evil
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
08-03-2015, 09:49 AM
RE: evil
(08-03-2015 09:41 AM)DLJ Wrote:  
(08-03-2015 09:30 AM)soul Wrote:  ...
So if a stronger "moral" lawgiving human comes along like say Stalin...his laws are now the social contract? If redneck americans get together and restore segregation and jim crow laws...by a fair vote( if such a concept could exist) then that becomes the social agreement?

Hehehe. Nice try.

I kinda think you think you're dealing with amateurs here. Laugh out load

OK. I'll play.

:returns volley, noting that 'moral' is in scare quotes:

Yup. That, from a historical perspective certainly is what happens.

Do you think that's how it ought to be?

Your serve.

Wink

No I dont at all...amateur atheists are boring....I respect intelligent discourse and again I respect that you are intelligent...otherwise I wouldnt waste my time...echo chambers are nausiating.
I put morals in regular quotes I thought? Out of respect that the concept isnt settled here...
I return your serve with...ought? Does not the term refer to some central justice that you feel...you and I...should recognise?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-03-2015, 09:51 AM
RE: evil
(08-03-2015 09:40 AM)soul Wrote:  
(08-03-2015 09:35 AM)unfogged Wrote:  You keep looking for a central authority figure to hand down directives that you then follow without the need to think. You should try thinking for yourself sometime. It can be very liberating.
That is not what I am doing at all...and it is from my own thinking...I am expressing my personal thoughts on the matter...do you have any evidence to the contrary...beyond your own bias against the thoughts I am thinking I mean

Your responses come across to me as if you are trying to map what you are hearing onto the theistic model in order to understand it. That's a common practice for everybody in my experience so I'm not faulting you for it. I'm trying to point out that if you can let go of the central lawgiver model you might get a better understanding of it.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-03-2015, 09:59 AM
RE: evil
(08-03-2015 09:45 AM)unfogged Wrote:  
(08-03-2015 09:37 AM)soul Wrote:  Who defines which consequences are positive or negative?( euphamisms for good and bad of course)...

We all do, both individually and collectively.

Quote:I can only understand atheism by atheists...but you bring up a good point...since you have no absolutes ( or appear to argue against them) as Atheists you yourselves have nothing more complex to offer then...there is no first cause...lawgiver...God.

You are beginning to get it, but I would not say it is not more complex. In theory it is pretty simple. In practice it is not at all easy. We've gotten better (in my opinion) over time but not without significant areas of backsliding. We don't have all the answers and, more importantly, we don't pretend to like theists do.

Atheists can try things and change course if reality doesn't match expectations and goals. Theists are locked into bronze-age rules.
Im sorry but I dont know how to break up quotes on my phone...so please refer my answers to the appropriate parts of your reply......
If individual and collective humans decide....then if collectively and individually theism would become acceptable...would you accept it?
Maybe the reason you theory is not easy to practice is it doesnt fit with reality.
The Christian faith expresses eternal truths...what was true in morality in bronze age was true before that and still true today. That is my answer to that...but of course you are free to reject it...but out of respect I give my answer.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-03-2015, 10:03 AM
RE: evil
(08-03-2015 09:51 AM)unfogged Wrote:  
(08-03-2015 09:40 AM)soul Wrote:  That is not what I am doing at all...and it is from my own thinking...I am expressing my personal thoughts on the matter...do you have any evidence to the contrary...beyond your own bias against the thoughts I am thinking I mean

Your responses come across to me as if you are trying to map what you are hearing onto the theistic model in order to understand it. That's a common practice for everybody in my experience so I'm not faulting you for it. I'm trying to point out that if you can let go of the central lawgiver model you might get a better understanding of it.
My understanding of the central lawgiver isnt an external one....but an internal part of all of us...that is to say...like a computer...a coded CPU..(im not uper techie..its a loose comparison) that is the centrality...I profess and expect all humanity to follow basic central tenents because I assume a central code writer.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-03-2015, 10:06 AM
RE: evil
(08-03-2015 09:45 AM)TheInquisition Wrote:  
(08-03-2015 09:30 AM)soul Wrote:  So if a stronger "moral" lawgiving human comes along like say Stalin...his laws are now the social contract? If redneck americans get together and restore segregation and jim crow laws...by a fair vote( if such a concept could exist) then that becomes the social agreement?

Yes, that's exactly what happens in this world. Stalin's laws were enforced over the region that he ruled. Same with Hitler, until we told him no with a bunch of firepower. He eventually got the point......

