Right & Wrong on a Desert Isle
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
29-10-2013, 01:21 PM
RE: Right & Wrong on a Desert Isle
(29-10-2013 12:49 PM)Dearthair Wrote:  Where you get it all wrong is that I am talking about each and every individual atheist has no basis for his/her morality.

Repeated attempts to turn this debate into a "so are you" and a "you're chicken if you don't answer" is what is plainly silly.

If a fellow atheist on a desert island deliberately kills your best friend because the fellow didn't like how your friend noisily slurped his coconut juice, the atheist "belief" can only say, "I personally didn't like that act, but what he did was acceptable because he decided that on his own."
Hobo

Again, this is just stupid. There is no such thing as an atheist belief. Putting it in "quotations" doesn't help either.
I don't have "atheist beliefs" (mostly because they don't exist), my beliefs are my own. The Stephanie "belief" can say, I think that was wrong because I believe every human life it important. I don't really give a shit how he decided to do it, or whether or not he had help deciding. I believe it was wrong.

I think your issue is you have a hard time understanding the human ability to think freely. You cannot comprehend the ability of a person to think for him/herself. Do not stress about it, honey, most sheep have issues with this you are not alone.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Losty's post
29-10-2013, 01:25 PM
RE: Right & Wrong on a Desert Isle
(29-10-2013 12:49 PM)Dearthair Wrote:  Where you get it all wrong is that I am talking about each and every individual atheist has no basis for his/her morality.

Repeated attempts to turn this debate into a "so are you" and a "you're chicken if you don't answer" is what is plainly silly.

If a fellow atheist on a desert island deliberately kills your best friend because the fellow didn't like how your friend noisily slurped his coconut juice, the atheist "belief" can only say, "I personally didn't like that act, but what he did was acceptable because he decided that on his own."
Hobo

No, where you get it all wrong is...well, everywhere.

We would define moral standards to best serve the society in whole. Not killing other people would be certainly the first rule that would be agreed upon without even talking about it.
If you ever find yourself on a deserted island with atheists , the last thing you need to be worried about is getting killed for slurping your coconut juice.

On the other hand , if you find yourself on a deserted island with fellow theists, just from another religion, then it would be time to worry about getting killed, and not for slurping , but just for believing in a "wrong" god, or even in the "right" god but just not "in a right way"


(29-10-2013 01:06 PM)nach_in Wrote:  And so it was foretold http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...#pid403870

Am I a prophet or what?

. . . ................................ ......................................... . [Image: 2dsmnow.gif] Eat at Joe's
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Slowminded's post
29-10-2013, 01:36 PM
RE: Right & Wrong on a Desert Isle
(29-10-2013 01:25 PM)Slowminded Wrote:  
(29-10-2013 01:06 PM)nach_in Wrote:  And so it was foretold http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...#pid403870

Am I a prophet or what?

Worship Slaves

[Image: sigvacachica.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like nach_in's post
29-10-2013, 02:06 PM
RE: Right & Wrong on a Desert Isle
(29-10-2013 01:25 PM)Slowminded Wrote:  We would define moral standards to best serve the society in whole. Not killing other people would be certainly the first rule that would be agreed upon without even talking about it.

Now you bring up "define" and "agreed", but this is straying into legality and law, which is not part of the OP.

However, it appears to serve. If you have 20 people, and all "agree" that if any one henceforth murders, the violator will be killed for doing it. Fine enough, but what atheist moral says agreements must be kept? None. So, if the "thinking for oneself" truly trumps all, then you would be putting to death an atheist for doing what he was supposed to do as an atheist - thinking for himself! Then the others become "oppressive".

What if only 17 of the 20 decided that agreement in the first place? Do you then oppress the other 3 against their wills to "think for themselves"? And after that, when the 17 have children, do you oppress them with your own agreement even though their "thinking for themselves" had no part in the original agreement?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-10-2013, 02:21 PM
RE: Right & Wrong on a Desert Isle
(29-10-2013 02:06 PM)Dearthair Wrote:  
(29-10-2013 01:25 PM)Slowminded Wrote:  We would define moral standards to best serve the society in whole. Not killing other people would be certainly the first rule that would be agreed upon without even talking about it.

Now you bring up "define" and "agreed", but this is straying into legality and law, which is not part of the OP.

However, it appears to serve. If you have 20 people, and all "agree" that if any one henceforth murders, the violator will be killed for doing it. Fine enough, but what atheist moral says agreements must be kept? None. So, if the "thinking for oneself" truly trumps all, then you would be putting to death an atheist for doing what he was supposed to do as an atheist - thinking for himself! Then the others become "oppressive".

What if only 17 of the 20 decided that agreement in the first place? Do you then oppress the other 3 against their wills to "think for themselves"? And after that, when the 17 have children, do you oppress them with your own agreement even though their "thinking for themselves" had no part in the original agreement?

Where oh where do they find these strawmen? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Evoluti...ooperation Game Theory is the answer you seek. Humans work better in groups and groups require cooperation. Disruption of the group hurts each member of the group (to some degree depending on the size of the group) the smaller the group the more harm cause by disruption. Ultimately it does require the threat of force to uphold Social structure IE: Tit for Tat, or cheaters (in your example a murderer) would overwhelm the abilities of the group to compensate.

