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: 3
5
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 01:56 PM
link   
reply to post by juleol
 


To the contrary.

Let me make this clear if I have not already.

I know many atheists. They are good people. For the most part, atheists act morally. I do not expect many atheists to say that they would kill the man.

I am Surely morality exists amongst atheists. I am just curious where it comes from. A Christian can say "I do the right thing because Jesus says so." You may or may not choose to believe in Jesus. You may think that the Gospels, Christianity, the Church(es) and everything that purports to come from Jesus is 100% bunk, but at least the Christian's morality comes from something or somewhere. We can begin to put a finger on it. When it comes to atheists, I don't know where to put my finger, where to measure the pulse.

In a way, atheist morality may be purer than religious morality. The morality of a Christian, Muslim, Jew, Buddhist, etc. is clouded with religious rites and practices. The morality of an atheist does not have these impurities. Atheists just want to do the right thing and are not interested in wearing funny hats or burning things.




posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 01:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by FugitiveSoul
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)


Makes a lot of sense. You should watch this video, which may cause you to question your beliefs. Go to google and type in leopard saves baboon baby. A nat geo video. So if morals are learned, and I think it safe to assume that leopards do not have a complex language as to teach such a complicated idea, why does this leopard save this baboon baby monkey. This is a primary food source, yet a hungry leopard puts his food down, and protects this baby from hyenas, and even nurtures it to sleep. If morals are learned why is this animal doing this? It doesn't make any sense, there is no possible advantage to doing this. All i can say is that the morals come from within one's one consciousness. Whether or not we accept that, or choose to listen to is it is our choice. Just because the feral kid goes in and kills the guy because he's hungry, doesn't mean he doesn't have any morals, just means he chooses to ignore them, which only means he is a relatively new soul, and not ready to evolve to a higher state of being



posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 02:02 PM
link   
reply to post by magicrat
 


You and someone else talk about trusting your "gut" or inner yardstick to know what is right and wrong. While it is true that in some circumstances two reasonable people may come to different conclusions using their gut, all reasonable people would reach the same gut conclusion when posed with many moral dilemnas. Everybody's "gut" reaction is not to kill the man. The religious people did not even have to consult the chapter and verse of their scriptures.

Where does this gut reaction come from? How come we all have similar gut reactions? How come your gut or inner yardstick makes sense to me and everybody else, even though we have not met?



posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 02:04 PM
link   
Humans are what they are born. God/God teaching is irrelevant. Personally I'll take logical thinking over emotional mysticism any day.

Whether a human robs or doesn't - - is in his brain makeup - - not placing responsibility on something outside the body.

How an Amazonian tribe turned a missionary into an atheistt freethinker.co.uk...

The Pirahã: People Who Define Happiness Without God ffrf.org...

Brain scans reveal the criminal mind - Researchers find that crooks' minds are different than those of the rest of the population www.msnbc.msn.com...

Could Brain Scans ID Potential Criminals? news.discovery.com...

Criminal Minds Adrian Raine thinks brain scans can identify children who may become killers chronicle.com...



posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 02:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by hotpinkurinalmint
reply to post by juleol
 


To the contrary.

Let me make this clear if I have not already.

I know many atheists. They are good people. For the most part, atheists act morally. I do not expect many atheists to say that they would kill the man.

I am Surely morality exists amongst atheists. I am just curious where it comes from. A Christian can say "I do the right thing because Jesus says so." You may or may not choose to believe in Jesus. You may think that the Gospels, Christianity, the Church(es) and everything that purports to come from Jesus is 100% bunk, but at least the Christian's morality comes from something or somewhere. We can begin to put a finger on it. When it comes to atheists, I don't know where to put my finger, where to measure the pulse.

In a way, atheist morality may be purer than religious morality. The morality of a Christian, Muslim, Jew, Buddhist, etc. is clouded with religious rites and practices. The morality of an atheist does not have these impurities. Atheists just want to do the right thing and are not interested in wearing funny hats or burning things.


This is because morality comes from within ourselves. I don't see it coming from anywhere else. It comes from within our own consciousness, and many make the mistake that it is something taught to us. This is absolutely untrue. Somewhere along the line there was the first man\woman whoever it is who proposed such an idea. He did not just make it up out of thin air. It is something that came from within. Try it, get a gun and go out and see if you can just shoot someone. It won't be easy, and everything in your body/mind will be telling you not to do it. But this feeling can be ignored, and forgotton just like anything else. This is where we make the mistake that it has to be taught to us, because we see people who don't live in the same societies as us who have no care for human life, this is not because they haven't been taught morals, this is because they choose to ignore them.



posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 02:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


Not sure what your tyring to say???



posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 02:08 PM
link   
reply to post by andersensrm
 


I wouldn't dare claim to know the thoughts and languages of leopards, or any animal for that matter. The more we learn of animals, the less we realize we know. I've witnessed my own Husky school her children, including punishing them for bad behavior by making one of her puppies sit in the corner for a time out. I'd assume leopards teach their young in a similar manner. Mothers learn to be motherly from their own mothers, and that learned behavior becomes what is known as maternal "instinct" though it isn't instinct at all.
You could say a leopard saved another animal as proof of instinctual morals. Then I could say a father polar bear eats it's own child to save itself is proof of no instinctual morals at all. Again, we don't dare try to understand the thoughts and motivations of animals we can't directly speak to and understand.



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



posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 02:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


Logic is based on constructing arguments. The arguments are made up of building blocks called premises. When it comes to constructing logical arguments, some of the premises have to come out of thin air. Why is it that "Killing people is wrong" or "raping children is wrong." We all know these statements to be true, but who or what tells us these statements are true?



posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 02:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by hotpinkurinalmint
reply to post by Annee
 


Logic is based on constructing arguments. The arguments are made up of building blocks called premises. When it comes to constructing logical arguments, some of the premises have to come out of thin air. Why is it that "Killing people is wrong" or "raping children is wrong." We all know these statements to be true, but who or what tells us these statements are true?


The makeup of your brain.

The basic needs of society (humans living in groups)

Mystical beings are not required.
edit on 28-12-2011 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 02:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by hotpinkurinalmint
What is morality? Where does it come from?

An absurd question, based on apparent misconceptions given to you by religious leaders.



People that believe in a god or higher power can say morality stems form the higher power.

I've seen a great deal of immoral things attributed to a "higher power" or inspired by such in religious teachings. Morality is a much more pure concept when the teachings of organized religions are not part of an individual's decision-making process.



If you do not believe in any sort of higher power, you may have to question where morality comes from or if it truly exists.

Relates to my first answer -- an absurd point of view perpetuated by those who promote religious dogma.



posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 02:18 PM
link   
1. Imagine you meet a person in the wilderness. The person has a valuable jewel in his body. You are not financially stable, in fact, you are in dire financial straits. If you got the jewel, your financial worries would be over and you and your family would be financially secure for generations to come.

2. This person has no friends, no family, and will not be able to do anything for you socially or financially. The person is not an evil person, but he is not particularly likeable either. In fact, he is a bit annoying.


Answer

1. The person in the wilderness with the jewel represents banking / illuminati.

2. See above.


This would be a great question to canvas the public of the world with BUT the NWO know how people think and function, they know the weakness of the masses to begin with.

NWO people reading that the majority would not take the persons life for the jewel , would be total vindication BUT they know this NOW , they rely on genuine , honest people , who are law abiding to carry on there nefarious activities , under the very noses of the people.

Answer 1 + 2 maybe wrong on my part but you can see the interpretation that could be read into.

I have stayed away from the religious angle because my reading of the post jumped at me as a narrative of the economic events we are facing now.



posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 02:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by hotpinkurinalmint
reply to post by magicrat
 


You and someone else talk about trusting your "gut" or inner yardstick to know what is right and wrong. While it is true that in some circumstances two reasonable people may come to different conclusions using their gut, all reasonable people would reach the same gut conclusion when posed with many moral dilemnas. Everybody's "gut" reaction is not to kill the man. The religious people did not even have to consult the chapter and verse of their scriptures.

Where does this gut reaction come from? How come we all have similar gut reactions? How come your gut or inner yardstick makes sense to me and everybody else, even though we have not met?


Are you talking about the same "gut reaction" that most of the animal kingdom also possesses where they don't kill their own kind unless otherwise faced with a threat of instinctual survival mode ?

As far as I know, we're the only animal species on the planet that kills its own kind just for fun.

I've never heard of lions and tigers and bears reading the bible for their "moral code" indoctrinations.

"Gut reaction", "instinct", so-called "moral code", etc etc, all come from cranial synopsis exchanges zapping back and forth between each other a gazillion times per second to cause what's known as "common sense", "rationale", "logic", and so on. It's nature's defense system for the survival and continuation of a species.



posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 02:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by hotpinkurinalmint
reply to post by magicrat
 
How come your gut or inner yardstick makes sense to me and everybody else, even though we have not met?

This is why I sometimes have doubts and can't lay claim to full atheism. I do believe that morality comes from within rather than without, but the consistency of what each of our separate guts tell us leads me to thoughts of some sort of interconnectedness or higher entity, which I generally don't believe in.

Also - I kind of want to print this on T-shirts


Atheists just want to do the right thing and are not interested in wearing funny hats or burning things.



posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 02:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by hotpinkurinalmint
reply to post by SkepticOverlord
 


What is morality? Where does it come from?

People that believe in a god or higher power can say morality stems form the higher power. (Come to think of it, that is an easy, yet intellectually lazy answer.) If you do not believe in any sort of higher power, you may have to question where morality comes from or if it truly exists.

Some would say morality is a set of rules people made up for pragmatic purposes. A society where people act morally is more efficient than a society where people act immorally. But in this situation, the ruthlessly pragmatic thing to would be to kill the man and take the jewel. After all, the man has no economic value to you or society as a whole, while the jewel does have value. You also don't have to worry about guilt or psychological problems, because in this situation you will get 100% therapy.

The only real drawback to killing the man is morality, in and of itself. Most people, atheists included, would not kill the man simply because it is the moral thing to do. Yet why and how is it the moral thing to do? Why should an immoral act in and of itself be bad?


Morality comes from experience.

By putting yourself into another persons shoes you can determine whether or not your actions are going to have a positive or negative affect.

If you punch me in the mouth the next time I think of balling up a fist and hitting someone in the mouth I'm going to go "Wait" and think about that time you punched me in the mouth.

I know theft is wrong because I've had things stolen from me. I know death is terrible because I've had friends/family die on me. I know that by stealing from someone, or by killing someone I'm in turn making that person feel the same way I did.

Unless you're a sociopath there is no reason you should look at past negative experiences and think its a good idea to reenact them. Any person in the right mind is going to do the opposite. Religion has no affect on ability to do this, it all relates to common sense and emotion.

Emotion is the driving force behind everything. Even your faith, you think God is the reason for your faith(And you could argue God gave you emotions but lets not make this a circular argument) but he's not. Emotion is, the emotions you get when you read about your God is why you believe. The lack of emotion you get when you read about someone elses God is the reason you don't believe in that one.

So would I kill the man and steal his jewel? Not in a million years because if I was that man I would want to die on my own terms and I would like to keep my property until that day. Feel free to loot my body after I die of natural causes since in the example given I have no friends or family to leave my jewel to.



posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 02:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by hotpinkurinalmint
Imagine you meet a person in the wilderness. The person has a valuable jewel in his body. You are not financially stable, in fact, you are in dire financial straits. If you got the jewel, your financial worries would be over and you and your family would be financially secure for generations to come.



You're essentially asking if it's OK to sometimes steal?

But you're throwing murder into the mix because you somehow believe that Atheists have no morals because morals only come from God and religion





I'm sorry but your premise and question are just pathetic.


Why not just ask "Do atheists have morals"

edit on 28/12/11 by blupblup because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 02:27 PM
link   
reply to post by CranialSponge
 


There are instances where the species or society would be "better off" from a ruthlessly pragmatic or ruthlessly economic standpoint by killing certain individuals. For example, homeless people contribute little or nothing to the economic well being of a society and in many instances they are costly to a society. From a strictly Darwinian perspective, it would be desireable to kill off certain homeless people, yet we as a society make efforts to help them and keep them from dying. (Perhaps we do not do enough, but that is a whole different discussion.) Animals on the other hand, allow the weaker members of the herd to die off.

While practicality and Darwinism can explain many moral behaviors, they do not explain everything. As I discussed above, Darwinism and ruthless pragmatism can lead to immoral behaviors.



posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 02:30 PM
link   
reply to post by MCJustJ
 


Your saying in effect that you would not kill the man because it violates the golden rule. But why should I follow the golden rule? Why should I care if I cause harm to to others?



posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 02:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by hotpinkurinalmint
For example, homeless people contribute little or nothing to the economic well being of a society and in many instances they are costly to a society. From a strictly Darwinian perspective, it would be desireable to kill off certain homeless people, yet we as a society make efforts to help them and keep them from dying.


Which society makes an effort to help them?



posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 02:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Originally posted by hotpinkurinalmint
My question to you is- do you kill the man and take the jewel?

Why is such an absurd question being posed only to atheists?

Morality is not the sole province of those who believe in a deity.


That guiding voice which forms your morality IS deity.

With Love,

Your Brother



posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 02:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by IAMIAM

That guiding voice which forms your morality IS deity.

With Love,

Your Brother




No it's not.
It's your own internal moral compass, which has come about through thousands of years of experience and human conditioning.

You don't give humans enough credit.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join