[quote]forlife wrote:
DD, so in the hypothetical example, you would view your loved ones in the same way you view chocolate? Would you value them the same? Would you make sacrifices for them, that you wouldn’t make for chocolate?[/quote]
No, I’m saying in your scenario, their value is the same. Zero, because there is no such thing as value.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Pat, if there was no god or afterlife, why would you still not seek to harm people?[/quote]
'Cause I don’t like to hurt people on purpose without cause.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
…Fair enough, but I think it would be different for others. Even if I were an atheist, I would still believe in treating people with respect. Not because a supernatural being told me to do so, but because I value humanity for their own sake.[/quote]
It can easily be argued that the value you place on humanity for their own sake is a direct and indirect result of your (past), and society’s (past and present) intrinsic knowledge and recognition of an omnipotent Creator and Judge.[/quote]
If that were true, atheistic societies would place no value at all on human life. You don’t need to believe in a supernatural being in order to treat others with respect.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
DD, so in the hypothetical example, you would view your loved ones in the same way you view chocolate? Would you value them the same? Would you make sacrifices for them, that you wouldn’t make for chocolate?[/quote]
No, I’m saying in your scenario, their value is the same. Zero, because there is no such thing as value.[/quote]
So you’re saying that you would value your loved ones no more than you would value a Snickers candy bar?
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
Pat, if there was no god or afterlife, why would you still not seek to harm people?[/quote]
'Cause I don’t like to hurt people on purpose without cause.[/quote]
Why would you not want to hurt people on purpose without cause, even if there was no god or afterlife?
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
DD, so in the hypothetical example, you would view your loved ones in the same way you view chocolate? Would you value them the same? Would you make sacrifices for them, that you wouldn’t make for chocolate?[/quote]
No, I’m saying in your scenario, their value is the same. Zero, because there is no such thing as value.[/quote]
So you’re saying that you would value your loved ones no more than you would value a Snickers candy bar?[/quote]
No, I’m saying you made it that way in the scenario. To convince someone there is no god is to convince someone there is no value. If you convince me there is no god, you must convince me there is no value. So yes, I would have to think that way, because it was the basis for the hypothetical.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
DD, so in the hypothetical example, you would view your loved ones in the same way you view chocolate? Would you value them the same? Would you make sacrifices for them, that you wouldn’t make for chocolate?[/quote]
No, I’m saying in your scenario, their value is the same. Zero, because there is no such thing as value.[/quote]
So you’re saying that you would value your loved ones no more than you would value a Snickers candy bar?[/quote]
No, I’m saying you made it that way in the scenario. To convince someone there is no god is to convince someone there is no value. If you convince me there is no god, you must convince me there is no value. So yes, I would have to think that way, because it was the basis for the hypothetical.[/quote]
I was referring to the scenario.
So you really believe that in a world where there is no god, you would place no greater value on your wife and children than on a Snickers bar? Given the choice of saving your child’s life and eating the Snickers, you would just as soon eat the Snickers?
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
DD, so in the hypothetical example, you would view your loved ones in the same way you view chocolate? Would you value them the same? Would you make sacrifices for them, that you wouldn’t make for chocolate?[/quote]
No, I’m saying in your scenario, their value is the same. Zero, because there is no such thing as value.[/quote]
So you’re saying that you would value your loved ones no more than you would value a Snickers candy bar?[/quote]
No, I’m saying you made it that way in the scenario. To convince someone there is no god is to convince someone there is no value. If you convince me there is no god, you must convince me there is no value. So yes, I would have to think that way, because it was the basis for the hypothetical.[/quote]
I was referring to the scenario.
So you really believe that in a world where there is no god, you would place no greater value on your wife and children than on a Snickers bar? Given the choice of saving your child’s life and eating the Snickers, you would just as soon eat the Snickers?[/quote]
I’m saying it is a necessity of your scenario. If I still believed in the value of things like a life, then I don’t believe there is no god.
Things having no inherent value is part of what you are saying you would convince me of. So if you are saying you are going to convince me things have no value, how could I value my child?