So why can an atheist say that Murder is bad, because that act hurts all of us. Simple reason and logic, no mystical sky fairy needed.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Revenant77x's post
29-10-2013, 02:21 PM
RE: Right & Wrong on a Desert Isle
(29-10-2013 02:06 PM)Dearthair Wrote:  
(29-10-2013 01:25 PM)Slowminded Wrote:  We would define moral standards to best serve the society in whole. Not killing other people would be certainly the first rule that would be agreed upon without even talking about it.

Now you bring up "define" and "agreed", but this is straying into legality and law, which is not part of the OP.

However, it appears to serve. If you have 20 people, and all "agree" that if any one henceforth murders, the violator will be killed for doing it. Fine enough, but what atheist moral says agreements must be kept? None. So, if the "thinking for oneself" truly trumps all, then you would be putting to death an atheist for doing what he was supposed to do as an atheist - thinking for himself! Then the others become "oppressive".

What if only 17 of the 20 decided that agreement in the first place? Do you then oppress the other 3 against their wills to "think for themselves"? And after that, when the 17 have children, do you oppress them with your own agreement even though their "thinking for themselves" had no part in the original agreement?

Are you truly this obtuse, or do you just love to be an ass?
There is no such thing as atheist morals, or Christian morals, or Jewish morals, or Scientologist morals.
Morals and values come from family, community, culture, environment, and life experience. People's morals grow and change as they do.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-10-2013, 02:36 PM
RE: Right & Wrong on a Desert Isle
(29-10-2013 02:06 PM)Dearthair Wrote:  
(29-10-2013 01:25 PM)Slowminded Wrote:  We would define moral standards to best serve the society in whole. Not killing other people would be certainly the first rule that would be agreed upon without even talking about it.

Now you bring up "define" and "agreed", but this is straying into legality and law, which is not part of the OP.

However, it appears to serve. If you have 20 people, and all "agree" that if any one henceforth murders, the violator will be killed for doing it. Fine enough, but what atheist moral says agreements must be kept? None. So, if the "thinking for oneself" truly trumps all, then you would be putting to death an atheist for doing what he was supposed to do as an atheist - thinking for himself! Then the others become "oppressive".

What if only 17 of the 20 decided that agreement in the first place? Do you then oppress the other 3 against their wills to "think for themselves"? And after that, when the 17 have children, do you oppress them with your own agreement even though their "thinking for themselves" had no part in the original agreement?

Morals always strays into legality and law, they are supposed to.

And that answers the rest of your question.

When most of us agree what is right or wrong, we make it a law, and if necessary we enforce ( or as u put it "oppress" ) that law.

Point of "thinking for yourself" is not "do what ever you want" . It's about critical thinking.

. . . ................................ ......................................... . [Image: 2dsmnow.gif] Eat at Joe's
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Slowminded's post
29-10-2013, 02:41 PM
RE: Right & Wrong on a Desert Isle
(29-10-2013 12:49 PM)Dearthair Wrote:  If a fellow atheist on a desert island deliberately kills your best friend because the fellow didn't like how your friend noisily slurped his coconut juice, the atheist "belief" can only say, "I personally didn't like that act, but what he did was acceptable because he decided that on his own."
Hobo

Wrong.

What would go through my mind is "wow, that was really fucked up. That guy is clearly a psychopath and I am now in danger of being killed for no good reason with him around."

I would then do my best to have him somehow restrained or even killed. The difference being that I would be acting in the interest of the preservation of myself and others.

But now I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth.

~ Umberto Eco
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes evenheathen's post
29-10-2013, 02:56 PM (This post was last modified: 29-10-2013 03:11 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Right & Wrong on a Desert Isle
(29-10-2013 12:49 PM)Dearthair Wrote:  Where you get it all wrong is that I am talking about each and every individual atheist has no basis for his/her morality.

Repeated attempts to turn this debate into a "so are you" and a "you're chicken if you don't answer" is what is plainly silly.

If a fellow atheist on a desert island deliberately kills your best friend because the fellow didn't like how your friend noisily slurped his coconut juice, the atheist "belief" can only say, "I personally didn't like that act, but what he did was acceptable because he decided that on his own."
Hobo

You have no basis for your morality either, except for your personal interpretation of whatever you think, or have set up for yourself, to be the basis for your morality, which actually exists NOWHERE, except in your own brain. There is no "objective" (ideal) moral system, "out there". You learned as an infant/child, what you think is "just", and "fair" and "right". You brain learned those patterns from your environment, and stored them in your memory. When you make "moral choices" your brain references those memories. They have nothing to do with the gods. They are learned patterns, that exist ONLY in your brain, and are different from every other brain that exists.

You have failed to say which of the theistic moral systems you think you subscribe to. Is it the one from the 70th son of El Elyon, from the Babylonian myth system, (Yahweh), who said it was ok to kill disobedient children, and stone and kill adulterers ?
The same one where the ancient pissed-off deity holds an eons-long grudge, and requires a blood-price from his son, before he can feel better ? That one ?

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
29-10-2013, 05:38 PM
RE: Right & Wrong on a Desert Isle
(27-10-2013 04:35 PM)Slowminded Wrote:  Another "atheists have no morals" exercise?
I'm an atheist and I totally agree with the theists on this one. Atheists have no morals.

But I go a step further, Theists have no morals either.

Moral beliefs exist but morals don't. If they did objectively exist then they would apply to everyone and everything.

But they don't so we don't need to worry about them.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Stevil's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: