It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Empathy and compassion! Have you been napping this entire time?
Look, according to your Bible, Adam and Eve stole their sense of right from when they disobeyed "God" and ate the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil! God didn't give them the knowledge, they took it!
originally posted by: StalkerSolent
originally posted by: Nyiah
So, let me get this straight.
This inbred schlup is saying that in order to not go bonkers and be a total sociopathic menace to anything alive, you have to fear an imaginary friend, and adhere to it's 4,000 year old Jewish texts. Correct?
That's not what he's saying, at least not if I read the link correctly. Feel free to reread it yourself, though, and please correct me if I am wrong
He's saying that even atheists think it's wrong to be a total sociopathic menace to anything alive, which is inconsistent with the belief of an atheist that there is no objective morality. Which, to the best of my knowledge, is necessarily true if you are a purely materialistic atheist.
originally posted by: StalkerSolent
Oh, good! Glad we cleared that up
Er...sure. Or maybe it's a book that rewards study
Eh...no...it served as the foremost standard of an objective morality up until recently. The standards that grew out of Christian morality are still selectively adhered to by most of the West. Islam, of course, provides another standard of objective morality.
Why? Couldn't one just as plausibly the say the opposite: "unless you can somehow show exactly how Morality is Subjective I'd say you'd have to conclude that it is Objective."
All the various philosophers and great thinkers still haven't been able to prove that objective reality exists, because they haven't been able to climb out of Hume's hole. So why should they be able to prove that objective morality exists?
Objectively, they can't really be truly valid and truly meaningful at the same time. If they're all valid, than completely opposite moralities are both equally valid, which means they are objectively meaningless.
On the other hand, if they are objectively meaningful, then completely opposite moralities cannot be equally valid because of the way logic works: if two propositions are mutually exclusive, than only one of them can be true.
originally posted by: StalkerSolent
But you're OK with other people forcing your morals on others?
So, we should say something is immoral because it inconveniences us?
Christians struggle to follow their own guidelines–it's something that has been recognized since the inception of Christianity.
So, as long as a majority of people agree on something, it's good to go.
Uhh...you've been telling me it's not wrong.
Yes, this is true. This also means that the morality of the serial killer is just as valid as the morality of the erudite and compassionate atheist.
You haven't been able to tell me why it's wrong, just that you don't like it and it's inconvenient.
Even if your interpretation is correct, it's still borked beyond belief. Do you enjoy being alive? I do, along with all the pleasant experiences therein. To enjoy that is to also repay it in kind.
Morality or not, it doesn't need a hippe in a dress in the sky to mandate it -- we as a species tend to do what is necessary to facilitate our continuance...
I studied it. Repeatedly actually. Which is why I can say without a doubt that as far as a book of morals goes, it has some problems.
Same goes for slavery. At the time slavery was considered normal and it sets down some rules to follow about how to treat them and so forth. It's just how it was then.
How about when Lot is raped by his own daughters??? Or when God makes a bet with Satan and punished Job???
Ya, well historically we haven't exactly been champions of morality now have we??? That hasn't changed either. We were both moral and immoral then and we are both moral and immoral now.
Other cultures were also moral and immoral without having to follow Jesus or the Bible.
Ummm no, not really. We know it's Subjective because we've witnessed the fact that people have held different morals and live by different moral codes throughout history. That shows pretty clearly that it's subjective.
That even goes for the big rule breakers like Murder. Murder wasn't always seen as immoral. Nor were lots of other things. Now, that may not Prove Morality one way or the other, because as I said before, nobody can prove it 100%. However, it certainly is powerful evidence showing that it's subjective.
You tell me. You're the one claiming that Objective Morality exists, not me. I'm saying it can't be proven.
We can both have different Moral Codes which have meaning for each of us. We will never know for sure if they match a universal Objective Morality nor if such an Objective Morality exists for certain. If my morals and your morals do not match then perhaps we are both incorrect. Or perhaps that is simply more evidence of Morality being Subjective.
Where did I say that?
Ask the people who want to kill someone instead of lose a piece of property.
Did you know that most Atheists don't struggle with living within their own self imposed guidelines?
Not completely. The rights of the minority are a thing and are a very important concept.
People are more than capable of coming together and deciding on a system of rights and laws without relying on their religion however. As proof of this, I point out that most nations involve people of multiple religions coexisting.
No I haven't. I said I see it as wrong, many other people agree with me. Enough that society has decided to outlaw it. According to the morality of some people they won't see it as wrong, such as you since you've defended killing multiple times in this thread
Then again, it seems to me that if real God would be more apt to judge you based on what's in your heart than how you behaved. Someone who obeys the rules, but truly wants to break them all and only doesn't because of the bribery of eternal heaven isn't the type of person that should be rewarded.
