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.

 

Ask An Atheist Anything

page: 52
25
<< 49  50  51    53  54  55 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 02:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by ChickenPie
I want an atheist to tell me why we should steer clear of death and psychological and physical pain. I also want to know why I should be careful not to negatively affect others with my actions.


Because of the inherent danger to yourself and others in such actions.

This should be self-evident.


The point is going over your head.

Why is it good to avoid death, pain, and why is it good to not affect others negatively?

You can go on and go on about how pleasure "feels good" and pain "feels bad," but when you say pain feels bad you're simply describing what pain is, and you cannot derive what you should do from what is. Think about this concept for more than a minute and maybe you'll get it.




posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 02:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-

Originally posted by ChickenPie
It's not an unnecessary assumption as I've already illustrated in my previous posts... which you didn't even attempt to rebut. Lulz.

But it's nice to know that you think morality is subjective. That's not a dangerous idea at all.

[edit on 31-7-2010 by ChickenPie]


If you believe moral comes from god and is static, how do you explain the drastic changes in moral we see in recent history? Talking about things like equal rights for women and other groups, freedom of speech, end of slavery, etc. Those were not revealed to us through a holy book, yet they dominate our everyday live now.


No, but they were eventually revealed to us by our God-given rationality and morality.



posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 02:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by ChickenPie
I don't see how energy itself could have evolved into conscious form unless an outside force caused it to evolve that way. Do you know of such a natural process?


This is another invocation of the argument from ignorance. This tactic fails often as scientific discoveries expand human knowledge.


You may want to read my posts in their entirety, and then respond to them, instead of making a bunch of posts nitpicking little details. Otherwise, you're just going to continue to come off as foolish. I devoted an entire post to why I believe in God... but you chose to comment on this... hm...



posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 02:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by ChickenPie

The point is going over your head.

Why is it good to avoid death, pain, and why is it good to not affect others negatively?

You can go on and go on about how pleasure "feels good" and pain "feels bad," but when you say pain feels bad you're simply describing what pain is, and you cannot derive what you should do from what is. Think about this concept for more than a minute and maybe you'll get it.


I don't know about anyone else - - but I haven't a clue what you are talking about.

Could you please simplify?



posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 02:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by ChickenPie
But it's nice to know that you think morality is subjective. That's not a dangerous idea at all.


Morality is subjective and arbitrary.

Though you might find this "a dangerous idea" it's a fact.


First, you're going to have to prove that God doesn't exist before you can assert this.



posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 02:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by ChickenPie
I devoted an entire post to why I believe in God... but you chose to comment on this... hm...


I know this wasn't addressed to me - - - but in a thread about "questions of Atheism" - - why would I be interested in an entire post about belief in a god?

Is this misplaced? Was it meant for another thread discussing "God vs Atheism"?

I'm truly at a loss.



posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 02:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by ChickenPie

The point is going over your head.

Why is it good to avoid death, pain, and why is it good to not affect others negatively?

You can go on and go on about how pleasure "feels good" and pain "feels bad," but when you say pain feels bad you're simply describing what pain is, and you cannot derive what you should do from what is. Think about this concept for more than a minute and maybe you'll get it.


I don't know about anyone else - - but I haven't a clue what you are talking about.

Could you please simplify?



I'll try. Pain is something that feels bad--we can all agree on that, but that does not necessarily mean it's bad in the sense that it is immoral. In other words, there is no direct path from the nature of what something is to what we ought to do. Yes, pain feels bad, but why ought we avoid it? You may give the answer, "So we do not experience pain," which is fine, but that's different from saying, "So we do not experience pain because pain is immoral." No, you'd be avoiding pain because pain feels bad, not because it's immoral. That immorality is something you created and attached to that bad feeling.

So this whole idea atheists have that you can create morals using the idea that pain feels bad so you shouldn't hurt people is bull#. In fact, it's such bull# that I don't even need to create this complicated argument. I can just say that's their opinion because according to them they believe all morality is subjective anyway.

