Atheist Morality

marke

Well-known member
Why are living self-aware beings fully capable of self-determination, beholden to the mechanics that created them?
Wise humans recognize God as their creator. Fools think intelligence was accidentally invented by a chance chemical reaction caused by elements without brains, without feelings, without power, without volition, without life, and without the ability to move or cause any reactions on their own.
The human brain is a network of neurons that excite or inhibit each other. The mechanics of our biological computer do not erase our consciousness, identity or autonomy. The hypothetical you were given and that you refuse to deal with involves an electronic network that approaches the level of the human brain. Why not accept the scenario and respond?
The human brain has living cells that depend on the whole living organism for its continued existence. God gives life. There is no other source. God gives intelligence, the ability to feel, think, talk, and so forth. Dead chemical reactions or electrical shocks do not give life and intelligence.
Reality? You say this after offering a scenario where cutting off a baby's head eliminates all suffering? Ever wonder why religious fiction was never a phenomena like science fiction? Religion is fiction, a useful fiction that has helped humans have a sense of meaning and deny the harsh realities of death. Some people are far too knowledgeable to accept simplistic (and faux complex) notions. Why fight them and judge them? We are all trying to makes sense of our short journey. I have compassion for all. I like Christians who accept that their beliefs are based on faith and personal revelation more than those who pretend they have iron clad logic and evidence.
Thank you for your earnest responses.
The creation of God is the only logical explanation for man's existence. All other attempts to explain the origin of life have been demonstrated to be scientifically impossible.
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
The question is why would it be rational to expect creatures to take a servile and supplicatory stance toward their creator

Because He is worthy of it.

especially when the form of the creator's dictates can be proven speculative?

This is question begging, and He has shown otherwise.

He has proven that He is good.

If humans create a humanoid being, would we necessarily expect the humanoids to follow the dictates of the humans without question?

Such a thing isn't possible, but to answer the question for the sake of the argument, yes, we would, because we would be superior to it, just as God is superior to us.

If the humanoids did obey every whim of the humans, would you consider that a good thing? A goal accomplished?

If the goal of creating the humanoid was to have it obey every whim of humans, yes.

Would we expect constant praise?

The problem with these questions is that it assumes that we are the highest authority, and/or that our purpose as humans (in terms of our relationship with God) is to "follow His dictates without question," which I thought I made clear, or at least alluded to, was not the case.

To reiterate: The reason for man's existence is to have a relationship with his Creator, a relationship based on love, not law.

My view is that such a power-over relationship would be a very bad thing. A cautious accumulation of knowledge and insight from experience is far preferable than blind acceptance of conditions with incomplete rationales.

"Blind acceptance of conditions with incomplete rationales"?

Christianity is based on evidence, logic, and reason. God Himself says "Come, let us reason together." Faith is evidence of things hoped for, the substance of things not seen.

Again, you don't get the irony here?

Reminder: YOU said, "It is moral to strive for conditions where each human being has an ample chance to live a full lifespan without undue misery and hardship."

I'm simply pointing out the flaw in that reasoning.

A wild claim.

It's quite rational.

If God doesn't exist, and the reason for man's existence is to have a relationship with God, then there's no way to have a relationship with Him, is there?

Quite sad to realize you view the human mind so weak.

I consider trying to comprehend the irrational foolish.

God is not irrational.

In contrast to many Christians, why do conservative Christians come off as incapable of empathy, sadistic, and nearly psychopathic?

I think it's a matter of your paradigm being wrong that causes you to think that we are, when in reality, we're not.

I despise people who pretend to be humble but enjoy their narcissism via a thin veneer of piety.

That's nice.
 

Yorzhik

Well-known member
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
If humans create a humanoid being, would we necessarily expect the humanoids to follow the dictates of the humans without question? If the humanoids did obey every whim of the humans, would you consider that a good thing? A goal accomplished? Would we expect constant praise?
We do. They are called children. We expect them to obey us because that is what is best for them.
 

Skeeter

Well-known member
Banned
I clearly took this for granted! Good point!



Exactly!
I appreciated your ability to not get side tracked, and you actually answered the hypothetical.

Your hypothetical is disingenuous. You are setting me up to say something horrible. Answering it would be more prejudicial that probative, But, since you followed through, I feel compelled to answer. I am changing your hypothetical (which is usually poor form) to killing one human to save all of humankind from any further suffering. I would end that man's life or give my own regretfully, respectfully, and as painlessly as possible. I would receive any punishment due me. The benefit is just too great.

The scenario is just so unrealistic, I fail to see the benefit of even posing it, but there you go.
 

Skeeter

Well-known member
Banned
We do. They are called children. We expect them to obey us because that is what is best for them.
This is all too often untrue. Most abuse of children is perpetrated by parents, It is a wonder why the top ten list of commandment contains no admonition against child abuse or slavery for that matter.

