'Duck Dynasty' Star Imagines Vivid Rape And Murder Scenario For Atheist Family

a reply to: StalkerSolent

What is "natural dignity"?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: StalkerSolent

What is "natural dignity"?

Depends on who you ask
"Inherent rights" is probably another good way of putting it.

originally posted by: StalkerSolent
Ya know...it's all very well and good to beat up on religious people...but I still haven't seen a consistent defense by a materialistic atheist for why such behavior is objectively wrong.

Empathy is the basis of morality. We posses minds that are capable of processing the thoughts of others. I know how much I dislike suffering, so I assume others feel the same. As far as I can tell, my brain works, and I put trust in it's ability to figure things out. We are social animals, and anti-social behaviors are incompatible with our social evolution. Sometimes I feel as if our religions have stripped us of this true nature.

My concern for people, is the main factor that prevents me from worshiping some of these more aggressive gods. I haven't been able to find a justification for that way of thinking. Self destruction goes against my nature. This guy's a #in weirdo. Sorry if you identify with him, but it's toxic nonsense. My agnosticism made me a humanist. I concern myself with society as a whole, and i think about our future. I think it's time for our psyche's catch up to our technology. If we continue this unbalanced and outdated religious approach, the world is going to explode. You call it beating up on religious, but I think religious extremists are the worlds most destructive threat, and not just ISIS, but Christian Dominionists and Jewish extremists too. I trust humanities future in the hands of reason before i trust religion. The psychological impact of aggressive gods has a way of tapping into some of our worst evolutionary baggage. Systematically Abrahams religions are much more dangerous than a free thinking atheist or agnostic.

I agree with Phil Robertson on the point he made about atheists having no defined right or wrong. Without a God what reason is there to not 'do as thou wilt' which is the Law of Thelema and Thelemites (a well known atheist group). Without God anything goes.

a reply to: StalkerSolent

I asked you what natural dignity is since you brought it up. And I fail to see the link to natural dignity and inherent rights

originally posted by: flammadraco
"Science has flown man to the moon, religion has flown man into a building."

I know there many many peace loving Relgious people, but nutcases like these are giving relgion a bad name. Just like ISIS and other Relgious fanatics in this world.

I'm pleased in the knowledge that once the "baby boomers" return to their god, religion will start to die out!

Who is the "militant atheist" in this image? Reminds me a little of Ray Liotta towards the end of Goodfellas, though I know it's not him of course.

originally posted by: mahatche
Empathy is the basis of morality. We posses minds that are capable of processing the thoughts of others. I know how much I dislike suffering, so I assume others feel the same. As far as I can tell, my brain works, and I put trust in it's ability to figure things out. We are social animals, and anti-social behaviors are incompatible with our social evolution. Sometimes I feel as if our religions have stripped us of this true nature.

Empathy is present to varying degrees in humans. It's a poor basis for morality, especially because it is largely dependent on external factors, like other emotional states.

My concern for people, is the main factor that prevents me from worshiping some of these more aggressive gods. I haven't been able to find a justification for that way of thinking. Self destruction goes against my nature. This guy's a #in weirdo. Sorry if you identify with him, but it's toxic nonsense.

I don't especially identify with him, but it's a little sad to see people ganging up on him without engaging the point of his argument, no matter how crudely put.

My agnosticism made me a humanist. I concern myself with society as a whole, and i think about our future. I think it's time for our psyche's catch up to our technology.

They thought that before both world wars, too. Unfortunately, the whole "let's progress as a people" thinking is tied up pretty nicely to the atrocities of regimes on both sides of the political spectrum.

If we continue this unbalanced and outdated religious approach, the world is going to explode.

Why?

You call it beating up on religious, but I think religious extremists are the worlds most destructive threat, and not just ISIS, but Christian Dominionists and Jewish extremists too.

Statistically speaking, the atheistic leaders of China and Russia have been the world's most destructive threat in modern history, although this is partially because they happened to live during a time of great technological advancements.