If people are equal, then our differing moralities are also equal. That doesn't mean people can't come together and decide on what rules they want where they live. People who can't abide by those rules can go live where they can do what they want, or try to change the rules.
Why is something wrong because God says so? What makes God correct? Last I checked, God has a long list of contradictory statements. Maybe God is just as arbitrary as the rest of us.
originally posted by: StalkerSolent
So...who put you on a high pedestal to judge the Bible? Worst case scenario, the Bible was written by a bunch of uninformed people whose opinions are just as valid as yours
^ 'zactly. Compare this with the Roman view of women and slaves, where you can kill them for no reason, and tell me which moral standard is superior. I should hedge my bets here by pointing out that I'm not an expert on either Hebrew culture or language, so I'm a little hesitant to claim to understand all of the commands to the Hebrew people, some of which were pretty clearly contextual.
If you'd studied the Bible, you'd know that Lot's rape by his daughters was not considered a good, uh, example to look up to, and that God didn't punish Job...
I'd agree, but on what grounds can you say that they were moral or immoral? Unless there is an objective morality, you can't judge them.
So, if I tell all my workers to build houses forty feet high, and they build them between twenty and fifty feet high, my building code is subjective???
Powerful evidence that people are stupid, maybe
I'm agreeing with you. I don't think anything can be proven
We will also never know for sure if each other exists. That doesn't mean we should throw up our hands and forgo rational enquiry.
But if a TMO exists, it exists regardless of how far from it humans fall. If, on the other hand, morality is continent upon compassion and empathy, than it's really a very mutable thing.
Er...right...the knowledge, which they took, which was God's to begin with, so God was the one that created moral codes, which humanity then accessed...
Presuming, of course, that you read the story literally.
originally posted by: StalkerSolent
I inferred it. If you're not OK with it, then you must have a moral standard that says that it is not OK. But since this is a subjective opinion, you cannot force it on others, because if you did so you would be guilty of forcing your own moral standard on others, which would then make you guilty of what you find wrong. See how that works? Ergo, you must be fine with people forcing their own moral standards on others.
Don't have any handy. I'd prefer to ask you
Oh, gosh, living up to your own moral code. That must be really liberating. I bet even serial killers can do it!
Not that atheists = serial killers, of course. It's just that any fool can set their own moral code and live up to it.
Wait...if I recall correctly, you told me that rights were created by the people. So the rights of the minority only exist if the majority/consensus are OK with such rights, correct?
Most people think killing is OK if it's done during a legitimate war or in legitimate self-defense...
I still don't see why you see anything as "wrong." How do you define "wrong," again?
Welp, if everyone's morality is equally valid, than who gets to dictate morality should be decided by sheer numbers and then backed up by force?
Maybe it's because those statements are paradoxes. And maybe "God says so" is a good reason because if the God (of the Abrahamic background, at least) exists, He created the universe. His game, His rules.
I guess I don't consider it to be putting myself high on a pedestal to read and critique a book. This also isn't about my opinion or their opinion. It's about the fact that the Bible itself lays out an antiquated form of morality that 2000 years later has shown to have flaws in it.
What isn't subjective are the passages within the bible where it's moral code opposes other moral codes. Those I think are simply called mistakes. But since it was written by different authors at different times this is to be expected.
IMO Slaves and killing for no reason is bad, be it women or men or whoever. I don't think I need to judge which one is better than the other. They both seem to be a pretty bad way to go if you ask me.
Well, I think the whole Job story and if he was punished or not is debatable. You say God didn't punish him and I'm sure you have your reasons, but I would have to disagree. He rewarded him in the end and removed the boils that covered his body and all, but I think the fact that he put him through it in the first place because of a bet with Satan is a form of punishment. Also, his reward wasn't even his original wife and kids, but new ones. It never even discusses how Job felt about that. Maybe he really loved his original wife and kids even if the new ones were just as good.
I'm saying it they were moral based upon the collective standard of the day that's all. The point being that historically different cultures have had various moral standards even if they aren't always linked to the same God as it's origin.
No, but if you and your workers build a couple houses and yours is 50ft tall and their house is 25ft tall and you say your house is better and they say their house is better. Who actually has the better house is Subjective.
Oh well good. At least we can agree on something.
That makes two things I think we can agree on.
Morality IS a very mutable thing! If you want proof, just look at the Bible!
Of course I don't read the story literally. I take NONE of the Bible literally, NONE OF IT!