[edit on 1-8-2010 by ChickenPie]



posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 02:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee
I'm truly at a loss.


Intellectually.



posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 02:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by ChickenPie
First, you're going to have to prove that God doesn't exist before you can assert this.


Proof in a negative?

Non-belief is a non- belief - - - not a disbelief.

A disbelief - - would require a belief first - in order to disbelieve.

It is so simple - - the self-created complications astonish me.



posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 02:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by ChickenPie
First, you're going to have to prove that God doesn't exist before you can assert this.


Proof in a negative?

Non-belief is a non- belief - - - not a disbelief.

A disbelief - - would require a belief first - in order to disbelieve.

It is so simple - - the self-created complications astonish me.


Disbelief carries with it assertions such as, "God doesn't exist," or "God probably doesn't exist,"; therefore, I do not believe in God. That's fine, but those assertions are not based on certain knowledge of God existence, which means atheism is just a belief.

That's all I'm going to say about that. If you want to insist on being ignorant, then that's fine with me.

Oh, and one more thing.. when you assert that it's a fact morality is subjective, then you're implying that God does not exist, which is a blatant positive claim, so your reply doesn't make sense regardless...



posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 02:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by ChickenPie

You can go on and go on about how pleasure "feels good" and pain "feels bad," but when you say pain feels bad you're simply describing what pain is, and you cannot derive what you should do from what is. Think about this concept for more than a minute and maybe you'll get it.



A minute? Nano second OK with you?

Pain is a mechanism to keep physical from destruction.

Better question - - what and why is physical.



posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 02:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by ChickenPie

You can go on and go on about how pleasure "feels good" and pain "feels bad," but when you say pain feels bad you're simply describing what pain is, and you cannot derive what you should do from what is. Think about this concept for more than a minute and maybe you'll get it.



A minute? Nano second OK with you?

Pain is a mechanism to keep physical from destruction.

Better question - - what and why is physical.


Around and around we go...

I see, my post went over your head. Don't feel bad... it's sort of a hard concept to grasp.

Who says destruction is immoral?

[edit on 1-8-2010 by ChickenPie]



posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 02:51 PM
link   
reply to post by ChickenPie
 


So according to you god has given us the ability to create our own moral. Do realize that this means that moral itself does not come from god. So we do not need holy scriptures for our moral. And besides that, there are other explanations than god for our ability to develop moral.

It seems to me you are a follower of the god of the gaps, and as soon as a gap is filled, your god manifests itself in the next gap.



posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 02:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by ChickenPie
 

So according to you god has given us the ability to create our own moral.


We're not "making" our own morals... we're just observing them.


Do realize that this means that moral itself does not come from god.


No, that'd mean that they did come from God...


So we do not need holy scriptures for our moral.


I don't think we do. I also never claimed that we did... so I don't know where this came from. I think the basics of being a good person are inherent in everyone.


And besides that, there are other explanations than god for our ability to develop moral.


Yes, like evolution, but that'd mean our rationality and morality hold no actual meaning, being from an unthinking source.


It seems to me you are a follower of the god of the gaps, and as soon as a gap is filled, your god manifests itself in the next gap.


Not necessarily... even if all the gaps in our knowledge were filled and there was no God in sight... that wouldn't necessarily mean there is no God. Read this: www.abovetopsecret.com... You should also read this: www.belowtopsecret.com...



posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 03:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by ChickenPie
I'll try. Pain is something that feels bad--we can all agree on that, but that does not necessarily mean it's bad in the sense that it is immoral. In other words, there is no direct path from the nature of what something is to what we ought to do. Yes, pain feels bad, but why ought we avoid it? You may give the answer, "So we do not experience pain," which is fine, but that's different from saying, "So we do not experience pain because pain is immoral." No, you'd be avoiding pain because pain feels bad, not because it's immoral. That immorality is something you created and attached to that bad feeling.