I trust humanities future in the hands of reason before i trust religion.

You've gotta trust it to people either way, and people (as an aggregate whole) are religious by nature.

The psychological impact of aggressive gods has a way of tapping into some of our worst evolutionary baggage. Systematically Abrahams religions are much more dangerous than a free thinking atheist or agnostic.

As I mentioned above, that's not really true. Anyone with an ideology and power to back it up is a huge threat to us all.

originally posted by: 3n19m470

originally posted by: flammadraco
"Science has flown man to the moon, religion has flown man into a building."

I know there many many peace loving Relgious people, but nutcases like these are giving relgion a bad name. Just like ISIS and other Relgious fanatics in this world.

I'm pleased in the knowledge that once the "baby boomers" return to their god, religion will start to die out!

Who is the "militant atheist" in this image? Reminds me a little of Ray Liotta towards the end of Goodfellas, though I know it's not him of course.

Christopher Hitchens

the militant christian pic is not of a christian. that organization is a bunch of lawyers, who troll people till they get angry and then sue them for defamation and so forth.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: StalkerSolent

I asked you what natural dignity is since you brought it up. And I fail to see the link to natural dignity and inherent rights

Basically, the idea is that people ought to be treated justly because it is in their nature to be treated justly. It's a teleological approach. To apply it to something more mundane, one ought to drive a car with the steering wheel and the break and gas pedals.

Edit to add: Dignity, always dignity...

originally posted by: Metallicus
I agree with Phil Robertson on the point he made about atheists having no defined right or wrong. Without a God what reason is there to not 'do as thou wilt' which is the Law of Thelema and Thelemites (a well known atheist group). Without God anything goes.

That is ridiculous.

I'd put my morals up against anyone elses, religious or otherwise, and would not be surprised to find that they eclipse the levels of the vast majority of people. Even those at the highest ranks of any religion.

originally posted by: StalkerSolent

originally posted by: windword

Why do you think that the behavior suggested is "objectively" wrong"?

Because they unjustifiably and senselessly violate the inherent natural dignity possessed by all human beings as intended by their Creator.

What if the behavior IS justified, like the violence perpetrated in the stories of the Old Testament and ordered by "The Creator"?

a reply to: StalkerSolent

Empathy is present to varying degrees in humans. It's a poor basis for morality, especially because it is largely dependent on external factors, like other emotional states.

Empathy isn't an emotion, it's the ability to perceive the emotions of others. If empathy isn't the basis for our morality, then what is, fear of retribution and/or eternal damnation from "God"?

I don't especially identify with him, but it's a little sad to see people ganging up on him without engaging the point of his argument, no matter how crudely put.

His argument is that without "religion" there is nothing keeping mankind from raping, murdering and pillaging. This has been addressed and discussed in this thread as well as many others, here on ATS.

originally posted by: windword

What if the behavior IS justified, like the violence perpetrated in the stories of the Old Testament and ordered by "The Creator"?

It's pretty obvious violence is justified sometimes. I'm shedding no tears over ISIS, for example.

Empathy isn't an emotion, it's the ability to perceive the emotions of others. If empathy isn't the basis for our morality, then what is, fear of retribution and/or eternal damnation from "God"?

So...to be clear...there's a difference between "that thing which is keeping you from doing something" and "morality." (For instance, I don't attack grizzly bears because I think it's immoral but because I think I would lose ) If empathy is the basis for morality, than sociopaths have no real reason to be moral, do they? Now, if fear of eternal damnation keeps people from killing each other, swell, but I think it's better to base your morality on a correct understanding of reality. If, in reality, we are purposed to love people instead of hate them, then I think our love of the truth ought to form the basis for our moral decisions.

His argument is that without "religion" there is nothing keeping mankind from raping, murdering and pillaging. This has been addressed and discussed in this thread as well as many others, here on ATS.

