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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Originally posted by ChickenPie
I devoted an entire post to why I believe in God... but you chose to comment on this... hm...
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?
Originally posted by Annee
I'm truly at a loss.
Originally posted by ChickenPie
First, you're going to have to prove that God doesn't exist before you can assert this.
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.
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.
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.
Originally posted by -PLB-
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.
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]
Originally posted by ChickenPie
Yes, like evolution, but that'd mean our rationality and morality hold no actual meaning, being from an unthinking source.
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?
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-]
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...
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]