To Atheists
- Thread starter BoGz
- Start date
jo3s
Forum Addict
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2010
- Sythe Gold
- 0
- Messages
- 407
Yes i think it's wrong, and i think it is wrong because of the society i live in. I was born with capabilities of learning what is right and what is wrong and growing up in my environment i learned stealing was unacceptable. P.S. i think you mean ethics not ethnics
Yes, I do. What does the disbelief in a god have to do with morality?
There are many differing views of morality and its nature, and I'll briefly touch on them later in this post, but I will to first convey the fact that our morality (at least the crude part of it) came from the process of natural selection, as genes that promoted the killing, or theft of property from fellow organisms within a community would have had adverse effects (e.g. a community in which murder is accepted as an acceptable practice would not survive, as the death rate would far exceed the birth rate), and genes which promoted what we would now consider ethical behavior would result in the prolonged existence of each organism as an individual, as it encourages them to work together in their struggle for existence.
With this extremely unrefined morality in place, many actions that we would not think of as acceptable today were also treated as taboo. Such actions would include actions such as rape, theft, and murder.
Now, this is not to say that any of these primitive ideas reflected our modern ideas regarding the topics; for example, in some rival clans of humans, it was perfectly acceptable to kill each other (that is, to kill members of the rival clan) and this was not treated as such an impermissible action, as you weren't going against one of your fellow clansmen. Because today, we don't allow such divisions to exist between ourselves (at least not to the scale of this time), murder is universally accepted as wrong. In these ancient times, while rape was seen as a negative thing, it was not understood that women have the same worth as men, that is, they are just as capable intellectually, and (almost) physically (men have a slight biological advantage over women physically, but this cannot constitute a reasonable cause for making rape permissible), so that rape was seen in a far less negative light then it is today.
As time progressed and people employed reason, they attempted to find an ethical code on which we can base our morality [this was the beginning of moral philosophy]. Many different ideas exist on this, which range from consequentialism, which postulates that the end justifies the means; utilitarianism, being a more general variant of consequentialism, which advocates the idea that the moral worth of an action is determined by its utility in creating happiness. Yet others exist, such as moral absolutism, which is the view that certain actions are right or wrong, regardless of the consequences of such an action, implementations of which are classical liberalism, modern libertarianism, etc.
Regardless of what ideas one specifically adheres to, it is quite clear that one can (in one's own way) judge what actions are moral and immoral without relying on the judgment of an ancient text which condemns witches and homosexuals to death. Such is the nature of moral progress.
Now, let me ask you a question. Why do you have to ask people who disbelieve in the existence of a deity if they think morality exists?
Below is a video in which Richard Dawkins addresses this very issue.
[YOUTUBE]zSYosM2ZhzY[/YOUTUBE]
There are many differing views of morality and its nature, and I'll briefly touch on them later in this post, but I will to first convey the fact that our morality (at least the crude part of it) came from the process of natural selection, as genes that promoted the killing, or theft of property from fellow organisms within a community would have had adverse effects (e.g. a community in which murder is accepted as an acceptable practice would not survive, as the death rate would far exceed the birth rate), and genes which promoted what we would now consider ethical behavior would result in the prolonged existence of each organism as an individual, as it encourages them to work together in their struggle for existence.
With this extremely unrefined morality in place, many actions that we would not think of as acceptable today were also treated as taboo. Such actions would include actions such as rape, theft, and murder.
Now, this is not to say that any of these primitive ideas reflected our modern ideas regarding the topics; for example, in some rival clans of humans, it was perfectly acceptable to kill each other (that is, to kill members of the rival clan) and this was not treated as such an impermissible action, as you weren't going against one of your fellow clansmen. Because today, we don't allow such divisions to exist between ourselves (at least not to the scale of this time), murder is universally accepted as wrong. In these ancient times, while rape was seen as a negative thing, it was not understood that women have the same worth as men, that is, they are just as capable intellectually, and (almost) physically (men have a slight biological advantage over women physically, but this cannot constitute a reasonable cause for making rape permissible), so that rape was seen in a far less negative light then it is today.
