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.

 

Atheists: A hypothetical question

page: 4
4
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 03:07 AM
link   
All you need for this "dilemma" is Immanuel Kant - Categorical Imperative.

"Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law."

17 men would vote for raping all and every woman on that island? Not under this proposition!


No god is needed. Morality is based on logic.




posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 03:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by apodictic

Originally posted by Lionhearte


Historically, Mathematically, and Geographically, the earth isn't less than 10,000 years old.

I agree. It's 13,000 years old



LMAO.
The amount of face palms needed for this line would cause severe brain damage.

www.sciencedaily.com...



Lol, you're funny. Try harder next time.

reply to post by thegrayone
 

Interesting you should mention The Long Day of Joshua..

edit on 27-3-2012 by Lionhearte because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 04:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Hydroman
 


That is why many societies ensure the protection of disinfranchies people and minority groups. A good societal structure would ensure that minorities or weaker parties (i.e. in this scenario - women) are protected and cannot have their rights abused.

Religion often abuses minorities, due to the "good book" which promotes slavery and murder and all other sorts of crime. Hence, many Christians (i.e. the South) used the Bible to justify slavery.



posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 04:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Hydroman
 


what is your OP actually about?
I've read it a couple of times and still can't make out what it's about...
the title says it has to do with us atheists
the example of the folks on the ship imo refers to the implications of "democracy", if understood as doing what the majority decided
it also refers to morality
so what is your question? are we atheists less moral? that would be a fair question that has been answered over and over again, especially since it became clear morality has a neurological component as well as a sociological one.
the claim that only believers with the imaginary friend can act morally is just that, a stupid claim



posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 05:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Lionhearte
 


If there is a fault within theories, this error can be corrected - maybe the world IS older. Or the readings of 6 BYrs were wrong.

But how could someone conclude then that 13.000 years are a WAY more reliable age of the earth? Based on facts, not on a book written 2000 years ago by some shepards..



posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 06:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hydroman

Originally posted by SwissMarked
So far as what you said about "who's God is better... it's all the same God... just different roads to get there... the God of Islam is the same as that of Judaism and the same as Christianity and the same as blah blah blah... it's all a matter of "who you follow to get there"...
And Zeus, Vishnu, etc. are the same as well? How do you know this?

Arabs believe in the same god as christians catholics and jews. They believe in different ways though "allah" means God. They even believe in Jesus but they do not believe Jesus was the son of god they believe Jesus was a prophet. I highly doubt anyone believes in those ancient gods anymore but yeah I would say Zeus would be the same God in beliefs.



posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 07:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Hydroman
 





So, I guess we get in to logical absolutes, if those exist or not. Is morality up for grabs in different societies, or is there an aboslute right and wrong? I'm sure believers will chime in as well, and that is fine.


My moral code is quite simple, has nothing to do with democracy, society, or religion.

In my interactions with others, I try to empathize with them, and treat them in such a way that I would like to be treated.

If I was that woman, would I want some random dirty guy forcing himself on me? Hell no. My heart, and mind, tell me that's wrong. I'd be causing her harm, pain, and suffering. I would never want to feel that myself, therefor I will have no part in doing it to another. And, to take it further, my self contained moral compass tells me that is so wrong, I'd go out of my way to stop it if someone else was doing it. (True story, well, not on a deserted island)



posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 07:36 AM
link   
Basically, what you don't want others to do to you is what you shouldn't do to others...this is really quite simple.

Ummmmmmm yeah all well and good, what happens if you are on an island with masochists ? What happens then ?



posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 08:54 AM
link   
reply to post by samlf3rd
 


You misunderstand me. When and where did I say I was religious? I'm spiritual, not religious. In fact I havent been to church in months. Your post is moot.

Religiosity does not equal spirituality



posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 09:10 AM
link   
I think I am somewhat in the minority among fellow atheists as I don't believe morals are completely subjective. I don't think they are absolute, either as there are so many grey areas.

It's quite simple. There are good acts, they mostly help others, and there are bad acts, they are mostly harmful. if the harm greatly outweighs the good, the act is clearly immoral, and vice versa. Anything in between is tricky but I think intelligent debate and reasoning can determine whether an act should be considered moral or not.

Rape is simply wrong, intellectually. No valid argument can be made in favor of rape, it is immoral.

I think a machine could potentially be built which can calculate the "harm" versus the "aid" in any act and morals could be calculated, meaning they would have an existence similar to mathematics. This view is different to the mainstream scientific or rationalist approach to morality, but it is also very different to the objective absolute morality of the Christian Bible.
edit on 27-3-2012 by humphreysjim because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 09:14 AM
link   
By the way, the preacher should have been told that there is no meaningful morality in Christianity. God doesn't decide what is good, according to the Bible he actually is good, meaning everything he does is good by definition. If he rapes a child, raping children is good, and so on.

This is about the most meaningless pile of drivel imaginable and is no basis for a moral code. Atheists are always put on the defense when it comes to morals but they should really be attacking the absurdity of Christian morality and how it is actually a tautological system based on God's tyranny.

In Christianity there is no good and evil as such, just things God likes, and things he dislikes, and neither is based on reason of any kind. It is clear his ideas on what is okay change with the times, too, how this is supposed to be "morality" baffles me.
edit on 27-3-2012 by humphreysjim because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 09:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Hydroman
 


I am an atheist.

I live by my own rules, learn from my parents (who was lightly christians) and those around me.

1. Do not do to someone else, something that you do not want someone to do to you.

2. Just be nice.

That's two simple rules.
If those where followed, it wouldn't be any problem.



posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 09:24 AM
link   
Morality is learned from holy texts,.... omg i'm dieing on laughter!

You learn morality and common sense through experience, touch a hot stove, find out its hot, you hit someone, they hit you back, you feel pain. When you see someone crying, you get affected emotionally and etc etc..



posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 09:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by SwissMarked
No offense meant but I've always considered atheists to be arrogant morons for the simple fact that while I can't prove to them that God exists I have yet to meet one that can prove to me that God does not...


That's the thing.
You can NOT prove a NOT.

You can NOT prove, that Pink Flying Elephants does NOT exist somewhere in the Universe.
You can ONLY prove that something exist. By finding evidence of it.



posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 09:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hydroman
...17 men vote that it is ok, the 3 women vote no, it is not ok. Majority wins and raping of the women is ok. In this society, since the majority said it is ok, is it really ok?

This is my version of what the preacher asked. So, is there more to it than just "society deemed what is moral"? I mean, I can think of morality differences right now within different societies. For example, in some European countries, it is ok to walk a public beach in the nude. In the United States, it is NOT ok. These two societies disagree on what is moral in that instance.

In some countries, it is ok for women to be beaten by their husbands. In most other countries, it is NOT ok. These are two societal differences in what is moral.

In times past, slavery was acceptable and moral in some countries. In other countries, it was NOT. So, who was right and how do you know?

So, I guess we get in to logical absolutes, if those exist or not. Is morality up for grabs in different societies, or is there an aboslute right and wrong?

edit on 26-3-2012 by Hydroman because: (no reason given)


Ahhh...an age-old philosophical question. Let first I'd like to start out with stating that to date, there is no definitive "answer" to this question which can or will conform to all of the formal rules of thought and/or logic in a coherent sense. There are simply "best guesses"...and the "answers" are ALL at least in some part subjective. The wise man is the one who can tell which "answers" are MORE "correct" than another for a given situation.

That being said...let's begin.


I'm going to start in the reverse order and address "absolutes". Personally...I do not find that there is any such thing. Kantian morality is heavy on "absolute" rights and wrongs but has proven to be largely irrational. No surprise, since inevitably "absolutist" thinking seems to veer back towards looking for a divine justification. According to Kant philosophy, the act of killing is an "absolute evil" because it's a violation of the 10 Commandments. However, his other lesser "supporting arguments" are essentially "murder is also illegal in every country of the world and you wouldn't want someone to murder you". However, the societal rationales are viewed as simply pointing towards the idea that all of humanity inherently knows "God's Truth" or whatever. No surprise given that Kant was a devout Christian.

However, this type of absolutist ideal breaks down immediately when we ponder something like a "religious war". Likewise, if we know a little bit about history we also know that SOME cultures viewed "murder" as bad...but ritual sacrifice as "good", such as the Aztecs. Likewise...what about a hypothetical scenario where a law abiding citizen takes out a serial killer caught in the act of getting ready to take the life of a defenseless child? Kantian philosophy leaves no room for "negotiation" on such matters.

Considering history...this once again is no surprise. Kant lived in PRUSSIA at a time when the Enlightenment was first rippling through this geographic region. Thus, Kant's "moral absolutism" is largely a reflection of being born into a world which had a whole lot of problems with MACHIAVELLIAN "moral relativism". This is HUGELY important in understanding both Kant and moral absolutism.

Kant's moral absolutism also proves absolutely (pun intended) incompatible with Christianity. Just like "murder" Kant is universally against "suicide" for any all of reasons because of "what the bible said". Similarly, Kant later goes on to state that we all have duty to do what is in our power in favor of "morality". Unfortunately for Kant,...he never stops to ask himself how it is that Jesus isn't burning in hell given that he purportedly had the "power" to prevent his death and Kantian absolutism dictates that failing to act is the same as the act itself. Thus, Christ would not have "sacrificed himself for us". Instead, Kantian philosophy dictates that Jesus would have really committed "suicide" and is therefore damned to the deepest pit of hell.

No surprise that Kant never brought this up himself, given that the Church was still burning the occasional witch at the stake every now and then in Eastern Europe at this time.

...continued in next post.



posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 10:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Hydroman
 


...continued.

Thus, "absolutism" is absolutely foolish, time and again. However, Kant did have one aspect to his thinking that I do sort of incorporate into my philosophy, albeit with the advantage of a couple of hundred years of scientific knowledge on my side.

Kant was a big believer in METAPHYSICS. Not the "new age" crap...but rather in the idea of what is the "natural order" of the universe beyond just the readily observable material world? To a guy who doesn't know anything about atoms, bacteria, chemistry, physics, or quantum mechanics...it's no surprise that Kant quickly turned to "god" to explain everything.

However...from our vantage point we absolutely, categorically KNOW that there is no such thing as "perfection" in the universe. Stephen Hawkwing produced a mathematical proof all the way back in the 1980's illustrating that if Newtonian Physics were "perfect" then universe as we know it could not exist. Newtonian physics dictates that all matter will displace to a state of maximum entropy. The fact that any two atoms were ever close enough to one another to have their gravitational forces attract PROVES the imperfection of the natural world. It's a bit more complicated than that...but you get the idea.

Likewise, we also know that the physical order of the universe is HIGHLY relative. Thus, had Kant ever met Einstein, Kant would have no doubt changed his whole system of beliefs. Indeed, Kant is the first scholar of the modern age to propose that time and space might be more subjective than objective. Thus, had he known that Einstein would one day prove that time and space mathematically rotated into one another, he would surely have not been an absolutist who also believed in relativity.

However...when we take one step past Einstein we learn how truly KOOKY the universe really is. Not only are things like space and time and matter and energy relative to one another...but they also exist in both states simultaneously.

For this reason, an electron is both a wave and a particle. This is why Schrodinger's cat is both dead and alive simultaneously and only "decides" upon a given state once we observe it. In this way, Kant's a priori notion of metaphysics are actually not that far from the truth.

However, the grand philosophical implications of these conclusions in the realm of metaphysics can then ONLY be that an act is both "moral" AND "immoral" at the same time and it is merely the act of perception and/or cognition which skews the act to one side or the other.

However, if that is the case...then we are right back to where we started and the entire concept of it either being "moral" or "immoral" for a democratic majority to deny human rights to a minority is foolhardy in the first place given that the "answer" depends wholly upon cognition and perception. Thus, it's "morally right' if you are in the majority and "morally wrong" if you are in the minority.

At the end of the day, this either "proves" (term used loosely) that there is either no "god" at all or that "god" is inherently irrational and therefore fallible...which would essentially negate the existence of a "god" in the proper sense and at best put this creature in the realm of being just another living thing, albeit one that happened to create us.

Hence...I tend to view things like philosophies, moral ideals, laws, political theories, etc as being more or less inanimate objects and tools and simply look towards the idea of the "The Golden Rule" to gauge behavior.

An axe isn't a good thing or a bad thing....it's just a thing. You can use to build a cabin and chop firewood to keep warm in the wintertime. You can also murder an entire family with it. The axe really has no strong feelings about how it is used one way or the other.

Thus, the adage "treat others as you want to be treated" is perhaps the best and most pragmatic "morality" of them all, and has been found in both the secular and religious tradition since time out of mind.

Whether this idea is the "Truth of God" or not, I'm not really certain...nor do I really care. Whether God exists or even the notion of "right" and "wrong" exists the one undeniable truth is that "treating others as you want to be treated" is a HELL of a lot better of a SURVIVAL strategy.

There are way less pissed off people seeking vengeance that way. And that is good enough for me. Rather than try to prove or disprove the question of God in relation to morality...I just wonder how the two got mixed up in the first place.



posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 10:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lionhearte

Originally posted by apodictic

Originally posted by Lionhearte


Historically, Mathematically, and Geographically, the earth isn't less than 10,000 years old.

I agree. It's 13,000 years old



LMAO.
The amount of face palms needed for this line would cause severe brain damage.

www.sciencedaily.com...



Lol, you're funny. Try harder next time.

reply to post by thegrayone
 

Interesting you should mention The Long Day of Joshua..

edit on 27-3-2012 by Lionhearte because: (no reason given)


Lionhearte...you are always a riot.

1. the link you provided to "unmasking evolution" criticizes Clare Patterson's 1956 isotopic aging of the earth on the grounds of it only used a single ocean sediment sample and only four other samples. Great. However...the "unmasking evolution" guys are drawing their conclusion by only sampling the first study of this kind and one which used technology developed prior to color television. The fact that since that time there have been 10's of thousands of samples taken from every part of the world and tested with ever-increasingly accurate equipment and which REPEATEDLY point to an age between 4.3 billion and 4.7 billion years ago should tell you something.

2. The "13,000 year old earth" idea requires a hell of a lot more than a very poorly educated attempt to disprove radiometric geological dating. You must also disprove carbon dating, the observable effects and rates of erosion, the magnetic record of polarity contained in iron deposits, the fundamentals of chemistry, the existence of fossils, plate tectonics, and the fundamental concepts of our base-10 system of mathematics. HINT: Even if it were possible...you aren't smart enough. There's no shame in that...it's just a statement of fact. I'm not a better quarterback than Aaron Rodgers....nor do I pretend to be. Likewise...you are not a greater scientific mind than every single mathematician, geologist, chemist, physicist, biologist, anthropologist, archeologist, and paleontologist that has ever lived.

3. The fact that other cultures have similar mythology of a "long night" in no way "proves the existence of god". It could mean that other cultures "remember" a large volcanic eruption in which the skies were darkened for a period of time. It could be a distorted tale of a solar eclipse. It could be reflective of a common human fear of the dark...or any other of THOUSANDS of possibilities.



posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 10:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by samlf3rd

Originally posted by Iason321
Logic goes out the window when you say God doesn't exist.

Every question atheists ask and secular scientist marvel over can be answered with God, yet seeing they do not see and hearing they do not hear.

Good questions though.


Hehehehehehehehe.

Sure. They can be "answered" with "God".

The answer might be blatantly and obviously wrong...but since when does that matter, right?



posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 10:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lionhearte


Lol, you're funny. Try harder next time.



You're even funnier hehehe!!!

So what you have done, is given me a page, that says in 1956, one study conducted by a guy was wrong, because he "made assumptions"

When in fact, the year is now 2012 and there is overwhelming scientifically accepted widespread radiometric dated rock that are billions of years old.

No where in your "lol try harder" link, did I see the mention of a 13,000 year old Earth.
Do you care to back that up with evidence other than "the bible says so lolz," or will you keep sidestepping fundamental questions to support their claims, like all Christians tend to do?

You are right, and the entire scientific (focuses on objectivity) community, is wrong? Can you explain fossils to us really quick? I think we all need to be on your level of intellect!
You silly little theist, you.
edit on 3-27-2012 by apodictic because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 11:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by NeverSleepingEyes
reply to post by Hydroman
 


what is your OP actually about?
I've read it a couple of times and still can't make out what it's about...
the title says it has to do with us atheists
the example of the folks on the ship imo refers to the implications of "democracy", if understood as doing what the majority decided
it also refers to morality
so what is your question? are we atheists less moral? that would be a fair question that has been answered over and over again, especially since it became clear morality has a neurological component as well as a sociological one.
the claim that only believers with the imaginary friend can act morally is just that, a stupid claim


moralities and majorities I like these comments myself I dunno about the rest of you folks.

Majorities in a way make reality true... afterall who decided the sky was blue even if some people see it as red?

you post was stimulating up until around your closing closed mindedness.

the claim that only believers with the imaginary friend can act morally is just that, a stupid claim

but whose the ones always talking about imaginary friends? God is not imaginary to Gods followers, but instead only an imaginary figment of the atheistic mind... we all know of God in some way or another and you are to speak Gods very word from your lips.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join