So this whole idea atheists have that you can create morals using the idea that pain feels bad so you shouldn't hurt people is bull#. In fact, it's such bull# that I don't even need to create this complicated argument. I can just say that's their opinion because according to them they believe all morality is subjective anyway.

[edit on 1-8-2010 by ChickenPie]


It is bull because? We are not allowed to associate suffering with immoral? Why are we not allowed to do that? Or why is it impossible to do that? Or, what is your point really?



posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 03:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by ChickenPie
Yes, like evolution, but that'd mean our rationality and morality hold no actual meaning, being from an unthinking source.


And moral having no "meaning" is too hard to swallow, so you imagine it coming from god? We, humans, decide what is meaningful to us, nobody else. I don't see why moral has no meaning in case it ultimately comes from a unthinking source. We gave it meaning. We did that creation process ourselves, not a magic man.

[edit on 1-8-2010 by -PLB-]



posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 03:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-

Originally posted by ChickenPie
I'll try. Pain is something that feels bad--we can all agree on that, but that does not necessarily mean it's bad in the sense that it is immoral. In other words, there is no direct path from the nature of what something is to what we ought to do. Yes, pain feels bad, but why ought we avoid it? You may give the answer, "So we do not experience pain," which is fine, but that's different from saying, "So we do not experience pain because pain is immoral." No, you'd be avoiding pain because pain feels bad, not because it's immoral. That immorality is something you created and attached to that bad feeling.

So this whole idea atheists have that you can create morals using the idea that pain feels bad so you shouldn't hurt people is bull#. In fact, it's such bull# that I don't even need to create this complicated argument. I can just say that's their opinion because according to them they believe all morality is subjective anyway.

[edit on 1-8-2010 by ChickenPie]


It is bull because? We are not allowed to associate suffering with immoral? Why are we not allowed to do that? Or why is it impossible to do that? Or, what is your point really?


You can do what you want.

But it's bull first and foremost because you and your pals have admitted a belief that morality is subjective. So, somebody could just as easily say suffering is morally good...



posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 03:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-

Originally posted by ChickenPie
Yes, like evolution, but that'd mean our rationality and morality hold no actual meaning, being from an unthinking source.


And moral having no "meaning" is too hard to swallow, so you imagine it coming from god? We, humans, decide what is meaningful to us, nobody else. I don't see why moral has no meaning in case it ultimately comes from a unthinking source. We gave it meaning. We did that creation process ourselves, not a magic man.

[edit on 1-8-2010 by -PLB-]


If our rationality and morality ultimately came from an unthinking natural process, then it has no intrinsic meaning.

If our rationality and morality ultimately came from a thinking source, then it does have intrinsic meaning.

Whatever meaning you'd bestow in the former scenario would also be meaningless because it is based on rationality and morality that had no meaning in the first place.

[edit on 1-8-2010 by ChickenPie]



posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by ChickenPie
But it's bull first and foremost because you and your pals have admitted a belief that morality is subjective. So, somebody could just as easily say suffering is morally good...


Yes, and that has happened throughout history. Well, of course the suffering of others, not yourself, since you experience suffering as unpleasant. So why do we (most of the time at least) no longer think like that? Answer: because we are conditioned with those ideas from birth. If we had been born 150 years ago, we would all have been racists by todays standards. If we had been born 300 years ago, we have no problem with slaves, etc.



posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 03:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by ChickenPie
If our rationality and morality ultimately came from an unthinking natural process, then it has no intrinsic meaning.

If our rationality and morality ultimately came from a thinking source, then it does have intrinsic meaning.

Whatever meaning you'd bestow in the former scenario would also be meaningless because it is based on rationality and morality that had no meaning in the first place.

[edit on 1-8-2010 by ChickenPie]


And moral needs to have this intrinsic meaning you speak of because? If I give meaning to moral, it has meaning for me. You may call me a god, but I am really capable of doing this.




top topics



 
25
<< 49  50  51    53  54  55 >>

log in

join