Bill Nye: Creationism is not appropriate for children.

reply to post by borntowatch


Your nostril argument is clearly nonsense and claiming humans walked with dinosaurs is silly.

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by WarminIndy

 

So let me ask this, is it observable to see the consequences of turning away from morality?

What does morality have to do with it?? It doesn't come from religion...it's imposed by society.

Can you prove morality is found within the genetic makeup of human beings? Perhaps it appears in some races and not others, maybe it is merely a genetic mutation like blue eyes?

Does morality come from an imposition of society? Then murder is fine without the imposition, if society dictates what a moral thought is. If murder is acceptable in a society that does not have that moral definition, then murder is nothing more than a response toward survival, Yes, could you think that?

So if we do away with morality, all actions are acceptable. But then, acceptable implies a moralistic stance itself. So if we say murder is immoral, we have made a moralistic stance. But then, if people say it is acceptable to murder only those who do not look like us, that is also a moralistic stance, morality dictated who should not be murdered, i.e. those who look like us. Morality then cannot be a genetic trait.

So if morality is not a genetic trait, where does it come from? You say it comes from society. OK, we had made the moralistic stance that murder should only be toward those who do not look like us. So how does that work out for those in society who look different? Is their morality acceptable when they do not want to be murdered? If they live in the same society, then there are two moral stances, neither of which are not genetic, and then it is not societal because both peoples live in that same society, i.e. the ones who look alike and the ones who do not. That society does not have parallel moralities, because murder intersects the strata.

Morality then must come from somewhere else. It is not genetic, it is not societal, but it now definitely is a part of the human condition. When those who are the ones who look alike begin to say, do not murder those who do not look alike, is that part of the imposition of society? They made that moral stance against the imposition. Therefore, imposition is null and void. It comes from somewhere higher. Does it come from education?

Are the more highly educated incapable of murder? You and I would agree that is not so. So it must come from somewhere higher. We discover it is not genetic, which would be at the lowest level, it is not societal, which is a mid-level, it is not from education, which is a high level, so it must come from somewhere outside of man.

Do not murder is a religious teaching, basing that teaching against societal acceptance of murder. If there were no such thing as murder, there would be no moralistic stance against it. When you live in a society in which all things are acceptable, then that is a moralistic view. When members of a society say "I see nothing wrong with murder" what they mean is that their morality should prevail because they dictate what the morality is, hence murder is acceptable to them. But the rest of society does not agree, therefore what seems to be imposition is really a response to that individual's morality.

If you say murder is immoral, you have made a moralistic stance. Was your stance based in genetics or societal imposition?

reply to post by WarminIndy


Of course morality is imposed by society...that's why we have different morals around the world.

So no, it doesn't come from somewhere else.

reply to post by WarminIndy


I would argue that atheists commit less murders than religious folks, the difference is that atheists will consider every killing as murder whereas religious people will attempt to justify their killings based on Bible, Koran etc. teachings.

For instance look at all the beheadings in the middle east carried out by one religion on another, this is undoubtedly murder but they believe the y have done the right thing as the Koran says so. And before you start the Bible is no better than the Koran, the Bible also instructs it's readers to kill those who do not believe in the same god.

Can you also explain to me how I live a good moral life, I don't commit crimes, I help people and I endeavour to help animals but I have never read the Bible so my morals certainly can't come from that.

Originally posted by GafferUK1981
reply to post by WarminIndy

 

I would argue that atheists commit less murders than religious folks, the difference is that atheists will consider every killing as murder whereas religious people will attempt to justify their killings based on Bible, Koran etc. teachings.

For instance look at all the beheadings in the middle east carried out by one religion on another, this is undoubtedly murder but they believe the y have done the right thing as the Koran says so. And before you start the Bible is no better than the Koran, the Bible also instructs it's readers to kill those who do not believe in the same god.

Can you also explain to me how I live a good moral life, I don't commit crimes, I help people and I endeavour to help animals but I have never read the Bible so my morals certainly can't come from that.

Stalin...Mao...Pol Pot come to mind
All atheists, hate to rain on your parade

reply to post by borntowatch


We could go round in circles naming people who were bad.

Hitler, Bin Laden, Bush - All religious.

I am not saying there are no bad atheists but atheism doesn't make people bad whereas religion certainly can if people follow their 'holy' books to the letter.

Atheism is a lack of belief, it is not a religion. Knowing that there is no god doesn't make you evil it just makes you free from religious nonsense.

Originally posted by borntowatch

Originally posted by GafferUK1981
reply to post by WarminIndy

 

I would argue that atheists commit less murders than religious folks, the difference is that atheists will consider every killing as murder whereas religious people will attempt to justify their killings based on Bible, Koran etc. teachings.

For instance look at all the beheadings in the middle east carried out by one religion on another, this is undoubtedly murder but they believe the y have done the right thing as the Koran says so. And before you start the Bible is no better than the Koran, the Bible also instructs it's readers to kill those who do not believe in the same god.

Can you also explain to me how I live a good moral life, I don't commit crimes, I help people and I endeavour to help animals but I have never read the Bible so my morals certainly can't come from that.

Stalin...Mao...Pol Pot come to mind
All atheists, hate to rain on your parade

All killed because they wanted power, and everything in their way had to die. They didn't kill because of atheism.

Religious killers on the other hand use religion as the driving force behind their murders. 911 and those idiots killing abortion doctors are a great example of that...

Originally posted by WarminIndy
If you say murder is immoral, you have made a moralistic stance. Was your stance based in genetics or societal imposition?

When someone I love is taken away from me, I am very unhappy.
Hey, I bet if I took a loved one out of someone else' life, they would be very very unhappy.
Murder must be a bad thing to do.
You have need an imaginary friend that had to tell you this?

reply to post by borntowatch


The same crap all the religious fruitcakes uses against Atheist.

Stalin, Mao All of them had different agenda, them being Atheist did not contribute their massacre, however they kill all high authority people who influenced people to fight against them.

So according to your analogy....

Hitler was a Vegetarian, thus All the Vegetarian must be jew killers and mass genociders lol

Poor Gandhi!

reply to post by Endorra


Just be thankful these psychos believe in their sky wizard because it appears to be the only thing stopping them from being despicable, thieving, murdering rapists. The rest of us don't need some book or threat of eternal damnation to tell us this, just keep hoping they keep their faith

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by WarminIndy

 

Of course morality is imposed by society...that's why we have different morals around the world.

So no, it doesn't come from somewhere else.

Really? Can you prove that statement? Within each society are conflicting moralities, therefore still not an imposition.

Originally posted by Endorra

Originally posted by WarminIndy
If you say murder is immoral, you have made a moralistic stance. Was your stance based in genetics or societal imposition?

When someone I love is taken away from me, I am very unhappy.
Hey, I bet if I took a loved one out of someone else' life, they would be very very unhappy.
Murder must be a bad thing to do.
You have need an imaginary friend that had to tell you this?

Where did your moral stance come from? Did it come within your own experience or was it a legalistic statement? You have proven that your moral stance is not genetic, not societal and from a higher experience. So who caused you to think this way?

There are people today who take loved ones from others because their loved ones were taken and they are not unhappy about it. So is their moral relativism as important as yours? If you say they are wrong for taking your loved one because it makes you unhappy, then you have placed your own moral standard. But do they care about your unhappiness? So why is your moral relativity more important?

The "imaginary friend" said "thou shalt not kill", placing that restriction on all people. It has nothing to do with His unhappiness, but taking your happiness into account, took a moral stance. Are you against the moral stance of the "imaginary friend"? Even though He is on your side in this matter and cares about your happiness.

Those who murder do not care about your happiness. If morality is relative, then their murder should be as acceptable, would you agree that in the framework of moral relativism, you have no right to speak against their moral stance. That is the definition of moral relativism, and just because you would be unhappy has no room within moral relativism. So if you are saying you would be unhappy, then you are taking a moral stance that is higher, so then you cannot say within moral relativism that your stance is higher. What makes it higher, and do they care about your stance? If they did care, then they would have the same morality as you. But alas, murderers do not. But you are saying morality comes from whether you would be happy or not. That makes it your own moral relativity. Would you care then to say your morality based in your own definition is greater than someone else's?

What you are saying is this, you have indeed relied upon the morality that comes from that "imaginary friend". Whether you like it or not, you have.

Originally posted by john_bmth
reply to post by Endorra

 

Just be thankful these psychos believe in their sky wizard because it appears to be the only thing stopping them from being despicable, thieving, murdering rapists. The rest of us don't need some book or threat of eternal damnation to tell us this, just keep hoping they keep their faith

What about those without your morality who do rape, murder and steal? Is your morality higher or more acceptable than theirs? If you say yes, then it is not moral relativism. Therefore, moral relativism has become nothing.

reply to post by WarminIndy


Hmm think of this scenario...

You have 2 children growing in perfect isolation, no language, no interaction, other than supply food thru a hole.

These 2 children that grows up(years and years together), will not learned to love each other? share food?

What if one of the children was killed by the food providers?

what do you think the other child would think about murder? or losing someone? what do you think he would feel about killing someone?

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by borntowatch

Originally posted by GafferUK1981
reply to post by WarminIndy

 

I would argue that atheists commit less murders than religious folks, the difference is that atheists will consider every killing as murder whereas religious people will attempt to justify their killings based on Bible, Koran etc. teachings.

For instance look at all the beheadings in the middle east carried out by one religion on another, this is undoubtedly murder but they believe the y have done the right thing as the Koran says so. And before you start the Bible is no better than the Koran, the Bible also instructs it's readers to kill those who do not believe in the same god.

Can you also explain to me how I live a good moral life, I don't commit crimes, I help people and I endeavour to help animals but I have never read the Bible so my morals certainly can't come from that.

Stalin...Mao...Pol Pot come to mind
All atheists, hate to rain on your parade

All killed because they wanted power, and everything in their way had to die. They didn't kill because of atheism.

Religious killers on the other hand use religion as the driving force behind their murders. 911 and those idiots killing abortion doctors are a great example of that...

Actually, Stalin did indeed kill in the name of atheism. When he took the position of "kill for the Atheist State of Russia", he took a moral stance within moral relativism. Is his moral stance greater than yours? If you say yours is higher, then you must say there is no such thing as moral relativism.

Originally posted by luciddream
reply to post by WarminIndy

 

Hmm think of this scenario...

You have 2 children growing in perfect isolation, no language, no interaction, other than supply food thru a hole.

These 2 children that grows up(years and years together), will not learned to love each other? share food?

What if one of the children was killed by the food providers?

what do you think the other child would think about murder? or losing someone? what do you think he would feel about killing someone?

Suppose they did not learn to love each other and did not share food? Again, within moral relativism, there is no room in the definition for a higher morality. The morality of the child you proposed was then not taught, but somewhere higher than that child. It was not societal imposition upon that child. Was that child unhappy over the loss of companionship or the murder? If it is merely because of the loss of companionship, then it does not take a moral stance of the wrong of murder. If that child were making the moral stance that murder is wrong, then it means that child thought of the companion, rather than his own happiness.

reply to post by WarminIndy


The difference is he used atheism as an excuse for his power crackdown, while religious killers actually kill BECAUSE of their religion.

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by WarminIndy

 

The difference is he used atheism as an excuse for his power crackdown, while religious killers actually kill BECAUSE of their religion.

If he used it as an excuse, then it was the motivating force behind his lust for power.

reply to post by WarminIndy


Well done you for completely missing my point. Let me ask you directly: is the reason you are not a rapist because you're afraid of angering your god? Let me clarify: of your bible said rape was absolutely fine, would you go out and start raping people?

Originally posted by WarminIndy

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by WarminIndy

 

The difference is he used atheism as an excuse for his power crackdown, while religious killers actually kill BECAUSE of their religion.

If he used it as an excuse, then it was the motivating force behind his lust for power.

No, atheism wasn't the driving fierce behind his quest for power