a short while ago, might now be considered wrong.

As a point in discussion:
You mentioned that a Dog or Wolf attacks for one of two reasons: That they are hungry or they are threatened.

What if they make a mistake about being threatened and attack someone? Have they done right or have they done wrong?

What if you were in your house and someone come bursting in. Would you feel that you were right by shooting them and claiming self defence?

Also, cannibalism has been needlessly stigmatized by the misled belief that humans are somehow 'above' other beings.
Athiests confirmed to support cannibalism.
See this is the problem with many non Atheists, they make assumptions about Atheism based on the opinions of a single person (who turned out not be an atheist after all). If Atheists did this, then the actions of some priests and sexual perversions, we should conclude that all religious people are sexual perverts. We don't because we are not trying to control people by fear.

Should I use this incident to claim that all religious people are bigots? No.
Everyday household experimentation.

Re: Athiest World
« Reply #402 on: December 07, 2008, 02:12:04 AM »
No no, I support cannibalism. And not the "kill your enemies and eat their brains" kind, but rather the kind made by necessity. Food is scarce, and there is meat, should a human die of natural causes. Also, I'm not an atheist, you should know that.

Quote from: John 6:27
Do not work for food that spoils, but for food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you. On him God the Father has placed his seal of approval.

See this is the problem with many non Atheists, they make assumptions about Atheism based on the opinions of a single person (who turned out not be an atheist after all).

Should I use this incident to claim that all religious people are bigots? No.
What?

*

Wendy

  • 18492
  • I laugh cus you fake
Re: Athiest World
« Reply #403 on: December 07, 2008, 02:15:50 AM »
Althalus, all food spoils. That quote simply means that you should not attach value to earthly things.
Here's an explanation for ya. Lurk moar. Every single point you brought up has been posted, reposted, debated and debunked. There is a search function on this forum, and it is very easy to use.

Re: Athiest World
« Reply #404 on: December 07, 2008, 02:17:20 AM »
So why is it worth is to kill to sustain a horrible life?

*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30590
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: Athiest World
« Reply #405 on: December 07, 2008, 02:18:31 AM »
...Then become mostly a vegetarian and eat already dead meat.  ;)
Everyone knows right from wrong.  Wrong means you hurt someone emotionally or physically.  Right is when you help.

Here's a quote from the movie K-PAX in which Mark Powell (Jeff Bridges) is questioning Prot (Kevin Spacey) about how a society can function without law, to which Prot replies:

Quote
Every being in the universe knows right from wrong, Mark.

:)
Does a Dog know right from wrong? Does a Wolf? If a Wolf ate a Human would that be right or would it be wrong? If a Dog ate a Human, would that be right or wrong? If another Human ate a Human would that be right or wrong?

Hmm, maybe right and wrong are not as clear cut as you might think.

If you were in the Donner Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donner_Party) and you could save the lives of everyone by killing someone and eating them, would that be right or wrong? What if they died of natural causes would it be ok to eat them then (you haven't caused them harm)?

I think you ahve an overly simplified view of the world, and a dangerously simple one at that.


A dog and a wolf both know right from wrong. Neither a dog nor a wolf will attack any other being if not for two reasons: They are hungry, or they feel that the creature is a threat to them. If they did, we wouldn't have been able to domesticate dogs from the start. Unless you're one of those cooky christians who believes that dogs were there from the start, 6000 years ago. The Donner party did the right thing. It is better that some survive than that all die. Also, cannibalism has been needlessly stigmatized by the misled belief that humans are somehow 'above' other beings.
Ahh, so you agree with me that Right and Wrong are not absolute (and btw I am an Atheist, not a Christian).

If right and wrong are not absolutes, then how can one be certain that what their actions are, are right? What might be right for one person might be very wrong for another. Also, if you are not fully aware of the situation, you might not be able to determine if it is really right or wrong you are doing. Further more, if you circumstances change, and because right and wrong are dependent on context, then what you though was right only a short while ago, might now be considered wrong.

As a point in discussion:
You mentioned that a Dog or Wolf attacks for one of two reasons: That they are hungry or they are threatened.

What if they make a mistake about being threatened and attack someone? Have they done right or have they done wrong?

What if you were in your house and someone come bursting in. Would you feel that you were right by shooting them and claiming self defence?

Also, cannibalism has been needlessly stigmatized by the misled belief that humans are somehow 'above' other beings.
Athiests confirmed to support cannibalism.
See this is the problem with many non Atheists, they make assumptions about Atheism based on the opinions of a single person (who turned out not be an atheist after all). If Atheists did this, then the actions of some priests and sexual perversions, we should conclude that all religious people are sexual perverts. We don't because we are not trying to control people by fear.

Should I use this incident to claim that all religious people are bigots? No.
I did not say right and wrong are not absolute.

Re: Athiest World
« Reply #406 on: December 07, 2008, 02:35:59 AM »
I did not say right and wrong are not absolute.
Actually you did. By saying that in some cases it is ok to do what in other cases would be considered wrong, you have stated that right and wrong are not absolutes. If you hold the opinions that different circumstances have different values of right and wrong, that is relative morality, as the value (right/wrong) of the situation is relative to the situation.

An absolute Right/Wrong would not allow for that. It would say things like: It is never right to pick roses (that is an example, I don't think you think that it is harmful to pick roses).

You might think your an absolutist, but you demonstrate relativism.
Everyday household experimentation.

*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30590
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: Athiest World
« Reply #407 on: December 07, 2008, 02:37:13 AM »
I did not say right and wrong are not absolute.
Actually you did. By saying that in some cases it is ok to do what in other cases would be considered wrong, you have stated that right and wrong are not absolutes. If you hold the opinions that different circumstances have different values of right and wrong, that is relative morality, as the value (right/wrong) of the situation is relative to the situation.

An absolute Right/Wrong would not allow for that. It would say things like: It is never right to pick roses (that is an example, I don't think you think that it is harmful to pick roses).

You might think your an absolutist, but you demonstrate relativism.
No I didn't. I gave an absolute.

*

Wendy

  • 18492
  • I laugh cus you fake
Re: Athiest World
« Reply #408 on: December 07, 2008, 06:20:45 AM »
So why is it worth is to kill to sustain a horrible life?

To seek spirituality, I suppose. Why?
Here's an explanation for ya. Lurk moar. Every single point you brought up has been posted, reposted, debated and debunked. There is a search function on this forum, and it is very easy to use.

*

Trekky0623

  • Official Member
  • 10061
Re: Athiest World
« Reply #409 on: December 07, 2008, 06:57:02 AM »
So why is it worth is to kill to sustain a horrible life?

He said he would eat someone already dead for survival.

?

T.T. Monsieur

Re: Athiest World
« Reply #410 on: December 07, 2008, 06:58:32 AM »
So why is it worth is to kill to sustain a horrible life?
lol@voldemort

*

Wendy

  • 18492
  • I laugh cus you fake
Re: Athiest World
« Reply #411 on: December 07, 2008, 07:04:04 AM »
So why is it worth is to kill to sustain a horrible life?

He said he would eat someone already dead for survival.

Still, to live is to kill, unless you only eat things that are already dead. Which you don't. In effect, every time you buy meat, you are agreeing to kill a farm animal.
Here's an explanation for ya. Lurk moar. Every single point you brought up has been posted, reposted, debated and debunked. There is a search function on this forum, and it is very easy to use.

*

Trekky0623

  • Official Member
  • 10061
Re: Athiest World
« Reply #412 on: December 07, 2008, 07:06:55 AM »
So why is it worth is to kill to sustain a horrible life?
lol@voldemort

lol, didn't catch that.

Re: Athiest World
« Reply #413 on: December 07, 2008, 06:09:51 PM »
So why is it worth is to kill to sustain a horrible life?

He said he would eat someone already dead for survival.

Still, to live is to kill, unless you only eat things that are already dead. Which you don't. In effect, every time you buy meat, you are agreeing to kill a farm animal.
And every time you eat a plant, you are eating it alive...  :o
Everyday household experimentation.

*

Dead Kangaroo

  • FES' Anchor Roo
  • The Elder Ones
  • 4551
  • K800 Model 101.
Re: Athiest World
« Reply #414 on: December 07, 2008, 06:12:38 PM »
Where as eating a burger kills cows who pollute the atmosphere far more than cars.

?

britishgent

  • 409
  • Eli, Eli Lama Sabachthani?
Re: Athiest World
« Reply #415 on: December 07, 2008, 06:18:15 PM »
There are only so many cows because we like burgers.
Global warming: Liberal hoax
The earth is not getting warmer after all; the effect is really just the prevalence of air conditioning. It just seems warmer when we go outside.

*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30590
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: Athiest World
« Reply #416 on: December 07, 2008, 06:32:42 PM »
There are only so many cows because we like burgers.
How many more would there be if we didn't kill them?

Re: Athiest World
« Reply #417 on: December 07, 2008, 07:00:45 PM »
No cows are incredibly easy prey for any predator. In a natural environment i'm sure they'd get killed off pretty easily.
Yes. Individually maybe. But Cows are heard animals and the Bulls can be quite dangerous (just look at bull fighting, people get killed). Also as heard animals, they work together to protect against predators. If you ahve ever seen a stampede, imagine something like a pack of wolves that got caught in that.

So as individuals, cows are quite easy prey. But so is a human and yet we are the top predator in the world because we are a heard predator.
Everyday household experimentation.

*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30590
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: Athiest World
« Reply #418 on: December 07, 2008, 07:07:25 PM »
No cows are incredibly easy prey for any predator. In a natural environment i'm sure they'd get killed off pretty easily.

lol. Ever watched a coyote try and take down a calf? The moms tend to stomp them to death.

*

Wendy

  • 18492
  • I laugh cus you fake
Re: Athiest World
« Reply #419 on: December 08, 2008, 11:29:51 PM »
I like this argument. Christians can't actually argue with it, without using the "you don't understand God" argument, which we all know is flawed.
Here's an explanation for ya. Lurk moar. Every single point you brought up has been posted, reposted, debated and debunked. There is a search function on this forum, and it is very easy to use.