Is it? Or is it that without a transcendent moral order there is no moral reason not to rape, murder, and pillage? Just because you do (or don't do) something doesn't mean you have a moral reason for doing (or not doing) it. Everyone can see that one doesn't need to believe in a transcendent moral order to live morally. The real question is, why?

originally posted by: MisterSpock

originally posted by: Metallicus
I agree with Phil Robertson on the point he made about atheists having no defined right or wrong. Without a God what reason is there to not 'do as thou wilt' which is the Law of Thelema and Thelemites (a well known atheist group). Without God anything goes.

That is ridiculous.

I'd put my morals up against anyone elses, religious or otherwise, and would not be surprised to find that they eclipse the levels of the vast majority of people. Even those at the highest ranks of any religion.

What do you mean, "eclipse"?

a reply to: windword

Might I check in with a brief agreement?

I think empathy is a BEAUTIFUL foundation for morality. I've I leave my chair right now to go kill my cat, I am going to get about two steps towards her before I feel what that is going to be like for her. Pain, torture, death. THAT is empathy. THAT is my morality and I AM somewhat religious. The difference is, without her, I will and do still feel that killing that cat, baby, child, adult, whatever/whoever, is wrong because empathy led me to an instant encounter in my own mind where I realized that said action would bring extreme suffering.

Yes in the end, IF I am correct that my Goddess is the one and only, I will be burnt and tossed in the pit. But I am also well aware that if I did not believe in her, I could still easily see that my action would be wrong because that cat would suffer and no other reason could be found outside of my action.

That is empathy

That is morality

And I knew all of this before accepting Her.

I don't even need Johnny Law to tell me murder, rape and torture is wrong. Yeah life in prison would be horrific but even if I 100% was acquitted (or never found out) and NOBODY in the world ever bothered me again, I would know.

Damnation doesn't need to be handed down by a force. You CAN suffer your own damnation and to me that damnation of hurting others immediately stems from empathy and the knowing that you hurt someone.

originally posted by: StalkerSolent
Empathy is present to varying degrees in humans. It's a poor basis for morality, especially because it is largely dependent on external factors, like other emotional states.

And dogmatic religious morality is dependent on the moral correctness of the books in question. I'm unable to accept some of these ideas as being correct. They go against my agnostic sense of morals.

I don't especially identify with him, but it's a little sad to see people ganging up on him without engaging the point of his argument, no matter how crudely put.

I've heard many religious people make far superior cases for his same argument. It's hard to take this guy serious. I'm not bulling him, but I don't value his perspective.

They thought that before both world wars, too. Unfortunately, the whole "let's progress as a people" thinking is tied up pretty nicely to the atrocities of regimes on both sides of the political spectrum.

I see it more as of a liberation than progress. Religion is our shackle. Since giving up Christianity I've come to realize just how many psychological triggers exist with in it. An aggressive spark from ISIS, has potential to activate some of those triggers in just enough people who are susceptible to it. Religious defense mechanisms are more dangerous than anything an atheist has. A belief in a god who rewards your life and death, is the one thing that can trigger humanity into intentionally hitting it's own self-destruct button. Atheists have no counter to this potential. Dominionsts dream of revelations, they see themselves as a spark. It's a terrifying thought for a country with nuclear capabilities. We defiantly need to catch up with the reality of our technology.

I also believe there is some correlation between humanities history of aggression, and it's religious programing. The aggression is a vital mechanism to Abrahamic religions. It's one of the key pieces to it's survival. It produces fear and obedience. I see the effects of extreme defensiveness all the time. When my views are challenged I don't jump on a bully bandwagon, because my beliefs don't have a built in persecution complex. I embrace a challenge. There are several times in religious history where challenging thoughts have been meet with violent oppression, because violent oppression is a built in trigger. There are reasons it keeps happening. The Gnostics where whipped out for views that aren't far from mine.

Statistically speaking, the atheistic leaders of China and Russia have been the world's most destructive threat in modern history, although this is partially because they happened to live during a time of great technological advancements.