As time progressed and people employed reason, they attempted to find an ethical code on which we can base our morality [this was the beginning of moral philosophy]. Many different ideas exist on this, which range from consequentialism, which postulates that the end justifies the means; utilitarianism, being a more general variant of consequentialism, which advocates the idea that the moral worth of an action is determined by its utility in creating happiness. Yet others exist, such as moral absolutism, which is the view that certain actions are right or wrong, regardless of the consequences of such an action, implementations of which are classical liberalism, modern libertarianism, etc.
Regardless of what ideas one specifically adheres to, it is quite clear that one can (in one's own way) judge what actions are moral and immoral without relying on the judgment of an ancient text which condemns witches and homosexuals to death. Such is the nature of moral progress.
Now, let me ask you a question. Why do you have to ask people who disbelieve in the existence of a deity if they think morality exists?
Below is a video in which Richard Dawkins addresses this very issue.
[YOUTUBE]zSYosM2ZhzY[/YOUTUBE]
You've yet to back up why its wrong to molest babies. You say because it's through natural selection....thats a new one. Molesting babies doesn't kill anyone, humanity would still survive, why is it wrong?
So ethics change where you brought up? So if everyone has their own morals and ethics, I could kill your whole family because of of the ethics I was tought growing up and I could still be in the "right".
Billetes
Guru
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2009
- Sythe Gold
- 0
- Messages
- 1,776
It's wrong to "molest babies" because it does not benefit them in any way, it will most likely cause them a lot of pain, and they do not give their consent for you to "molest" them. Now, let me ask you a question. Do you believe that it's right for Priests to "molest" little children? I am asking this because it has happened A LOT of times. Now with that said, what should be done to these priests (from a christian point of view)? Aren't you supposed to only have sex after marriage? Isn't being gay not allowed? There is more rules that are being broken by this but this is just the few I can think of right now as I am in a hurry right now.
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2005
- Sythe Gold
- 5,470
- Messages
- 8,076
I'm sorry but where are you arguing from?
If you believe in god "on faith", you admit you have no evidence to support his existence. Thus any morality justified by saying "god says" is equally lacking evidence. You don't have the privilege of applying a standard of reason and evidence to morality because you've already accepted a null standard in order to believe in "religious ethics" -- perhaps better termed anti-ethics.
There are numerous schools of thought in rational ethics (actually just ethics, since there is no such thing as irrational ethics, only people misusing the term ethics.) Two I suggest you research are: rational egoism, and natural law. There is also more recent work (UPB) being done in modern philosophy: http://www.freedomainradio.com/FreeBooks/UniversallyPreferableBehaviourEthics.aspx
Willy1234
Forum Addict
- Joined
- Jan 21, 2010
- Sythe Gold
- 0
- Messages
- 489
Molesting babies doesn't kill anyone? what's to say that baby doesn't commit suicide when it hits 16 due to years of torment? You essentially killed someone then?
Molesting babies is just unacceptable due to them not having any idea what's going on. I really dunno what to say, My heads fried and i need sleep.
cheater2010
Apprentice
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2010
- Sythe Gold
- 7
- Messages
- 781
this kid a retard? like how can u think because someone doesnt belive in god they go around knocking shit off and touching little babies. "plus dont priests touch little boys? and they are religious as u can get lol"
anyway
anyway
cheater2010
Apprentice
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2010
- Sythe Gold
- 7
- Messages
- 781
what is wrong with you? let me make it simple for you ok
killing = bad
molesting = bad
robbing = bad
lol why question it?
jbot
Active Member
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2010
- Sythe Gold
- 0
- Messages
- 160
Lol this thread made me laugh. Im pretty religious but why would you even ask a question like this? Its in human nature to care for one another but you speak of atheists as if they were inhuman and cold. Just because they don't believe in a god or something above themselves doesn't entitle you to assume that they simply dgaf about things. Its people like you that most likely discouraged them to not believe in the first place.
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2005
- Sythe Gold
- 5,470
- Messages
- 8,076
Don't post here. You have nothing of value to add.
davidh93
Guru
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2010
- Sythe Gold
- 0
- Messages
- 1,849
- Age
- 33
just because you dont have a religion doesnt mean you dont have any morals or ethics. by asking this you have a very shallow view... of course i believe those things are wrong, why do i need to believe in christ, go through ramadan, or have a bar mitzvah to have morals/ethics