According to the story, Adam and Eve gained the knowledge of "Good and Evil", and became like God. What they did with their knowledge was up to them. God didn't help them with that at all, at least there's no moral guide from God to the first family once they did the unthinkable, and ate the fruit, in the Bible. Nothing stopped Cain from killing Adam.
f you'd studied the Bible, you'd know that Lot's rape by his daughters was not considered a good, uh, example to look up to, and that God didn't punish Job...
What I find to be ok isn't what others are going to find ok. What I find to be wrong isn't what others are going to find wrong. Part of free will is in choosing for yourself what is and isn't right.
Sometimes morals are inconvenient. That doesn't mean you need an exterior motivator in order to stick to them.
And most people are able to determine that rape, theft, murder, assault, and others are morally wrong.
No. Pure majority rule is nothing other than mob rule. Those who have 51% of the vote get their way. That's not how rational people make deals with each other because if you were to do that, 49% of the population would be heavily incentivized to break the law, and show the 51% how wrong they are.
Right and wrong are up to how an individual wishes to conduct their life. Laws are not about right and wrong, that which is legal is not always right and that which is illegal is not always wrong. In most places it is illegal to feed the homeless and it is legal to enter into an unfair contract with someone despite the fact that to me and many other people the former is right and the latter is wrong.
Well, as we already established, the law has nothing to do with morality. Sometimes it forbids an action that a person believes to be moral but they are different constructs.
If I were to believe in God, I would take the view that God is a computer programmer. Perhaps you're familiar with the theory, there's quite a few threads around here on it. This could be because my own background is in programming, but the more I do it the more it makes sense that if intelligent design is a thing it is the mechanism that was used to create the universe.
When programming a world (lets take an example of a couple simple AI's that are created and interact with each other), it is trivial to find any piece of information about that world. This ability to oversee anything going on in that world makes one omnipresent, omniscient, and omnipotent in regards to that world. However, it doesn't mean that the programmer is without fault. The programmer or God could make a rule, and highly suggest that the AI's follow it. That doesn't necessarily make the programmer correct. I think about this in similar terms.
His universe, his rules makes no sense to me. That's like saying my house, my rules which is completely arbitrary as the person making the rules is capable of being wrong.
Just because humans act as if it is mutable doesn't mean it is
And yet, oddly enough, Cain seemed to realize that he had sinned.
The LORD said, "What have you done? Listen! Your brother's blood cries out to me from the ground.
If they were good (Hebrew) followers of the God of Noah, then they would have known the mandate to be fruitful and multiply. Because the men of the city rejected them, in favor of the angels, (DUH, they're ANGELS!!!!), the girls were most probably virgins. Young innocent young women, ripped from everything they knew, who watched their mother turned into a pillar of salt and their friends and family burnt alive. They were convinced that the whole earth had been destroyed, and the 3 of them were the only earthly survivors, according to biblical narrative.
Their decision to get their father drunk, to save him the shame of taking them, was what they thought was the most moral thing to do.
There's no end result of objective morality in this story at all.
And Lot went up out of Zoar, and dwelt in the mountain, and his two daughters with him; for he feared to dwell in Zoar: and he dwelt in a cave, he and his two daughters.
31 And the firstborn said unto the younger, Our father is old, and there is not a man in the earth to come in unto us after the manner of all the earth:
32 Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father.
33 And they made their father drink wine that night: and the firstborn went in, and lay with her father; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose.
34 And it came to pass on the morrow, that the firstborn said unto the younger, Behold, I lay yesternight with my father: let us make him drink wine this night also; and go thou in, and lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father.
35 And they made their father drink wine that night also: and the younger arose, and lay with him; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose.
36 Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father.
36 That’s how both of Lot’s daughters became pregnant by their father.
Yeah, I doubt they were that dumb.
originally posted by: StalkerSolent
Yes. But then the beautiful part is where you get to impose your morality on people. So are you in favor of imposing morality on people, or do you think it's fine to stand by and let people impose their own morality on others?
But what are morals beyond what we all find convenient, in your view.
So you DO believe in objective moral truth?
So, rights are created by the people, but not by the people because that's mob rule.
I'm really confused.
So does it matter how we determine laws, or is it enough for us that it's convenient?
Yup. It's a pretty sweet theory.
So, we, the programmed, judge the programmer based on the programming the programmer gives us?
originally posted by: windword
a reply to: WeAreAWAKE
I would call that a fair comparison.
BS! If religious people only follow "God's" law out of fear of punishment, that's their problem. Non-religious and atheist people don't need no "God" to tell them what's right and wrong, and the "law" doesn't stop those who are going to rape and murder from raping and murdering, any more than your "God" does.
Get over yourself and put your anti-anti-religious hatred away before you expose yourself as the same type of bigot in the OP!