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
…Fair enough, but I think it would be different for others. Even if I were an atheist, I would still believe in treating people with respect. Not because a supernatural being told me to do so, but because I value humanity for their own sake.[/quote]
It can easily be argued that the value you place on humanity for their own sake is a direct and indirect result of your (past), and society’s (past and present) intrinsic knowledge and recognition of an omnipotent Creator and Judge.[/quote]
If that were true, atheistic societies would place no value at all on human life. You don’t need to believe in a supernatural being in order to treat others with respect. [/quote]
There’s no such thing as a “pure”, insulated atheist society. Sorry.[/quote]
Then think within the hypothetical scenario, where there is no god and no afterlife.
Would people indiscriminately rape and murder in that world, and not care either way?
Or do you think there might be some genetic and social factors motivating people to control their most primal urges?
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
DD, so in the hypothetical example, you would view your loved ones in the same way you view chocolate? Would you value them the same? Would you make sacrifices for them, that you wouldn’t make for chocolate?[/quote]
No, I’m saying in your scenario, their value is the same. Zero, because there is no such thing as value.[/quote]
So you’re saying that you would value your loved ones no more than you would value a Snickers candy bar?[/quote]
No, I’m saying you made it that way in the scenario. To convince someone there is no god is to convince someone there is no value. If you convince me there is no god, you must convince me there is no value. So yes, I would have to think that way, because it was the basis for the hypothetical.[/quote]
I was referring to the scenario.
So you really believe that in a world where there is no god, you would place no greater value on your wife and children than on a Snickers bar? Given the choice of saving your child’s life and eating the Snickers, you would just as soon eat the Snickers?[/quote]
I’m saying it is a necessity of your scenario. If I still believed in the value of things like a life, then I don’t believe there is no god.
Things having no inherent value is part of what you are saying you would convince me of. So if you are saying you are going to convince me things have no value, how could I value my child?[/quote]
For starters, how about the genetic imperative to protect one’s offspring?
[quote]forlife wrote:
Some philosophers have argued that unalienable rights derive from our humanity[/quote]
Impossible.
No, that’s the most important question. If society suddenly believes in rights it knows matter of factly don’t exist, in short order it’ll reflect as much. You can only tell yourself you believe in something you know you don’t actually believe in for so long.
Men who believe in the real existence of good and evil believe in the supernatural.
Men who talk as if they believe in good and evil, but KNOW neither actually exists, KNOW they are lying to themselves. Civilization will crumble on a lie which everyone KNOWS is a lie. Something will give. They will either accept it on faith that good and evil do exist, as something above transient human whim. Or, they will embrace ‘truth,’ not burdening themselves with good and evil, but with ‘what risks am I willing to assume? Who/what serves me?’
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
DD, so in the hypothetical example, you would view your loved ones in the same way you view chocolate? Would you value them the same? Would you make sacrifices for them, that you wouldn’t make for chocolate?[/quote]
No, I’m saying in your scenario, their value is the same. Zero, because there is no such thing as value.[/quote]
So you’re saying that you would value your loved ones no more than you would value a Snickers candy bar?[/quote]
No, I’m saying you made it that way in the scenario. To convince someone there is no god is to convince someone there is no value. If you convince me there is no god, you must convince me there is no value. So yes, I would have to think that way, because it was the basis for the hypothetical.[/quote]
I was referring to the scenario.
So you really believe that in a world where there is no god, you would place no greater value on your wife and children than on a Snickers bar? Given the choice of saving your child’s life and eating the Snickers, you would just as soon eat the Snickers?[/quote]
I’m saying it is a necessity of your scenario. If I still believed in the value of things like a life, then I don’t believe there is no god.
Things having no inherent value is part of what you are saying you would convince me of. So if you are saying you are going to convince me things have no value, how could I value my child?[/quote]
For starters, how about the genetic imperative to protect one’s offspring?[/quote]
In your scenario, there is no imperative, there is only a chemical reaction that sometimes results that way. But either scenario has no value and is controlled by the physics of the universe, not me.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Would people indiscriminately rape and murder in that world, and not care either way?
[/quote]
Oh yes, far, far, far more.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
Some philosophers have argued that unalienable rights derive from our humanity[/quote]
Impossible.
No, that’s the most important question. If society suddenly believes in rights it knows matter of factly don’t exist, in short order it’ll reflect as much. You can only tell yourself you believe in something you know you don’t actually believe in for so long.
