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.

 

Question for the atheists?

page: 2
5
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 01:14 PM
link   
Just for the hello of it no....but if its necessary for survival(life/death situatio)....should of covered that jewel with something that's like flashing money in peoples faces




posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 01:15 PM
link   
Heres a question for you religious nutbags

You know how most religions say "our way's the only way, others are wrong"? Well If im correct, the last time I checked we only had one sun,so if some were superior, others inferior, all based on exterior . . .Well then surely the sun would know and fall in to line and It would rain on your crops and not theirs?
Air would prefer to inhabit your lungs? Food would prefer the taste of your tongue?


If that¹s not the case then nature has declared, despite what you say the worlds in fact fair so your religions holds no ground when talking about whos is better and why.

Im not atheist, im Agnostic - im this because i know the power of man can manipulate anything, so i base my own self knowledge on things i know, through common sense, not a book thats been changed sht loads of times.

And if god does exist, or Allah, budha or what ever religions god is true, then im sure he will see how wise i am not to judge others through lies that mans created.

Please answer my question



posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 01:15 PM
link   
Whats funny is you'll always get the same answer from the athiest. This is why the question was posed to athiests only. This proves that bad morals start with religion, and a group of people who say it is okay to these types of things as long as it is justified. Then they extend it out, so that you can kill anyone for any reason, because they can now justify anything. I mean if you can get a person to believe that evolution didn't happen, dinosaurs lived with man, the earth is only 5000 years old, and jesus is white, then you can get them to do and believe anything. "A man who can believe an absurdity, can be manipulated into committing an atrocity".



posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 01:19 PM
link   
reply to post by hotpinkurinalmint
 


Morality comes from parents and peers (or lack of). It is something that is learnt during childhood.

ALS



posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 01:26 PM
link   
Bid them good day and continue on my way. there is nothing that can justify taking the life of another. as far as money and material things go.. pointless to chase after them - we have nothing when we come into this world .. we take nothing with us when we leave this world..



posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 01:28 PM
link   
I wouldn't kill the man. My decision has nothing to do with any "moral force" or higher power.

Just because we don't believe in God doesn't make us selfish murderers.



posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 01:31 PM
link   
Tell you what i would do though. id have a heart monitor placed on him and when the ticker goes, then its my time


the world i live in wants me to make money, so the situation you pt me in will be put on hold until he/she dies of natural causes. then id go get that diamond!



posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 01:34 PM
link   
reply to post by ManFromEurope
 


I am working under the assumption that most atheists would of course say that they would not kill the man. But why?

Everybody's answer is something to the effect of "Killing a person is wrong."

Let us break down the argument into a syllogism and compare it to another syllogism.

1. Killing a person is just wrong.
2. One should not do things that are wrong.
3. Therefore I would not kill the man because I should not do things that are wrong.

a. All people are mortal.
b. Bill Clinton a person.
c. Therefore Bill Clinton is mortal.

If we look at sentence a of the second syllogism, many of us know from practical experience all people are mortal. There is no reliable scientific record of a person being able to evade death. We know sentence b is true because from all accounts of the entity/thing known as Bill Clinton, we know him to be a person. Therefore, it logically follows sentence c is true, even though Bill Clinton has not died (yet).

When we look at sentence 1 of the first syllogism, killing a person is just wrong, we have no real source of proof for this. There is no empircal data, no observation. When we look at sentence 2, again we have no empircal data or observations to base this on. Therefore, when we reach our conclusion, sentence 3, we have no real experimental or scientific evidence to base this conclusion on. In short, we are basing our conclusion out of two assumptions that come out of thin air.

A religious person's argument is similar, with a minor, yet significant distinction:

1. Killing people is against the morality that stems from the higher power.
2. One ought not to go against the morality that stems from the higher power
3. Therefore, one ought not to kill the person.

I know the religous person's argument seems to come out of thin air. But there is a "hook" to their argument, namely there is a higher power. If I were smart enough, I would be able to conclusively prove or disprpove the existence of the hook. At least there is a hook. The only thing that "comes out of thin air" is the assumption a higher power exists. While in the first argument, too much seems to come out of thin air.



posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 01:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by ALOSTSOUL
reply to post by hotpinkurinalmint
 


Morality comes from parents and peers (or lack of). It is something that is learnt during childhood.

ALS


I'd used to agree with you, however I cannot be sure about this. They did an experiment with wolves. Right from birth they had these wolf puppies, and they nurtured and cuddled them, fed them, pet them, played with them. Did everything they could to domesticate and obediate these wolf puppies. However after 6 months the puppies were full grown wolves, and wouldn't hesitate to rip there masters to shreds for some lunch... Which leads me to think that maybe it is nature which is more influential than nurture.



posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 01:39 PM
link   
reply to post by ALOSTSOUL
 


There are many things we learn during childhood, from our parents, or from our peers. Does this mean we ought to do them?



posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 01:42 PM
link   
reply to post by andersensrm
 


What is interesting about your post is that you are holding at least some religions to a moral yardstick.

We all know that some of the most immoral acts committed were done in the name of religion. But where do we get our moral yardstick from? How is it that we can say the Spanish Inquisition or 9-11 were wrong? Where does this moral yardstick come from?



posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 01:44 PM
link   
I like your last comment, however i refuse to believe that anything can come out of thin air. Just because we don't understand how something came to be doesn't mean we should dismiss it. Yes from the religious perspective a higher power gives the information, but in terms of the athiest, which is more unclear, the information comes from within one self. Religiolions may think that this came from a higher power, but I think that is because they mistake god for themselves



posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 01:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by andersensrm
I'd used to agree with you, however I cannot be sure about this. They did an experiment with wolves. Right from birth they had these wolf puppies, and they nurtured and cuddled them, fed them, pet them, played with them. Did everything they could to domesticate and obediate these wolf puppies. However after 6 months the puppies were full grown wolves, and wouldn't hesitate to rip there masters to shreds for some lunch... Which leads me to think that maybe it is nature which is more influential than nurture.


Ever studied the intricate complexity of wolf society?

Apparently not.



posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 01:46 PM
link   
reply to post by hotpinkurinalmint
 
Now we've got a thought experiment worth chewing on...

I would argue that the comparable syllogism for the non-religious would start with "Killing people is against the morality that stems from my own instincts" or something along those lines. I feel like I'm not saying it in the best way, but I think there's still a "hook" of sorts. Either way, it seems to me to be impossible to prove or disprove any proposed origin for morality, so the best we can do is trust our gut and challenge ourselves to think deeply on it.



posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 01:47 PM
link   
reply to post by hotpinkurinalmint
 

What the????? How can you even ask such a question?? Do you think us atheists are beings with no morals or conscience at all??

And btw.. I probably kill less than you. I am one of those few persons that never ever even squash a bug. If i have a bug indoors, i will do everything i can to get it out safely.

Meanwhile a lot of christians think of animals as "souless" beings that are only driven by instincts and feel no pain.
edit on 28-12-2011 by juleol because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 01:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by hotpinkurinalmint
reply to post by andersensrm
 


What is interesting about your post is that you are holding at least some religions to a moral yardstick.

We all know that some of the most immoral acts committed were done in the name of religion. But where do we get our moral yardstick from? How is it that we can say the Spanish Inquisition or 9-11 were wrong? Where does this moral yardstick come from?


We always try to look outwards for the answer. The moral yardstick comes from within ourselves. We ourselves determine what is right and wrong, and why. Universally you could say that this serves as a kind of universal morality, because we are the beings that make up part of the universe, and this is what we determined, and so it is. Many look for an outside explantion for morals, but we are the explanation. We make up the rules, and that is what determines morals.



posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 01:48 PM
link   
Hmm hard question really, the state of mind that I am in now says that I wouldn't kill that man no matter how desperate I was to secure my future. But on the other hand.. He's pretty annoying.. How long have I been out there with him? Do we have a lot of disagreements? Are we both starting to get delusional? Maybe I catch Malaria while I'm out there with this extremely annoying man that argues principles more than discusses. Point being maybe I don't kill him FOR the jewel but some other insane reason for the state of mind that I may be in at the time and just think afterwards... Well might as well take the jewel to right?



posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 01:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by andersensrm
I'd used to agree with you, however I cannot be sure about this. They did an experiment with wolves. Right from birth they had these wolf puppies, and they nurtured and cuddled them, fed them, pet them, played with them. Did everything they could to domesticate and obediate these wolf puppies. However after 6 months the puppies were full grown wolves, and wouldn't hesitate to rip there masters to shreds for some lunch... Which leads me to think that maybe it is nature which is more influential than nurture.


Ever studied the intricate complexity of wolf society?

Apparently not.


I was just merely pointing out, that there are things that are passed down unto us, without them being "learned" or "taught". This means that the morals for which we understand them today, can be passed down unto us in much the same way. We may mistake that we are taught these things, but we still see it in humans, and even animals, who haven't been taught these things. Our moral yardstick comes from within our consicousness, passed down through our generation, not from something we have been taught by other people. Although both can happen, we can be taught morals, while knowing them from birth, this doesn't mean that only those with taught morals will understand and know them.

Ever studied the intricate complexity of human society??



posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 01:53 PM
link   
The only way you could get an unbiased answer to your query is to use humans who've had zero human interaction from a young age to skew their thoughts (research "feral children"). The problem with this approach is the very definition of a catch-22 scenario. If you have a subject, who hasn't been taught morals, to see if they'd kill someone for a jewel in another person's body, that subject, having no contact with other humans, wouldn't understand the value of the jewel (as that is learned as well), so there is no way to answer the question.

You could change the jewel to something more of a necessity like food, but we all know of survival stories of cannibalism, so that wouldn't work either. Morals are learned. They are not part of human nature to answer your question from a scientific/spiritual perspective.

eta> something else to research would be Plato's allegory of 'The Cave'.



edit on 28-12-2011 by FugitiveSoul because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 01:54 PM
link   
reply to post by hotpinkurinalmint
 


Well..... since there is so much money involved here , me and my family are living in poverty, the man in question has no family , so , i would offer him food and shelter even clothes if he needed them. Then i would hang out with him and get to know him ....... when someone seems anoying or un-likable its usually because theyve been turned sour somewhere along the line, he may end up being a very loyal friend in time.
Money isnt everything , i`m poor , my family is poor , but weve got eachother and thats all that matters, and since the magic man in the sky hasnt sent his son back down to slaughter us all... just yet , things are fine.
Aslong as the sun comes up in the morning and goes down at night, everything is fine.

Quick , go give some money to the church



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join