It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by angel of lightangelo
I guess as an atheist it is just easier to rationalize good behavior. Sorry but logic can most certainly include emotions. I get hit, it hurts, i feel bad. That sucks, I conclude logically that getting hit is no fun so hitting others will make them hurt too.
I dunno, maybe you need to flesh out your point a little better.
Originally posted by Xtrozero
Originally posted by Astyanax
...the early development of morality has nothing whatsoever to do with religion.
Are you sure? All this is learned in a non-religious based society?
…it called the anal retentive stage. …no morals there.
You ever hear of the killing field in Cambodia? In a very short time Pol Pot the leader of the Khmer Rouge regime decided his morals needed to be put into place and he had everyone with an education above a typical farmer... you need to focus on what a society does when all framework of religion is removed….not very pretty…
Originally posted by juveous
Morals are iffy - What will do good, may be wrong, and what may be right can do against what seems good.
Originally posted by angel of lightangelo
Originally posted by juveous
Morals are iffy - What will do good, may be wrong, and what may be right can do against what seems good.
Nah, not buying. Your entire premise relies on the idea that all lies are irrational and wrong thus complicating the situation. A rational person would easily just see the problem through to the end and make the choices that lead to the best possible outcome. Yes, they may choose to lie. I have a feeling we could keep going like this so I will just say I do not agree.
Originally posted by juveous
just saying its that we tend to look at situations to adjust what we think is right or wrong. Its taking the general to specific. I don't know if something is right or wrong until I am affected by the situation, if that is the case, why tell anyone what is right or wrong, they must rationalize it themselves.
Originally posted by angel of lightangelo
Growing old enough to understand that it heats up and what that would mean helps too. See. Why is this not rational to you?
Maybe it is semantics that is standing between us. Perhaps you need to try a different word and see how that explanation goes. Maybe I need to, let me know.
Originally posted by juveous
when you experience it, then you rationalize, if not, you are merely putting your faith in someone else's experience.
Originally posted by angel of lightangelo
Originally posted by juveous
when you experience it, then you rationalize, if not, you are merely putting your faith in someone else's experience.
Belief can be rational.
I have never been shot to death. Is it not rational for me to fear being shot at?
Originally posted by juveous
the same. You are relying on another's experience. until you witness aka experience the affects can you rationalize. If I have never seen a gun, nor seen it's affects it is completely rational to not be afraid of it, but I am assuming you have seen an action movie or 2 in your time.
Originally posted by angel of lightangelo
Right, so I am rational to be afraid of being shot at
even though my only reference is from other people and faith?
I think you just told me I was right.
Originally posted by juveous
lol no, it was not just belief, you experienced it. I just said, if you are unaware of the effects of a gun, the it is rational to not be afraid.
You said you could be afraid with only the belief in trust of someone else.
Don't mix them up, If you've seen the effects, then you have witnessed and have (partly) experienced the situation.
Now, could someone vividly describe in detail the affects of something I have never seen? could they implant these images of fear, so that I am aware of the situation without ever seeing it? can I rationalize off of this belief, of only a description? - I guess that depends on the individuals efforts of understanding...
Originally posted by Equinox99
Atheists are not morally superior to Theists and vice-versa. There are more
Theists then Atheists so it is easier to look around and see more problems
caused by believers. Atheists have their share of immoral people just as Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, and etc.
Originally posted by angel of lightangelo
Originally posted by juveous
lol no, it was not just belief, you experienced it. I just said, if you are unaware of the effects of a gun, the it is rational to not be afraid.
You said you could be afraid with only the belief in trust of someone else.
Don't mix them up, If you've seen the effects, then you have witnessed and have (partly) experienced the situation.
OK, I can deal with that. I cannot say you do not have a point.
Now, could someone vividly describe in detail the affects of something I have never seen? could they implant these images of fear, so that I am aware of the situation without ever seeing it? can I rationalize off of this belief, of only a description? - I guess that depends on the individuals efforts of understanding...
See, it gets all blurry again. Given the above logic, a blind person can never be rational since they will never see the effects of anything. I know that is myopic but where do we draw these lines of perception? Do you not see some gray area between my seeing a bullet do damage and someone explaining it to me in such a way as to make so much sense that it is just rational to take their word?
Originally posted by angel of lightangelo
But I made what I thought was a pretty solid case for how people decide to be right or wrong, bad or good. It seems really simple to me. Is it only deists that have this problem?
Originally posted by GrndLkNatv
The only being who could judge this topic is one that is not believed in by one of the parties and therefore this argument is null and void..