So not being snarky.....might makes right?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-03-2015, 10:06 AM
RE: evil
(08-03-2015 09:59 AM)soul Wrote:  ...
what was true in morality in bronze age was true before that and still true today.
...

Hmmmm. Slavery (including ownership of women) is acceptable today? Really?

Consider

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes DLJ's post
08-03-2015, 10:07 AM
RE: evil
(08-03-2015 09:20 AM)soul Wrote:  
(08-03-2015 06:50 AM)unfogged Wrote:  Atheism doesn't denounce anything. Atheism is the lack of belief in a god. It has no dogma, doctrines, rituals, etc.

Atheists individually denounce many things.


Atheism doesn't feel anything about religion. Atheists think about the claims made by religions and reject them due to lack of supporting evidence. Atheists determine that living your life according to unsubstantiated claims, and pushing those unsupported beliefs onto others, has negative consequences.


Because justice is often violated by the religious; slavery, subjugation of women, prejudice against homosexuality, etc.


The basis is the fact that we evolved as a social species with the ability to understand and appreciate fairness.


Atheism gives no explanation for anything. Atheism is only a reaction to theism. Theism doesn't explain why some people perform actions that we label "evil" either; it just makes assertions without evidence that actually don't explain anything. Sociology is much more likely to help you understand "evil" than religion.
why does theism require a reaction....further.... I dont need to understand evil I am trying to figure how people who reject a first cause or lawgiver use the concept in their thinking. Frankly there is no such thing as good or evil in atheistic thought if it wishes to be consistant.
You're right. There is no good and evil. There are only things we do. Some things are helpful to society and some things are harmful. It doesn't take an imaginary friend to figure this out.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-03-2015, 10:09 AM
RE: evil
(08-03-2015 10:03 AM)soul Wrote:  
(08-03-2015 09:51 AM)unfogged Wrote:  Your responses come across to me as if you are trying to map what you are hearing onto the theistic model in order to understand it. That's a common practice for everybody in my experience so I'm not faulting you for it. I'm trying to point out that if you can let go of the central lawgiver model you might get a better understanding of it.
My understanding of the central lawgiver isnt an external one....but an internal part of all of us...that is to say...like a computer...a coded CPU..(im not uper techie..its a loose comparison) that is the centrality...I profess and expect all humanity to follow basic central tenents because I assume a central code writer.

Humans tend to follow certain behaviors because those behaviors are mutually beneficial and allow for coexistence.

In the early days of man, it was certainly beneficial to have the help of your fellow man when it came to simple survival. As time has progressed and the population has grown, it's evident that a symbiotic relationship between people has allowed for the continued survival of the human race.

Humans have the capacity to understand that certain things are detrimental and certain things are beneficial personally and as a group. There has never needed to be some god-like creature to teach that.

See here they are the bruises some were self-inflicted and some showed up along the way. - JF

We're all mad here. The Cheshire Cat
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Anjele's post
08-03-2015, 10:11 AM
RE: evil
(08-03-2015 10:06 AM)DLJ Wrote:  
(08-03-2015 09:59 AM)soul Wrote:  ...
what was true in morality in bronze age was true before that and still true today.
...

Hmmmm. Slavery (including ownership of women) is acceptable today? Really?

Consider

Using humans as your standard yes apparently...and I am currently an indentured slave to the bank that holds my mortgage....and my kids student loans
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-03-2015, 10:18 AM
RE: evil
(08-03-2015 09:49 AM)soul Wrote:  ...
No I dont at all...amateur atheists are boring....I respect intelligent discourse and again I respect that you are intelligent...otherwise I wouldnt waste my time...echo chambers are nausiating.
...

Agreed. And thanks for the compliment.

(08-03-2015 09:49 AM)soul Wrote:  I put morals in regular quotes I thought? Out of respect that the concept isnt settled here...

Fair enough.

(08-03-2015 09:49 AM)soul Wrote:  I return your serve with...ought? Does not the term refer to some central justice that you feel...you and I...should recognise?

I'd take issue with 'central' and 'feel' and need to clarify 'should' but otherwise... yes.

I'd replace 'central' with 'recognised' and I'd replace 'feel' with 'think'.

Regarding 'should'... I'm OK with this but it's too narrow.

Some rules / policies are 'should', some are 'shall' and others are merely for guidance.

Example: driving regulations / road markings.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: