Question for the atheists?

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by tkwasny
I've always admired the supernatural degree of faith that is required for an intelligent, skilled observer to avow to be a true athesist.

Nice double talk.

It is my 50 year search to find truth that resulted in Atheist.

It is my surrender to the same which began in June of 1971 that proved to me otherwise. No matter how hard I fought against accepting what is found in the silence away from all this. Be well.

reply to post by ScottishBiker420


Yes, I would kill anyone for my family. If my family was in any sort of jeopardy I would do whatever it took. Atheist or not I think that is fairly common among our species.

Pred...

Originally posted by hotpinkurinalmint
reply to post by ALOSTSOUL

 

Most of us, including most atheists, would of course answer they would not kill the man. If you asked them why, they would say something to the effect of "it is just wrong." If you probed them further and tried to get to the kernel of why it is "just wrong" they might have to concede there is some sort of moral force in the universe that makes certain things "just wrong."

I am not here to argue that just because a moral force or higher power exists in the universe, that if follows one religious authority or text must also be 100% true. I am not also here to argue that it is always easy to determine what is right and what is wrong. I am of the belief that there is a moral force in this universe and that there are some things are are clearly right and some things that are clearly wrong, even if there is a gray area that many reasonable people can disagree on.

Things that are "just wrong" or "clearly wrong" or "bad" are simply things you wouldn't want to happen to yourself; it's not because some god or some force imposed these rules. It's something called reason, and everyone is endowed with the power of reason.

ETA: So do I kill the guy for his jewel? No, because I wouldn't want that to happen to myself, not because I fear fabricated consequences.

I believe in higher power and would certainly kill the man. This is why - my god will forgive everything I do.

reply to post by hotpinkurinalmint


Personally I would not kill the man because he is a fellow human being. I usually prefer the happiness and well-being of others over myself because I have more faith in them than myself. Nice question, although shouldn't have only been aimed at atheists that's a bit odd.

Originally posted by tkwasny

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by tkwasny
I've always admired the supernatural degree of faith that is required for an intelligent, skilled observer to avow to be a true athesist.

Nice double talk.

It is my 50 year search to find truth that resulted in Atheist.

It is my surrender to the same which began in June of 1971 that proved to me otherwise. No matter how hard I fought against accepting what is found in the silence away from all this. Be well.

The battle is now to find the "off switch", knowing one does not exist, where for decades I never saw the switch. At least when in ignorance I had a choice. Now It cannot be unseen. Choose carefully only after preparation.

reply to post by ScottishBiker420


What you pose is a difficult moral quandry. With my hypothetical it should be clear that the moral thing to do is not kill the man. There are variations of this problem that many philosophers wrangled with. One involves a a train about to run over two (or more) people. The train conductor has the choice of doing nothing and letting the train run the two (or more) people over, or pressing a button and causing the train to change direction and kill one person.

If it was truly a matter of life and death, and my family's life depended on killing the innocent person, I would reluctantly say I would kill the person. To me it is math, killing one innocent to spare three (or more) innocents. I am also being selfish in that I would do anything to save my family.

I can definitely see people arguing the other way around and finding fault with my decision. I can see people making the argument it is better to do nothing and let three people die than to actively kill one person. My response to this argument is that by my inaction, I am causing three people to die so my inaction is in a way a form of action.

I would change my name to link and blame the murder of the jewelman on my new god.

Her name is Zelda.

I have a question for atheists... if you don't believe in God, why are you so much against others who do? Why don't you give departments stores and malls a hard time because they have "Santa" there around Christmas? Do you believe in Santa but not God? How about you leave well enough alone - live and let live.

Oh, but no - there's a political motive, isn't there? It's as much about God as "gun control" is about guns.

reply to post by LesMisanthrope


I agree that everyone is endowed (by what or whom?) with the power of reason. But reason requires starting out with postulates to reach conclusions.

When religious people reason, their building blocks or postulates come from scriptures. To them, killing is wrong because Allah, Jesus, or the flying spaghetti monster say killing is wrong. They can take those initial building blocks and move on from there to draw conclusions as to what is moral and immoral.

Atheists have morality. They too know some things are wrong and some things are not wrong. The difference with Atheists is that they do not have a Bible, Koran, or Grand Primer of the Flying Spaghetti Monster to point to construct their moral view of the world. So my question is what are their building blocks?

When an atheist says "murder is wrong," I am wondering about the reason or thought process that goes into it. Saying "murder is wrong" just because reason says so it tautological.

Some people are saying "murder is wrong" because society would break down if people went around killing each other. There is some truth to this. However, there are some instances where society could reap a benefit from killing some individuals, yet people find this morally repugnant. This is why I do not fully accept the idea morality exists solely to advance society or out of pragmatism.

reply to post by apacheman


Animals abandon the weak and injured of the heard all the time in ways we would find unconscionable.

While we can debate whether some individuals are useful or not, it is safe to say that there are individuals who currently serve no benefit to society. My wife has a grandmother who is 90 years old. The woman does not work, is on life support, and burns through thousands of dollars worth of medical care a month. Her condition will not improve. My wife's family is unable to carry out plans like traveling, moving to new cities to pursue careers, etc. because they must stay back and care for their dying grandmother who is hardly aware of where she is or what she is doing. She can hardly communicate, and when she does it is nothing profound or intelligible. I would like you to explain to me how my wife's grandmother is useful to anybody at this point.

Most animals would cast members of their heard much healthier than my wife's grandmother off to the side. Yet we as people do the very unpractical thing of spending considerable amounts of time, energy, and resources on members of our society who are the weakest.

Atheist (for me anyway) = once you are dead, that's it. Done. No heaven. No hell. No second chances. No punishment. No reward.

This makes life a very precious thing, because, once that unique spark of life is gone, there's no recharging the batteries, coming back as a butterfly, or glad handing with everyone else that's died on streets of gold or some other nonsense.

You die, that's it.

This scenario given by the OP; well, it depends. If this fantastic magical mystery jewel can save many other lives at the cost of this one, then, perhaps, not yes, but, perhaps. For simple personal gain? No.

Life or death where others may live and be saved if he dies, well, I'd ask the guy.
"If I leave right now, people will die, several in fact, painfully, and slowly. If I kill you and take your jewel, these people can be saved at the cost of your life. Please convince me of your value or worth in contribution over the value of these other lives and I'll leave, or you, or, if you feel the right thing is to call it done, and stick a fork in it, I'll try making as quick as possible for you when you're ready."

Let this jewel carrying victim-waiting-to-happen in the woods have a chance to choose too?

reply to post by AwakeinNM


I am not an atheist, but I think atheists object to all the hocus-pocus that comes with religion being forced down their throats. Most atheists could care less whether you pray to the flying spaghetti monster, but they take issue with you trying to pressure them into eating linguini rather than spaghetti on Tuesday because the Grand Tome of Spaghetti says thou shall not eat spaghetti on Tuesday.

Originally posted by AwakeinNM
...there's a political motive, isn't there?

I'm not an atheist myself, but I would agree that, politically, most atheist do have a problem with most Christians, in that Christianity tries too hard to influence American legislation, which goes against the entire idea of Church and State separation. A law is passed against stem cells or abortion because Christians don't agree with the practice... how does that reflect the millions of non-Christians in the country who don't care what the Christian "interpretation" of God's word says, or those who don't believe in a God at all? There is far too much holy scripture being quoted by our politicians these days.

I am not really an atheist, I believe in "something", what that something is I do not know, however for this post as I do not believe there is a "moral force that governs the universe", I am an atheist for your post.

I would have to say I am in dire financial straits now so would I kill a person I found in the woods for profit? No, i don't believe in money and would be far happier being homeless than taking a persons life on the sole reason of jewels.

If I knew the person, and I hated him i would take the jewel, but not because it would give me profit, because i would take their life in a slow and painful way without recourse.

If taking the persons life would mean life for one of my personal family (wife, children) I would kill them.

If taking the persons life would be for the greater good (cure to a plague, prevent a future catastrophic loss of life) I would kill the person.

In each instance I would take the persons life I would choose not to have the therapy to deal with what I have done, I would choose to live with my actions and take responsibility for my crimes.

Is it right or is it wrong for me to kill this man? Is it good or is it bad to kill this man? Human concepts and because an individual human is governed by his/her emotions no matter what there choice it is a moral choice as long as they believe it be.

I can understand the responses of not killing why would anyone kill for money, seems sorta stupid, but if you had posed the question would you kill that same man to save the life of a loved one I have a feeling most responses would change.

reply to post by predator0187


It is amusing how theists like to claim moral superiority. Their bibles are full of violent examples and violent commands from their god. All of which are conveniently ignored in order to portray an innocent image of their religion. Any mention of these facts and they'll claim their god changed his mind. LOL, how..human.

As atheists we understand that life is precious because there are no second chances. This way of thinking is actually morally superior because respect for life is higher. Atheists also understand humility and responsibility since 1.) there is no god to blame or fear when life gets rough and 2.) the quest for scientific truth requires acknowledging that we are ignorant. Just look at the extremely low prison rate for atheists and scientific contributions as an example.

How can one truly respect life and their fellow man when they believe in a second life? Spawning after death like a video game is fantasy. It is no wonder apathy is very common among theists. Why care about this world when a brand new one is waiting for them? Religion may be emotionally comforting but it is a dangerous illusion which makes men justify inequality towards others. It is a sad state of affairs when grown-ups need a version of Santa to make them feel better.

reply to post by hotpinkurinalmint


I think, in order to better understand our own positions as humans, we need to understand where we've come from as humans. Inside our genetic code there are small snippets of AGCTs that dictate certain traits of our species...the ability to breath, walk upright, and reproduce. I truly think that as well as coding for these basics, there are sections that deal with wonder, love, ecstasy, rage, etc.

DNA wants to pass itself along, murdering goes against it's program. We, having the ability to override some of the safeguards of DNA, have created murder as a tool. A reprehensible tool, but a tool nonetheless. As with all of our tools, we should use it wisely (as in war or self-defense). In most 'normal' people, the no-kill program runs perfectly, in some people they willingly ignore it, in others it is defective.

Along with standard evolution, we have also evolved society and religion as ways to interpret the software of DNA and to perhaps rationalize our confusion as to how our minds work. Some people truly believe that without the guidance of a religion, society would collapse into rape, murder, and an orgy of destruction. I think that most religion actually reinforces these base desires-creating an aura of 'forbidden' knowledge and 'revealed' answers to ageless questions. It honors unthinking and rewards sublimation.

By truly assessing our selves and our origins, our place in this universe becomes clear- and the right way to handle ourselves becomes evident.

reply to post by NuminousCosmos


I agree. Murder within a species weakens the species, especially in a survival state. Strength in numbers is necessary when braving countless predators and long winters. Thousands of years of "let's get along to get along" becomes "morality." There's nothing religious or theological about it.

Live together or die alone.

Life or death situation = kill him before he kills me

Seeing that heʻs a dead man, iʻd then take the jewel.


Auright

Who,or what you believe in, doesn't really matter ,the most important thing is to believe in yourself.

We all need something at sometime or another,but there are degrees of desperation.
Those degrees are dependent on the urgency of the need.

Is the murder of one justified to saving the many?

Each scenario is different,hard question to answer.