Also, I cant believe that people are still believing in a concept that is for all intents and purposes a pre-medieval belief system designed to scare people into giving the churches money.
I just think there are toooo many flaws to actually believe in a God, which says a lot for blind faith… but then again the human brain is inherently brittle
[quote]kamui wrote:
yes, but it doesn’t stop them from using philosophical concepts everyday of said lives.
and in this regard, i will concede that the “default” philosophy of a majority of atheists is indeed utilitarism.
it’s not my position.
in my eyes, each life (including embryo’s life) is absolutely unique and therefore possess an absolute and inestimable intrinsic value.
this conception is neither religious per se, nor utilitarian.
in many ways, i’m more akin with christian traditionnalists even if i follow a different and godless path to reach the same practical conclusions.
[/quote]
Most of the time I’m nice to people. I don’t know why.
Sometimes, I’m cruel. I don’t know why.
Sometimes I sleep. It is because I am tired.
This is known as the philosophical potion of “being a person”.
If you want to say I have no morals because of some pernickity argument analogous to a tax avoidance scheme. Fine. This really does not impact my life.
If you want to say I’m suicidal because of some pernickity argument analogous to a tax avoidance scheme, you’re retarded.
Observables cut through the bullshit. I observe that most atheists behave quite similarly to God-Fearers. Therefore I could care less what anyone can quote from the esteemed Claude Chaude St. Marie Maison.
These statements are about this thread and do not target you in particular.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
However, we can safely assume he was wrong, as the minds he chose to persecute were among the brightest in human history.[/quote]
And who were these bright minds?[/quote]
Really?
REALLY?[/quote]
Humor me. Answer the question.[/quote]
I heard that Einstein guy was pretty smart. Could be wrong though.[/quote]
Answer the question.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
Science shows racism is wrong for a myriad of reasons, one of which is maximized genetic variance will (usually) lead to stronger offspring.
If science had been stifled like the Church wanted, then yes, Hitler would have been very moral. However, we can safely assume he was wrong, as the minds he chose to persecute were among the brightest in human history. The reason morals shift as they do is the introduction of new information, something that religion lacks, as all information has already been “provided”.[/quote]
Perhaps you don’t mean to suggest what I read from this, but let me clarify my question. Your opening statement suggests that racial/ethnic groups have differing distributions of alleles.
You immediately followed up by suggesting that Hitler actively chose to persecute bright minds, “among the brightest in human history.” Are you saying that he chose to directly persecute bright minds? Or, that the persecution of a specific ethnic group indirectly and necessarily meant the persecution of the brightest among history? Your opening leads to believe you were saying Hitler also committed a genetic crime by attempting to remove an ethnic group that could, over time of course, contribute to ‘stronger’ offspring via their ‘bright minds’ ethnic trait.
[quote]chobothx wrote:
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
I’m not saying moral law doesn’t exist, just that it exist in a relative sense. What was acceptable and beneficial 3000 years ago may not necessarily be the right thing today. What’s acceptable and beneficial in one society may not be that way in another. Not to mention that there can be more than one moral solution to the same problem.
You’re correct about atheism not being a system of thought. It is the rejection of a theist system of belief. The comprehensive system of thought for me stems from both secular belief systems and teachings (not belief system) of the bible. For me, it’s a type of evolutionary ethics heavily influenced by the system of ethics developed by a man named John David Garcia. He’s not a prophet by any means, but a lot of his ideas made a lot of sense to me. My ethics/morality are also heavily influenced by much of the new testament of the bible and to a much lesser extent the old testament. The reason for this is that many of the moral teachings have withstood the test of time and seem to work.
[/quote]
Moral law + relative = contradiction.
Let us follow a simple line of reasoning and wrap it up for tonight…
Evil exists. Evil may be defined as an aberration of good.
Good exists. Good may be defined as right, proper, correct.
Moral law is based on Good vs Evil. Many people fall into dualism at this point… I would rather propose that evil cannot exist without good, for evil is the perversion of good, while good can exist without evil.
Without a God, or vertical moral law giver, we are left with situational / utilitarian ethics which is nothing more than the atheist’s attempt to infuse value into an overarching meaningless universe. (insert story of Sisyphus rolling the stone here)
Without a moral law giver, there is no good. For good is that which is proper. How can one know the proper purpose of something without having a creator to infuse it with true essence? Without good, there is no evil. Leading to the point that moral law does not exist, relative or objective, without a creator. We are left with moral preferences, but not law.
edit for quote-
“If God is dead, somebody is going to have to take his place. It will be megalomania or erotomania, the drive for power or the drive for pleasure, the clenched fist or the phallus, Hitler or Hugh Hefner.”
The idea of good and evil differs throughout time and societies, even within the same the religion to a large extent. When you put it that way, It looks like to me that the only type of morality that has ever existed is ‘moral preference’. To me, religion is a way of consolidating and packaging ‘moral preferences’ for the masses. That’s not to say that’s a bad thing, it just is from my viewpoint.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
However, we can safely assume he was wrong, as the minds he chose to persecute were among the brightest in human history.[/quote]
And who were these bright minds?[/quote]
Really?
REALLY?[/quote]
Are not all in one in Jesus? I think so.
For as many of you as have been baptized in Christ, have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek: there is neither bond nor free: there is neither male nor female. For you are all one in Christ Jesus - Galatians 3:27-28; cf. 1 Corinthians 12:13
[quote]krsoneeeee wrote:
I think atheism has a got a bad name - For example Im technically atheist because i dont believe in any god. But “I contend we are all atheists” is a pretty good quote, as religious folk don’t believe in every “GOD”. SO how can atheist have any more or less moral values???
Also, I HATE it when religious people cite people like stalin, hitler etc - regardless of whether they were actually atheists, nothing they did was ever done in the name of atheism, the same, sadly can not be said for religion. These people did what they did because they are evil fuckers not because they are atheist.
One last thing - Imo religion isn’t “bad” because there is a lot of good work with sick/homeless ppl etc etc but i think too many religious ppl have had the wool pulled over there eyes. Ie just because we don’t (yet) fully understand how we got here it doesn’t mean we should just say, “fuck it, it was magic” …
Its bullshit anyway - Most people are religious because their parents force them into one religion, rather than showing them all the options and let them pick if they so choose.
[/quote]
I think you confuse the difference between doing something in the name of Christianity and atheist not condemning an action.
Christians condemned Stalin, Hitler, &c. Atheism did not. Being silent on a subject is the same as doing it yourself.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
Science shows racism is wrong for a myriad of reasons, one of which is maximized genetic variance will (usually) lead to stronger offspring.
If science had been stifled like the Church wanted, then yes, Hitler would have been very moral. However, we can safely assume he was wrong, as the minds he chose to persecute were among the brightest in human history. The reason morals shift as they do is the introduction of new information, something that religion lacks, as all information has already been “provided”.[/quote]
Perhaps you don’t mean to suggest what I read from this, but let me clarify my question. Your opening statement suggests that racial/ethnic groups have differing distributions of alleles.
You immediately followed up by suggesting that Hitler actively chose to persecute bright minds, “among the brightest in human history.” Are you saying that he chose to directly persecute bright minds? Or, that the persecution of a specific ethnic group indirectly and necessarily meant the persecution of the brightest among history? Your opening leads to believe you were saying Hitler also committed a genetic crime by attempting to remove an ethnic group that could, over time of course, contribute to ‘stronger’ offspring via their ‘bright minds’ ethnic trait.[/quote]
Sigh.
You can’t possibly be this stupid.
Bright minds exist among all races, including the Jews that Hitler would rail against in his insane attempt to manufacture a master race.
Hitler committed a “genetic crime”, as you so well phrase it, by attempting to remove variation from the genetic pool, which is, as we now know, a very bad thing.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
You can’t possibly be this stupid.[/quote]
Mak, you’re inability to write isn’t my problem. You began by commenting on racial/ethnic traits, immediately followed by a statement concerning Hitler choosing to target the brightest minds.
Right, but he didn’t choose to target the brightest minds, as you put it, but jews. Which is why, along with the opening statement (variations between racial/ethnic populations), it most certainly reads as if you were suggesting (as a group, not at the individual level) expressed traits made them among the brightests in all of human history.
No it isn’t. It isn’t ‘good’ or ‘bad.’ Natural selection is more like an edititing process, than the way you portray it. It removes variations all of the time, making resources even more plentiful for the victorious/surviving variation. In fact, removing variations is (or at least culling their number) the engine of natural selection. ‘Selection’ isn’t just for show.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
Sigh.
You can’t possibly be this stupid.
Bright minds exist among all races, including the Jews that Hitler would rail against in his insane attempt to manufacture a master race.
Hitler committed a “genetic crime”, as you so well phrase it, by attempting to remove variation from the genetic pool, which is, as we now know, a very bad thing.[/quote]
A very bad thing?
