Atheism is Evil - Page 34 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

For discussion of moral and ethical issues.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
User avatar
By Verv
#15161322
Godstud wrote:@Verv Most people do not follow the rules because of fear of retribution, but because they see it as being right, and being conducive to a productive society. Most people only break laws that are dumb, and those tend to be minor and almost insignificant ones. Fear has nothing to do with this.

I don't NOT kill someone because of fear of retribution, but because it's wrong, and I don't need a Bible nor faith to tell me this.

Claiming there is God because you say so, means nothing. It actually diminishes your argument by calling upon a potentially non-existent spiritual being as your claim for evidence.

Talking about the Qanon people as an example of free will, is tantamount to donning a tin-foil hat, and howling at the moon.


Sure, people don't really want to arbitrarily murder others because they do not want to be murdered. We do experience empathy for others.

It's very easy to say that a man just walking over to a helpless mother & child he came across in a jungle clearing, tormenting and executing them is quite a wrong thing. It strikes us as unnecessary, tyrannical, cruel; it's like taking a perfectly cooked piece of steak and then spiking it into the mud for no reason. Who'd do that?! I wanted to eat that steak!

And the mind is even more disgusted because one understands that people have worth; dogs have worth. Everyone is greatly bothered when they hear about a man beating a horse to death -- great literature is inspired by this.

But what amount of murders are sadistic & pointless like this?

Most killings throughout history are men competing for finite resources.

It is wrong for yuo to kill me -- we are both married men with decent jobs and no reason to fight... It'd be a waste; it would be like just up & killing a pleasant, kindly dog because you just don't like dogs.

But if I drunk-drove over your best friend's kid & got off Scot-free because I had a good lawyer, and you saw me, drunk as a skunk, getting into a car each Friday night, living life to the fullest... what's the big taboo for your friend to not kill me?

What cosmic justice is served by sparing my life?

What cosmic justice is served by rival highland tribes not bashing each other's brains in at dawn?

There was an ineresting case in 2020 -- a poor ne'er do well with a criminal record who worked at a hotel killed another man who was staying there, and threw him in the river. When they caught him he said something like,

"Nothing to investigate, folks -- just one scumbag killing another scumbag. Put me in jail and be done with it."
User avatar
By Godstud
#15161323
@Verv You are willing to dismiss society and civilization in favour of belief. That's fine, but it isn't logical, reasonable, or rational.

We are taught certain things, regarding behavior, and this is what guides us. It is not faith in some mystical being who will grant us heavenly delights if only we enslave ourselves to him in this life.
User avatar
By Verv
#15161327
Godstud wrote:@Verv You are willing to dismiss society and civilization in favour of belief. That's fine, but it isn't logical, reasonable, or rational.

We are taught certain things, regarding behavior, and this is what guides us. It is not faith in some mystical being who will grant us heavenly delights if only we enslave ourselves to him in this life.


I was just trying to provide the context for killing, and to show how the right to life and the perceived wrongness of killing can disappear rather quickly. I was also trying to suggest that some extreme event, like murder, may not necessarily be the best measure for whether someone is moral.

I think it is also the case that proper circumstances present themselves where killing is a perfectly rational choice, and there is nothing that we can really say to suggest that it isn't, unless we believe in some value judgment.
User avatar
By Crantag
#15161328
Verv, what I said was my personal and in my mind accurate interpretation.

I wasn't knocking Koreans at all, I lived in Korea for a few months. I lived in China for longer, in Japan even longer.

A guy your age in Korea thinks there is a license to be friends, because, we are in the same place. But then, they might even get technical, and think about exact dates.

I also lived with some Koreans outside Seattle.

No anti Korean sentiments here. Korea is great and Koreans are great, and that's why I lived with them.

Koreans or Korea wasn't the topic though, it was Confucianism, and I was just trying to illustrate. I think the 2 Koreas are probably the most Confucian countries.
User avatar
By Crantag
#15161329
And no, in Korea, a guy a year older, doesn't necessarily think he has the right to boss you around, because he's a year or two older. He actually might think so though.

Confucianism in a nutshell.
User avatar
By Crantag
#15161330
And I know you have spent a lot of time in East Asia too, Verv. (If I'm not mistaken.)

I was just trying to give my interpretations. Trying. Attempting. And I am no scholar on it. But, it's all cool.
User avatar
By ingliz
#15161347
Verv wrote:a perfectly rational choice

So you argue that pretending to have an unreasonable, irrational God tell us what to do is a good thing. No doubt, it's a comfort when we choose to act irrationally and absolves us from taking responsibility for our actions.

But really, is a pretense a good foundation from which to argue objective morality?


:eh:
User avatar
By Rugoz
#15161467
Verv wrote:But ignorance does tend to function as an excuse in social settings because nobody can be expected to have all their bases covered


The expectations tend to be rather low nowadays.

Verv wrote:And religion does not say that man is a material thing -- it insists that man is material and spiritual.


Then how does the spiritual (i.e. immaterial) part communicate with the material part? It's commonly known as the interaction problem.

Verv wrote:Do you really want to be the guy in the godless universe stuck with a cat imp? Do you really want to treat everyone as your equal? Yuck.

You know the saying -- nice guys finish last. Religion added "... but they go to heaven."


Motivational quote:

Kant wrote:Two things fill the mind with ever new and increasing admiration and awe, the more often and steadily we reflect upon them: the starry heavens above me and the moral law within me. I do not seek or conjecture either of them as if they were veiled obscurities or extravagances beyond the horizon of my vision; I see them before me and connect them immediately with the consciousness of my existence.
User avatar
By Verv
#15161473
Crantag wrote:Verv, what I said was my personal and in my mind accurate interpretation.

I wasn't knocking Koreans at all, I lived in Korea for a few months. I lived in China for longer, in Japan even longer.

A guy your age in Korea thinks there is a license to be friends, because, we are in the same place. But then, they might even get technical, and think about exact dates.

I also lived with some Koreans outside Seattle.

No anti Korean sentiments here. Korea is great and Koreans are great, and that's why I lived with them.


Oh, I understand, no problem. I am not taking this the wrong way. I thought about making a smarmy post about how Western culture can be unpredictable, irrational, and unfair, but I abstained because I figure you are posting in good faith.

Koreans or Korea wasn't the topic though, it was Confucianism, and I was just trying to illustrate. I think the 2 Koreas are probably the most Confucian countries.


Yes, that is the truth of it. I think that N. Korea has probably destroyed much of the influence and morphed a lot of it into a Communized version of the culture, perhaps making aspects of it go beyond just some soft authoritarianism into outright tyranny.

I try to not believe that much I hear about N. Korea because there are a lot of lies that go around.

Korea has preserved Confucianism in their culture well because it remained the state religion until the very start of the 20th century, and over the years it actively suppressed Buddhism through laws that legally barred Buddhist temples from the cities and other such things.
User avatar
By Verv
#15161474
ingliz wrote:So you argue that pretending to have an unreasonable, irrational God tell us what to do is a good thing. No doubt, it's a comfort when we choose to act irrationally and absolves us from taking responsibility for our actions.

But really, is a pretense a good foundation from which to argue objective morality?


:eh:


I do not get why you quoted what you did. I am suggesting that rationality can dictate that killing the man who killed your son in a drunk driving accident but got off Scot-free, or raiding the neighboring tribe at dawn and killing them to a man, these can all be rational choices.

Rationality, without value judgments, without God, can be anything. It's completely disembodied.

This can never prove the existence of God -- this is just an attack on the moral systems & ideas people have in an atheist universe. But I can see why you want to twist out of this and make it about my position. :O
User avatar
By Verv
#15161475
Rugoz wrote:The expectations tend to be rather low nowadays.


Agreed -- people can't be expected to do much reading via their smartphones. Rather, they can only be expected to watch YouTube reaction vids.

Then how does the spiritual (i.e. immaterial) part communicate with the material part? It's commonly known as the interaction problem.


The spirit cannot be detected by science because it is not a part of observable nature. It also cannot be understood by man because man is tethered to the physical, and his mental faculties are not great enough to understand himself down to the final fiber of his soul. It's not for us to know.

You can say this is a cop-out answer, but whatever.

Science: "We may never know what is beyond the event horizon of a black hole!" <Wow! IFL Science! So amazing. Truth bombs! Mystery! In this moment I am euphoric! Carl Sagan!>

Religion: "We do not possess the capability to ever fully understand things like the trinity or the soul!" <See? This is why religion is baloney.>

Motivational quote:


Very poetic, Immanuel.

"The starry heavens above me -- the moral law within me!"

But the moral law is just the golden rule blown up, which smuggles in assumptions about all people & all categories of people being reducible to a single identity of 'humanity' which you are obligated to; obliged to serve this principle even though you never asked to be born or to be subject to its law.

The categorical imperative is not like a terrible argument or anything, but it's flawed. It has holes in it.

The 'moral law' is not only binding -- I do not think it can exist without God.

Without God, this is what makes the most sense:

Arab Proverb wrote:I against my brother. I and my brother against my cousin. I, my brother, and my cousin against the world


(This even still makes sense with God.)
User avatar
By Crantag
#15161480
@Verv I agree with your points. The bit about Communism corrupting the local culture I also agree with. You put it better than me, I'll just cosign it.

I agree, dude.

I am a softy man, and I love (or hate) everyone equally.

You made some good points though.
User avatar
By Godstud
#15161483
Verv wrote:Rationality, without value judgments, without God, can be anything. It's completely disembodied.
Absolutely false. Absent of a god, man determines value judgements that favour a functioning society. Guess what? Those values are the same as they put in the Bible and every other religious book throughout history.

Why did they do it? Control, and to promote ideals that reinforce societal mores.

Absent a god, there is still value judgements and morality. It cannot be "anything", as you claim. You are just trying to find a reason for your faith, thru logic, and there isn't one.

Values and morality are not determined by religion, but by human need.
User avatar
By Verv
#15161488
Godstud wrote:Absolutely false. Absent of a god, man determines value judgements that favour a functioning society. Guess what? Those values are the same as they put in the Bible and every other religious book throughout history.


Alright, Godstud, please point to us THE VALUES and THE MORALS which all of mankind has collectively deemed to be good.


Why did they do it? Control, and to promote ideals that reinforce societal mores.

Absent a god, there is still value judgements and morality. It cannot be "anything", as you claim. You are just trying to find a reason for your faith, thru logic, and there isn't one.

Values and morality are not determined by religion, but by human need.


Of course people still come up with moral systems.

It's just completely arbitrary because you cannot derive an ought from an is.

... And if you read what I wrote just above to Ingliz, you would not think I am trying to find reason for my faith. I am actually attacking your position.

Verv wrote:This can never prove the existence of God -- this is just an attack on the moral systems & ideas people have in an atheist universe. But I can see why you want to twist out of this and make it about my position. :O


Your guys' position is weak, so you try to take the blaring light off of the fact that, when there's no ghost in the shell, there's no morality that the shell has to abide by.
User avatar
By XogGyux
#15161491
Well, regardless, if there is anything we should all agree is that without the pixies that fart gods into existence there wouldn't be gods, Christians, atheists or morals. Everyone praises the pixies! hurray.
User avatar
By Crantag
#15161494
The thing about you need religion to be moral is utter, absolute, complete and total garbage, horse shit. It is just a propaganda tool of the religious dictators.
User avatar
By Crantag
#15161501
Verv wrote:Alright, Godstud, please point to us THE VALUES and THE MORALS which all of mankind has collectively deemed to be good.

I'll bite. Don't kill it unless you're gonna eat it?

Don't pull your gun unless you plan to shoot?

You gotta know when to hold them, know when to fold them. Know when to walk away, know when to run.

How about those?
User avatar
By Godstud
#15161514
Easy, @Verv(I shall indulge you):

Do not kill another person.

Do not take what is not yours, from another person.

Treat elders and parents with respect.

Do not cheat on your spouse.

Do not tell lies.

These "laws"/rules are in every religion, and persist thru society regardless of religion, because doing these things causes instability in a society. That religions have included these things into them does not mean that they created them, or that they don't exist without said religion. You imply that such is the case.

Crantag wrote:The thing about you need religion to be moral is utter, absolute, complete and total garbage, horse shit. It is just a propaganda tool of the religious dictators.
QFT.
Last edited by Godstud on 17 Mar 2021 04:42, edited 1 time in total.
By Pants-of-dog
#15161515
Verv wrote:It's just completely arbitrary because you cannot derive an ought from an is.


I am not sure this is true.

First of all, you can derive an ought from an is. So maybe you mean to say that you cannot derive an ought solely from an is.

Because we can look at things like murder and rape and objectively and empirically verify that it causes harm. The fact that a person is dead and is deprived of life is a good “is” from which to derive the idea that this is a Bad Thing.

Now, you can say that this is meaningless without the premise that depriving people of life is bad, which is not an “is”. So, we need to also base an “ought” on something else as well as an “is”.

But all this to say that we base morality on both actual facts and also premises based on less tangible things like compassion.

And this means our morality is based on something real and is not arbitrary, even if we do not have a god making it objective.
User avatar
By Verv
#15161520
Godstud wrote:Easy, @Verv(I shall indulge you):

Do not kill another person.

Do not take what is not yours, from another person.

Treat elders and parents with respect.

Do not cheat on your spouse.

Do not tell lies.

These "laws"/rules are in every religion, and persist thru society regardless of religion, because doing these things causes instability in a society. That religions have included these things into them does not mean that they created them, or that they don't exist without said religion. You imply that such is the case.


I think you do not understand that there is a massive level change between what we are talking about.

You are pointing to intrasocietal values that hold true across diverse societies, but if these were actually universal values, they would apply on a far broader basis.

Hutus believe Hutus shouldn't kill each other, sure. And this is true for nearly all groups. But we cannot actually derive the universal thou shalt not kill from this, because (a) there are still communities where killing a rival is perfectly acceptable, and (b) there are countless communities where killing outsiders can be acceptable or even required.

The fact that you actually think this is an easy task shows that you do not understand philosophy and what the problem actually is.

This is something that people like Charles Dawkins also understood... all morality can be arbitrary, because it is determined by conventions, and there is no way for the atheist to conclude that there is some absolute moral right or universal principles that we have to abide by:

Justin Brierley (JB): But if we’d evolved into a society where rape was considered fine, would that mean that rape is fine?

Richard Dawkins (RD): I don’t want to answer that question. It’s enough for me to say that we live in a society where it’s not considered fine. We live in a society where selfishness, failure to pay your debts, failure to reciprocate favours is regarded askance. That is the society in which we live. I’m very glad – that’s a value judgement – glad that I live in such a society.

JB: But when you make a value judgement don’t you yourself immediately step outside this evolutionary process and say that the reason this is good… is that it’s good? And you don’t have any way to stand on that statement.

RD: My value judgement itself could come from my evolutionary past.

JB: So therefore it’s just as random, in a sense, as any product of evolution.

RD: You could say that. In any case, nothing about it makes it more probable that there is anything supernatural.

JB: OK. But ultimately, your belief that rape is wrong is as arbitrary as the fact that we’ve evolved five fingers rather than six.

RD: You could say that, yeah.


Robert L. White

In an even more stupendous excerpt, Richard Dawkins is quoted as saying:

Richard Dawkins wrote:I asked an obvious question: “As we speak of this shifting zeitgeist, how are we to determine who’s right? If we do not acknowledge some sort of external [standard], what is to prevent us from saying that the Muslim [extremists] aren’t right?”

“Yes, absolutely fascinating.” His response was immediate. “What’s to prevent us from saying Hitler wasn’t right? I mean, that is a genuinely difficult question. But whatever [defines morality], it’s not the Bible. If it was, we’d be stoning people for breaking the Sabbath.”


By Faith

POD wrote:Because we can look at things like murder and rape and objectively and empirically verify that it causes harm. The fact that a person is dead and is deprived of life is a good “is” from which to derive the idea that this is a Bad Thing.


You have another smuggled in assumption: that I am supposed to care that someone else is dead.

You can put on an exploded cigar face and say of course you must!, but, historically, people did not feel the need to ever care this way about outsiders, and indeed, delighted in the deaths of their enemies, and praised those who brought their enemies to their knees.

This works as an intrasocietal principle, but even then, to a degree: who is to say that it is not sweet & proper for a Samurai to cut an eta in two for an arbitrary reason? Who is to say that it is not the right of an owner to take full control of the slave he bought at the market? His societal laws at that time may fully say he has a right to take her as he pleases.

What is in nature to say any of these things are inherently wrong?
  • 1
  • 32
  • 33
  • 34
  • 35
  • 36
  • 37
Israel-Palestinian War 2023

It is easy to tell the tunnel was made of pre fab […]

Pretty clear France will be taking a leading role […]

He is even less coherent than Alex Jones. My gu[…]

Yes, and it did not order a ceasefire. Did you ev[…]