Parents need some outside accountability. All too often parents treat their children as servants and indulge their own feelings of powerlessness by engaging coercive and pervasive control based on their own sick needs rather than the children's well-being.
 

Right Divider

Body part
This is all too often untrue. Most abuse of children is perpetrated by parents, It is a wonder why the top ten list of commandment contains no admonition against child abuse or slavery for that matter.

Parents need some outside accountability. All too often parents treat their children as servants and indulge their own feelings of powerlessness by engaging coercive and pervasive control based on their own sick needs rather than the children's well-being.
Nothing like trying to make the exception the rule.
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
Your hypothetical is disingenuous. You are setting me up to say something horrible.

If your reasoning can lead to something horrible, simply by posing a question based on it, then maybe your reasoning isn't very good to begin with.

I am changing your hypothetical (which is usually poor form) to killing one human to save all of humankind from any further suffering.

It's called moving the goalpost, but I'll allow it, because doing so allows me to further my position. I'll show you why in a moment.

I would end that man's life

Which would be murder, by the way. You don't have the right to take another man's life from him, even if he gives it up willingly, and no matter how "regretfully, respectfully, and as painlessly as possible" you take it.

or give my own

Sacrificing your life to save others is definitely honorable. Taking your own life, however, is not.

I would receive any punishment due me.

The just punishment for murder is the death penalty.

The benefit is just too great. The scenario is just so unrealistic, I fail to see the benefit of even posing it, but there you go.

I want to go back to some of the things you said, now that I've addressed them in context of the rest of what you've said, because this is where you start making my point for me:

You are setting me up to say something horrible. . . .

Isn't it interesting that you inherently know that cutting the head off of a baby is horrible?

More evidence for my position, which says that God wrote His law on man's heart.

killing one human to save all of humankind from any further suffering.

Huh, killing one man to save all of mankind....

What does that remind me of? Hmmmm...

Anyways, the problem here, at least with you giving your own life, is that your life isn't valuable enough to pay for the rest of mankind. It's only valuable enough to pay for your own life. After all, "Skeeter's life" == "Skeeter's life," but "Skeeter's life =/= "Skeeter's life + Someone else's life."

give my own . . . The benefit is just too great.

Oh, I know! It reminds me of Jesus Christ, God who came as a man to lay down His life to save all of mankind...

Including yours.

Don't you think that's worthy of at least SOME recognition?
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
This is all too often untrue.

Honoring your parents is ALWAYS a good thing to do.

If they tell you to do evil, obviously, disobeying them is required, but you still honor them because they are your parents.

Most abuse of children is perpetrated by parents,

Most parents these days are the result of the public education system.

It is a wonder why the top ten list of commandment contains no admonition against child abuse

Because it was expected that the parents would honor God.

Today, most parents reject even the concept of God, let alone honor Him.

or slavery for that matter.

Because slavery as a form of punishment for crime is just. Even our 13th Amendment recognizes this.

Parents need some outside accountability.

What they needed (yes, past tense) were parents who honored God. Most of them today didn't have that.

All too often parents treat their children as servants

Again, the result of the public education system.

and indulge their own feelings of powerlessness by engaging coercive and pervasive control based on their own sick needs rather than the children's well-being.

Supra.
 

Idolater

"Lahey, I live in a tent!"
I appreciated your ability to not get side tracked, and you actually answered the hypothetical.

Your hypothetical is disingenuous. You are setting me up to say something horrible. Answering it would be more prejudicial that probative, But, since you followed through, I feel compelled to answer. I am changing your hypothetical (which is usually poor form) to killing one human to save all of humankind from any further suffering. I would end that man's life or give my own regretfully, respectfully, and as painlessly as possible. I would receive any punishment due me. The benefit is just too great.

The scenario is just so unrealistic, I fail to see the benefit of even posing it, but there you go.
Naked utilitarianism.

If anyone ever wondered what utilitarianism looks like irl, there you go.

By contrast those of us who hold to absolute human rights ("Originalists" for short), the answer to the hypothetical is obvious and easy. You never deny someone their right against being murdered, ever. Even if it means the extinction of the species. It's simply not an option, to those of us who legitimately hold the moral high ground.
 

Skeeter

Well-known member
Banned
If your reasoning can lead to something horrible, simply by posing a question based on it, then maybe your reasoning isn't very good to begin with.
Including the details of infancy and the graphic removal of the head serves no purpose, but to give unearned emotional weight to your point. In a court of law, evidence with such unnecessary details will render even relevant facts inadmissible.
Which would be murder, by the way. You don't have the right to take another man's life from him, even if he gives it up willingly, and no matter how "regretfully, respectfully, and as painlessly as possible" you take it.
My morality is based on higher principles and not rigid rules. I am happy with the results.
Sacrificing your life to save others is definitely honorable. Taking your own life, however, is not.
I don't care. In your scenario, the ends justify the means. A little evil can prevent much more evil, so the net evil is reduced and by a massive margin. Now if the condition were that if everyone had to kill their first born to achieve lack of suffering otherwise, I would not take up the bargain.
The just punishment for murder is the death penalty.
So be it.
I want to go back to some of the things you said, now that I've addressed them in context of the rest of what you've said, because this is where you start making my point for me:



Isn't it interesting that you inherently know that cutting the head off of a baby is horrible?
Doesn't take a rocket scientist or a holy man.
More evidence for my position, which says that God wrote His law on man's heart.
Evolution might have wrote something or the nature of empathy leads most people to it quite independently.
Huh, killing one man to save all of mankind....