There is no such thing as bad or good. Only preferable or worse.
Stop attempting to smuggle in a value system in an immoral/meaningless universe.
[quote]kamui wrote:
chobothx, so far you did make some pretty good points against utilitarianism, nihilism and moral relativism.
but you didn’t make a single point against atheism.
those concepts aren’t identical.
there is litteraly dozens of atheistic philosophies that are neither utilitarian, nor nihilist, nor relativist.
see epicurism, stoicism, spinozism, buddhism, to name a few.
ironically a good part of the Christian conception of morality came from Aristote, who was a practical atheist (the God of Aristote is a purely metaphysical prime mover, not a moral judge).
you apparently fail to understand the difference between moral and ethics i evoked in my previous post.
[/quote]
Regardless of the flavor of atheism, there is no standard from which to differentiate between which stripe of atheism is morally superior to another. You have your preference, I have mine. You love unborn babies, I kill them. You forgive your neighbors, I humiliate mine. etc. etc.
At the end of the day, you can philosophize and attempt to justify one system of atheism over another, but it all falls apart in moral relativism. Torturing babies will never be evil for the sake of evil itself. For evil does not exist in a world without God.
Atheism=/=immoral-meaningless universe
You don’t need to prescribe to a religious ‘moral preferences’ package to have a value system. A value system can be developed otherwise.
chobothx
the only thing you need to understand that unborn babies have an objective intrinsic value is a clear understanding of the words :
“objective”
“intrinsic”
and “value”
and some knowledge about unborn babies.
no god needed.
and it’s not a preference, it’s a fact. regardless of your thoughts and practices.
on the other hand, if you believe in God, have learned some abstract definition of moral in a religious book but lack clear understanding of these words and/or have no knowledge about unborn babies, you could still act in a perfectly immoral way.
[quote]ephrem wrote:
…yes, people are fallible, but in science, when something is proven to be false, the theory is discarded or revised. Beliefs do no such thing; they are stagnant…
[/quote]
Science is a belief system as well and quite fallible as history has proven. So it’s no panacea either. It has allowed us to answer some questions merely revealing many more questions. But empiricism tickles the senses but is, in purity, impossible to prove deductively. Science provides a degree of plausibility, but is far from infallible.
Faith is anything you cannot know, with absolute certainty to be true. Technically, almost everything we think we know, we base on faith. We have “some” evidence, but it is not conclusive. You could not even make a sound argument to prove you, yourself exist. You actually think you exist based on faith…
Reason is how you determine that you really don’t know a whole lot for sure and accept most things on faith…Take history for instance, all of if is second, third, forth, and fifth hand accounts. You can’t really ever know any of it ever happened.
True, are you saying it’s impossible to believe in absolute truths?
I challenge you to define what it actually is.
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
Atheism=/=immoral-meaningless universe
You don’t need to prescribe to a religious ‘moral preferences’ package to have a value system. A value system can be developed otherwise.
[/quote]
What is it developed from?
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
However, we can safely assume he was wrong, as the minds he chose to persecute were among the brightest in human history.[/quote]
And who were these bright minds?[/quote]
Really?
REALLY?[/quote]
Humor me. Answer the question.[/quote]
I heard that Einstein guy was pretty smart. Could be wrong though.[/quote]
Einstein was a theist.
Also a Jew, not practicing to my knowledge.
[quote]krsoneeeee wrote:
I think atheism has a got a bad name -
[/quote]
With good reason…They’ve done a lot of bad shit.
Einstein was a pantheist. his views were quite similar to spinozism.
ie : his God was a cosmic and strictly immanent God.
if he is a theist, then i’m one too.
but the Church would not agree.
“Still, even the most admirable of atheists is nothing more than a moral parasite, living his life based on borrowed ethics. This is why, when pressed, the atheist will often attempt to hide his lack of conviction in his own beliefs behind some poorly formulated utilitarianism, or argue that he acts out of altruistic self-interest. But this is only post-facto rationalization, not reason or rational behavior.” Vox Day
“When one gives up the Christian faith, one pulls the right to Christian morality out from under one’s feet. This morality is by no means self-evident. Christianity is a system, a whole view of things thought out together. By breaking one main concept out of it, the faith in God, one breaks the whole. It stands or falls with faith in God.” Friedrich Nietzsche
You champion the morality found in the New Testament, yet deny the God of the Bible, thus your opinions are as worthless as Oprah Winfrey’s new age spirituality.
Evolutionary ethics.