Even if i did agree that the atheist cause was their true motive (and I don't) atheists still lack the same potential for complete self destruction. There is nothing rewarding the atheists at the end of that road.

You've gotta trust it to people either way, and people (as an aggregate whole) are religious by nature.

ehhhhh I'd prefer not to.

As I mentioned above, that's not really true. Anyone with an ideology and power to back it up is a huge threat to us all.

Not ot the same extent. One has the potential to eliminate others, the other has potential to dream up a terrifying Apocalypse where everything goes up in flames.

a reply to: StalkerSolent

So...to be clear...there's a difference between "that thing which is keeping you from doing something" and "morality." (For instance, I don't attack grizzly bears because I think it's immoral but because I think I would lose )

Really? That seems to me to be very much the same thinking that Phil Robertson has put forth. The only thing keeping you from attacking grizzly bears is the fact that you would lose, and not because the grizzly bears have the same right to life as you? Is the only thing that keeps you from robbing banks getting caught?

If empathy is the basis for morality, than sociopaths have no real reason to be moral, do they?

Sociopaths are the reason that we have laws, governments, military and the police. Sociopaths aren't going to be effected by some story about Jesus dying for their sins. Like you, they're detoured by the idea of getting caught or losing a fight.

I think it's better to base your morality on a correct understanding of reality. If, in reality, we are purposed to love people instead of hate them, then I think our love of the truth ought to form the basis for our moral decisions.

What is the correct understanding of reality? Where does the proposal to "love" each other come from, and what does love and hate have to do with reality? What does any of that have to do with whether or not there exists an "objective moral standard"?

Is it? Or is it that without a transcendent moral order there is no moral reason not to rape, murder, and pillage?

What is a "transcendent moral order"? Can you give me an example of such a thing?

There are lots of reasons NOT to rape, murder and pillage.

a reply to: DeathSlayer

Actually, if you read it I said that I didn't like him and hate the show. As for calling them morons, well, watch the show. That's how they act on it. As for being judgmental, it looks like you're being just that, and hypocritical to boot by being judgmental of what I said.

originally posted by: mahatche
And dogmatic religious morality is dependent on the moral correctness of the books in question. I'm unable to accept some of these ideas as correct being. They go against my agnostic sense of morals.

So what sort of objective morality would your agnostic sense of morals proscribe?

I see it more as of a liberation than progress. Religion is our shackle.

Yay liberate everything!

Religious defense mechanisms are more dangerous than anything an atheist has.

How do you know?

A belief in a god who rewards your life and death, is the one thing that can trigger humanity into intentionally hitting it's own self-destruct button.

So a flock of geese looking deceptively like a nuclear missile over Canada wasn't at all a threat because the US and Soviet governments were both secular?

Atheists have no counter to this potential. Dominionsts dream of revelations, they see themselves as a spark. It's a terrifying thought for a country with nuclear capabilities. We defiantly need to catch up with the reality of our technology.

Atheists can be every bit as fanatical as religious people...

I also believe there is some correlation between humanities history of aggression, and it's religious programing.

This would explain why the world's greatest killers were atheists, and why the two sides with nuclear weapons pointed at each other during the Cold War were well known for their rabid religious fundamentalism.

Even if i did agree that the atheist cause was their true motive (and I don't) atheists still lack the same potential for complete self destruction. There is nothing rewarding the atheists at the end of that road.

It wasn't the "atheist cause" it was the Communist cause. But there was something rewarding them at the end of the line. Check out Communist thought. They had surprisingly eschatological views.

Not ot the same extent. One has the potential to eliminate others, the other has potential to dream up a terrifying Apocalypse where everything goes up in flames.

Eliminating people is much worse than dreaming up a scary apocalypse, wouldn't you say?

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Xaphan

There are Christians here on ATS who have presented the same scenario to me when arguing that my morals are nonexistent without their "Christ". But, it appears to me that these types WOULD actually go wild and rape, murder and whatnot, if they didn't have their religion.

yeah probably...

Smh