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: 53
25
<< 50  51  52    54  55  56 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 03:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by ChickenPie

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.


I never said anything at all about how pleasure "feels good" and pain "feels bad" in the first place. If I claimed pain felt "bad", it's not what pain is, rather my subjective interpretation of it. What this has to do with your question is beyond me.

I can't see what other meaning there would be to your question. You asked for an atheist to answer: "why is it good to avoid death, pain, and why is it good to not affect others negatively?". My original answer still stands. If you mean something else by your question I'd suggest asking another one more representative of your thoughts.




posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 03:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-

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.



Yes, and somebody else could say torturing babies is good. You see the problem here?

However, humans have inherent morality and rationality, and 99% of people would reason and feel that torturing babies is wrong, but you'll still end up with the same problem in the end if you do believe in God. Somebody (like me) could say your reasoning and feeling is ultimately based on an unthinking natural process and therefore has no meaning. That would mean that conclusion 99% of people arrived at is also meaningless.

This is why morality--or the system in which you create your morality--requires intrinsic value that only a God could give.



posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by ChickenPie

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...


I'm not interested in why you believe in god. Your quoted comment is indeed the argument from ignorance and I felt compelled to point this out. Hmm...



posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by ChickenPie

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.


I never said anything at all about how pleasure "feels good" and pain "feels bad" in the first place. If I claimed pain felt "bad", it's not what pain is, rather my subjective interpretation of it. What this has to do with your question is beyond me.

I can't see what other meaning there would be to your question. You asked for an atheist to answer: "why is it good to avoid death, pain, and why is it good to not affect others negatively?". My original answer still stands. If you mean something else by your question I'd suggest asking another one more representative of your thoughts.


It's funny because nobody else had this problem.

Maybe you're stupid?

Obviously... the question was in regards to morality. Why else would somebody ask the reason why should one avoid pain? /facepalm

[edit on 1-8-2010 by ChickenPie]



posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 03:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by ChickenPie

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.


No I most certainly do not. "God" need not enter the equation to understand morality or its subjective and arbitrary nature. "God" only enters the equation when religions have their arbitrary effect on the moralities of a given culture.



posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 03:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
I'm not interested in why you believe in god. Your quoted comment is indeed the argument from ignorance and I felt compelled to point this out. Hmm...


Actually, that's not an argument from ignorance. You might want to go look up what that fallacy actually means.



posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 03:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by ChickenPie

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.


No I most certainly do not.


Excuse me, but if you claim morality is subjective, then it follows there is no moral objectivity (e.g., God).

What you should have said was, "I believe morality is subjective."

If you cannot understand this, then maybe you should go do some more reading and self-reflection?

[edit on 1-8-2010 by ChickenPie]



posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 03:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by ChickenPie
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


There is absolutely no correlation between deities and the observation that morality is subjective. You should explain the leap in logic required to arrive at such an assumption.



posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by ChickenPie
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


There is absolutely no correlation between deities and the observation that morality is subjective. You should explain the leap in logic required to arrive at such an assumption.


If you're going to assert that morality is subjective, then it follows there is no moral objectivity (e.g., God).

What you should have said was, "I believe morality is subjective."

What don't you understand?

[edit on 1-8-2010 by ChickenPie]



posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 03:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by ChickenPieSomebody (like me) could say your reasoning and feeling is ultimately based on an unthinking natural process and therefore has no meaning.



And I could answer that it would not matter to me, and that I give meaning to whatever I want to give meaning to. Problem solved. I absolutely don't require a god for that, nor the idea that moral didn't come from nothing. I am in fact living proof that you are wrong, as I do not believe in god, and moral has meaning to me.



posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 03:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by ChickenPie

It's funny because nobody else had this problem.

Maybe you're stupid?

Obviously... the question was in regards to morality. Why else would somebody ask the reason why one should avoid pain? /facepalm


No, Annee had this problem also. I suspect you asked such a question because you have some belief that morality is derived from some deity. I asked you if this was the case earlier but you failed to respond.

Either way, I answered the question you asked appropriately. Perhaps you're unable to comprehend the answer. If you meant to ask something else perhaps you should form a question that accurately represents your thoughts.



posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 03:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by ChickenPie

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
I'm not interested in why you believe in god. Your quoted comment is indeed the argument from ignorance and I felt compelled to point this out. Hmm...


Actually, that's not an argument from ignorance. You might want to go look up what that fallacy actually means.


Actually it is precisely the argument from ignorance. Perhaps you should look it up and then attempt to comprehend how your statement embodies the argument.



posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-

Originally posted by ChickenPieSomebody (like me) could say your reasoning and feeling is ultimately based on an unthinking natural process and therefore has no meaning.



And I could answer that it would not matter to me, and that I give meaning to whatever I want to give meaning to.


Of course you can do that... but it wouldn't actually hold any objective meaning. If you want to create meaning using your meaningless rationality and morality, then that's your business. But understand that everybody else can do the same.

It's fortunate for both of us and convenient for your position that more people believe in God than not. Otherwise, we may get people running away betraying their rationality and morality because they've found it to be meaningless.



posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 03:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by ChickenPie
Excuse me, but if you claim morality is subjective, then it follows there is no moral objectivity (e.g., God).


And?

This doesn't require me to prove there is no god to you. It seems you understood this concept without the need for such a demand.

Also, try to make your points without ad hom for a change. Such tactics only reveal your sense of frustration that your arguments are so easily challenged. Just trying to help you here.



posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 03:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by ChickenPie

It's funny because nobody else had this problem.

Maybe you're stupid?

Obviously... the question was in regards to morality. Why else would somebody ask the reason why one should avoid pain? /facepalm


No, Annee had this problem also.


Why would somebody who created a, "Ask An Atheist" thread think that the following question, "Why should we avoid pain?" should be taken literally? You'd think they'd be smart enough to understand the context in which it was asked and conclude that they were talking about morality.



posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 03:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by ChickenPie
Of course you can do that... but it wouldn't actually hold any objective meaning. If you want to create meaning using your meaningless rationality and morality, then that's your business. But understand that everybody else can do the same.

It's fortunate for both of us and convenient for your position that more people believe in God than not. Otherwise, we may get people running away betraying their rationality and morality because they've found it to be meaningless.


Your concepts seem to indicate that you seem to need to fear a cosmic dictator in order to behave in an ethical fashion. I could be wrong but that's usually the case for those who argue that morals come from deities or that people are somehow inherently subject to the moral mandates of a deity.

This of course fails to account for atheistic people and atheistic cultures who operate in completely moral and ethical fashion, many of such cultures exhibiting far less negative sociological problems than highly religious societies.

You also seem to associate atheism and agnosticism with nihilism. This is a common mistake and misconception.

[edit on 1-8-2010 by traditionaldrummer]



posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 03:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by ChickenPie


Who says destruction is immoral?

[edit on 1-8-2010 by ChickenPie]


Nothing went over my head.

If you want specific answers - then ask specific questions. Don't give me riddles.

It is not my issue if you don't accept or like an answer - - - it is yours.

[edit on 1-8-2010 by Annee]



posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 03:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by ChickenPie
Excuse me, but if you claim morality is subjective, then it follows there is no moral objectivity (e.g., God).


And?

This doesn't require me to prove there is no god to you. It seems you understood this concept without the need for such a demand.


You can't be serious? Do I have to hold your hand through everything?

To assert that morality is subjective means there is no objective morality. That would mean you'd also be asserting there is no God.


Also, try to make your points without ad hom for a change.


Ad hom? Ad hominem? What? You didn't know how to spell it out?


Such tactics only reveal your sense of frustration that your arguments are so easily challenged. Just trying to help you here.


You have yet to challenge this logic:

To assert that morality is subjective means there is no objective morality. That would mean you'd also be asserting there is no God.

Just because I'm making fun of you for being stupid doesn't mean my arguments do not hold water. That's a fallacy in itself.

[edit on 1-8-2010 by ChickenPie]



posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 03:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by ChickenPie
Of course you can do that... but it wouldn't actually hold any objective meaning. If you want to create meaning using your meaningless rationality and morality, then that's your business. But understand that everybody else can do the same.


But I do not think that moral has an objective meaning, just the meaning we give to it. It could well be that in 150 years people will look back at us as savages, because we kill and let suffer millions of animals.



It's fortunate for both of us and convenient for your position that more people believe in God than not. Otherwise, we may get people running away betraying their rationality and morality because they've found it to be meaningless.


I live in a country where very little people believe in god, and we have about the lowest crime rates in the world, while the people are about the most happy in the world. So this argument holds absolutely no ground. I know of no atheist who thinks moral is meaningless. This idea is caused by a massive inability to emphasize with an atheist on your side.



posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 03:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by ChickenPie
Of course you can do that... but it wouldn't actually hold any objective meaning. If you want to create meaning using your meaningless rationality and morality, then that's your business. But understand that everybody else can do the same.

It's fortunate for both of us and convenient for your position that more people believe in God than not. Otherwise, we may get people running away betraying their rationality and morality because they've found it to be meaningless.


Your concepts seem to indicate that you seem to need to fear a cosmic dictator in order to behave in an ethical fashion.


No, that's not what I'm saying at all. Try again. Read what PLB is writing. I don't agree with what he is writing, but at least he is engaging me rather than creating straw man fallacies.

[edit on 1-8-2010 by ChickenPie]



new topics




 
25
<< 50  51  52    54  55  56 >>

log in

join