Men who believe in the real existence of good and evil believe in the supernatural.
Men who talk as if they believe in good and evil, but KNOW neither actually exists, KNOW they are lying to themselves. Civilization will crumble on a lie which everyone KNOWS is a lie. Something will give. They will either accept it on faith that good and evil do exist, as something above transient human whim. Or, they will embrace ‘truth,’ not burdening themselves with good and evil, but with ‘what risks am I willing to assume? Who/what serves me?’
[/quote]
I’ll set aside the philosophical possibility of natural (as opposed to supernatural) unalienable rights, for the moment, and discuss your second point.
If people knew for a fact that there is no objective morality, do you believe they could still benefit from a communal contract to live in a certain way?
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
DD, so in the hypothetical example, you would view your loved ones in the same way you view chocolate? Would you value them the same? Would you make sacrifices for them, that you wouldn’t make for chocolate?[/quote]
No, I’m saying in your scenario, their value is the same. Zero, because there is no such thing as value.[/quote]
So you’re saying that you would value your loved ones no more than you would value a Snickers candy bar?[/quote]
No, I’m saying you made it that way in the scenario. To convince someone there is no god is to convince someone there is no value. If you convince me there is no god, you must convince me there is no value. So yes, I would have to think that way, because it was the basis for the hypothetical.[/quote]
I was referring to the scenario.
So you really believe that in a world where there is no god, you would place no greater value on your wife and children than on a Snickers bar? Given the choice of saving your child’s life and eating the Snickers, you would just as soon eat the Snickers?[/quote]
I’m saying it is a necessity of your scenario. If I still believed in the value of things like a life, then I don’t believe there is no god.
Things having no inherent value is part of what you are saying you would convince me of. So if you are saying you are going to convince me things have no value, how could I value my child?[/quote]
For starters, how about the genetic imperative to protect one’s offspring?[/quote]
In your scenario, there is no imperative, there is only a chemical reaction that sometimes results that way. But either scenario has no value and is controlled by the physics of the universe, not me.[/quote]
Be that as it may, would you agree a mother would still be more likely to protect her child’s life than to choose the Snickers bar?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
Would people indiscriminately rape and murder in that world, and not care either way?
[/quote]
Oh yes, far, far, far more.[/quote]
Are you arguing that the ONLY factor determining human conscience and behavior is the belief in a supernatural being?
What about the role of genetics, social norms, etc.?
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
DD, so in the hypothetical example, you would view your loved ones in the same way you view chocolate? Would you value them the same? Would you make sacrifices for them, that you wouldn’t make for chocolate?[/quote]
No, I’m saying in your scenario, their value is the same. Zero, because there is no such thing as value.[/quote]
So you’re saying that you would value your loved ones no more than you would value a Snickers candy bar?[/quote]
No, I’m saying you made it that way in the scenario. To convince someone there is no god is to convince someone there is no value. If you convince me there is no god, you must convince me there is no value. So yes, I would have to think that way, because it was the basis for the hypothetical.[/quote]
I was referring to the scenario.
So you really believe that in a world where there is no god, you would place no greater value on your wife and children than on a Snickers bar? Given the choice of saving your child’s life and eating the Snickers, you would just as soon eat the Snickers?[/quote]
I’m saying it is a necessity of your scenario. If I still believed in the value of things like a life, then I don’t believe there is no god.
Things having no inherent value is part of what you are saying you would convince me of. So if you are saying you are going to convince me things have no value, how could I value my child?[/quote]
For starters, how about the genetic imperative to protect one’s offspring?[/quote]
In your scenario, there is no imperative, there is only a chemical reaction that sometimes results that way. But either scenario has no value and is controlled by the physics of the universe, not me.[/quote]
Be that as it may, would you agree a mother would still be more likely to protect her child’s life than to choose the Snickers bar?
[/quote]
No, I don’t agree. She has no choice.
[quote]forlife wrote:
If people knew for a fact that there is no objective morality, do you believe they could still benefit from a communal contract to live in a certain way?
[/quote]
Benefit? Yeah. But I’d hate to know what THEIR (not yours, informed by religious humanity) desired benefits were.