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.
From what I've seen, most people's moral behaviour is not based on intuition, but on their own moral philosophy that they've chosen. That is why I call it a burden or hindrance, because their behaviour from an objective level is irrational.
For example, if you found a wallet with plenty of money in it, then I'd like to think that most people would hand it in so as the rightful owner may be reunited with it. I would personally consider that the moral thing to do; yet, it would also be the illogical thing to do.
If you pocketed the money yourself, nobody would find out; the person who owned the wallet wouldn't know you'd taken the money, so you wouldn't need to worry about any negative repercussions that he may cause; pocketing the money would also have no relevance on the outcome of a similar future situation, where the same thing may happen to you.
I'm not so sure I personally agree with that. When you see things such as the holocaust, Rwanda, Yugoslavia etc. you see just how many people are capable of slaughtering another human being when they know they can get away with it.
There are other societies in the past that had a very laissez-faire attitude to killing, with things such as human sacrifices.
I mean, I would think that the way that I and most people feel repulsed when we think of cannabalism, is the reult of a hard-wired, instinctual human response. Yet, the fact that cannabalism was acceptable amongst some societies, indicates that our reaction towards it comes from societal indoctrination, rather than an instinctive response.
And that's what makes me question why people bother with morality. It's clear that the world is full of immoral and amoral people that succeed in life, and advanced partially to their total disregard for any kind of ethical behaviour.
If you take some of the more ''robust'' messages out of religious text, then you'll see that most religious doctrines followed well are actually a good philosphy to live your life by
Originally posted by Conspiracy Chicks fan !
It's not contradictory. Societal morality is different to individual morality, otherwise we wouldn't have so many problems in society.
It's not logical to follow your society's arbitrary moral code in modern day society. All that's needed is moral expediency; amorality is by far the most logical position to take.
Put it this way; if someone is driving 35mph within a 30mph speed limit, are they more likely to reduce their speed because they have less control over their braking distance or because they see a police car ? I'd say the latter.
Their motivation for staying inside the speed limit is done due to the fact that they are worried about the consequences of getting punished, rather than for any position on the rights or wrongs of speeding.
And that's what I mean by moral expediency; you don't have to adopt a moral philosophy to survive in a society.
Following an ethical code is different to adopting that code to live your life by.
If they don't have an arbitor, they have no logical need to adopt a moral philosophy for themselves.
In your above example you would not beat them because it would personally disadvantage you; that has nothing to do with it being wrong or right, and you have no need to impose a code of ethics not do so.
I'm also assuming that the main reason you wouldn't beat them is just because you know that it's wrong. You have no real reason to rationalise why you wouldn't attack them.
Originally posted by vash87
can you explain why everything in the universe is so finely tuned as to allow our existence? if any one thing from the force of gravity to the mass of an electron was different by even the smallest fraction, the universe as we know it would not exist. it certainly seems like although science can explain everything in the universe, it doesnt explain why it was born with such a precise set of perfect rules to follow.
Originally posted by ldyserenity
reply to post by Utopian
Starred & flagged, cause if there were no soul there'd be no conciousness or sentience, then if you must admit there is a soul as shown by our conciousness and sentience, then you must aknowledge a source, which is really the God head, the source of all things IS DIVINE...without it we would be bugs still crawling around on the ground.
Atheism – The complete disregard of scientific fact
Originally posted by Cassey222
Since when was science ever fact? 'Not sayin', just sayin''.
Originally posted by ldyserenity
reply to post by Greyling2012
That's a good question I don't know if bugs don't have a soul, they could but certainly not any conciousness in that. They don't think or act on anything but surival instinct, and if they do have a soul it also means a source for their souls as well, it'd still apply. What I was mor or less pointing out is the fact that we know we exist, we're self aware, which is a miracle in itself. We are the only beings self-aware, and why are we? Because we have conciousness, now what would be the reason for the development of conciousness, this is something science has not answered, in reality if there were no source for that conciousness, then we'd have none, there'd be no reason to be self aware if there weren't a creator out there questioning It's existance to begin with. IMO. You can disagree, but to me it just makes sense, water isn't just here, it is made with hydrogen and oxygen molecules and below that atoms of those molecules with protons electrons and neutrons. There is a source for everything, for this science has proven that to be true, except they still have no reason for us to have thought and self awareness, it just doesn't compute that it just sprang from nowhere.
Originally posted by Faiol
the reality is that some kind of GOD exists, but there are 99,9999...% of chances of not being anything like any religion book tries to describe
I dont believe that atheism exists, they just dont understand the definition
the reality is that we could be very well be living in our own minds and matter doesnt really exists, or we could be part of a bigger system
people that say that they dont believe in GOD, means that they dont believe in a man that did that like described in books, but I am sure they believe something created this universe, and that should be our GOD or whatever u wanna call it
to debunk the bible or other theories, you just need to understand this logic:
if all bibles histories are true, then they described something that they didnt understand at that time, it doesnt mean they talked to GOD; they saw something so weird that in their minds, it could only mean GOD ... nowadays, if we see the things they saw, we would write a totality different book -- example --- when colombo talked to natives in America, they thought they were GOD, even with them saying they werent, thats because their brains just couldnt conceive a ship like that or land after all that sea;
Originally posted by Garrett Staples
There is NO such thing as a "scientific fact" nothing is a fact unless truly proven. a "scientific fact" is in their opinion what THEY think is the truth.