What does that remind me of? Hmmmm...
Like that wasn't transparent from the start.
Oh, I know! It reminds me of Jesus Christ, God who came as a man to lay down His life to save all of mankind...

Including yours.

Don't you think that's worthy of at least SOME recognition?
A very small amount. If I assembled an obstacle course between the street and my door, but later placed a mail box on the street for carriers to use, a little recognition might be due. But, I am the one who set up the obstacles. So, I am no hero. I could just remove them or have had the foresight not to erect them in the first place.
 

Yorzhik

Well-known member
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
This is all too often untrue. Most abuse of children is perpetrated by parents, It is a wonder why the top ten list of commandment contains no admonition against child abuse or slavery for that matter.
That doesn't refute my point at all, unless you want to say that all obeying of parents is bad.
Parents need some outside accountability. All too often parents treat their children as servants and indulge their own feelings of powerlessness by engaging coercive and pervasive control based on their own sick needs rather than the children's well-being.
Parents do have outside accountability because we will all be judged in the end in the same way we judge or children's behavior.

But that doesn't count in your world because you don't admit it exists. That's fine insofar as your scenario fails even by your own standards. To wit; If you want to say children should not obey their parents, to their benefit, because some parents are bad, then those who hold parents accountable must be held to the same standard. Who did you have in mind to hold parents accountable?

I hope you say the government because they are the number one abuser of people ever. You might say society, but are you sure I can't find an abusive society? Even if all the society does is create an abusive government?

But beyond that, there is more child abuse today than before government schools trained a majority of the population.
 

Skeeter

Well-known member
Banned
That doesn't refute my point at all, unless you want to say that all obeying of parents is bad.
Of course it does. You must remember that I am not a binar like you and your friends. You are a binar by choice as I see on occasion that you can think in terms of a continuums when it serves you. I advocate for authoritative parenting rather than authoritarian. In authoritative parenting, parents do not pretend that they are perfect. They acknowledge mistakes and their imperfect understanding of the world. They do make the claim that more experience comes with age and marginal deference is expected until the child is an adult. They make imperatives based on empiricism alone. They disclose their rationales for the children to view showing the merits. There is a way for children to disagree and make an alternative rules based on sound reason and evidence.
Parents do have outside accountability because we will all be judged in the end in the same way we judge or children's behavior.
Relying on consequences in the afterlife is very inefficient. Just the remoteness in time alone dilutes its power to contain behavior. Add the ability to repent and erase accountability and periods where faith is questioned and you have a very weak, and inconsistent follow through. Also, there is loads of room for rationalization and the diminished insight that comes with psychologically relying on a perceived pipeline to the absolute.
But that doesn't count in your world because you don't admit it exists. That's fine insofar as your scenario fails even by your own standards. To wit; If you want to say children should not obey their parents, to their benefit, because some parents are bad, then those who hold parents accountable must be held to the same standard.
Of course I am not saying that. Children as they develop should be encouraged to have more say in the rules imposed on them, and a dialogue and negotiation rather than immediate obedience becomes the norm.
Who did you have in mind to hold parents accountable?
Extended family would be nice, but child protective serves if need be.
I hope you say the government because they are the number one abuser of people ever. You might say society, but are you sure I can't find an abusive society? Even if all the society does is create an abusive government?
There is corruption in every human institution. A system of checks and balances reduces it, but cannot eliminate it completely. Nothing can. Churches to varying degrees are hotbeds of corruption.
But beyond that, there is more child abuse today than before government schools trained a majority of the population.
A spurious correlation to some extent. But, also I think you underestimate the child abuse of the past when children were supposed to be seen and not heard. Cops had no problem bringing children home to parents for a beating right in front of them. It depends on how abuse is defined.
 
Last edited:

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
Including the details of infancy

Which shows the person is completely innocent of any wrongdoing... something that cannot be said entirely of adults.

and the graphic removal of the head

Would it make any difference if it were putting a gun to the baby's head and pulling the trigger? The point is to expose the flaw in your reasoning by showing that it's not ok to do wrong that good may come of it.

serves no purpose,

Demonstrably false.

but to give unearned emotional weight to your point.

There's nothing inherently wrong with adding emotional weight to an argument.

In a court of law, evidence with such unnecessary details will render even relevant facts inadmissible.

Only in an unjust system.

My morality is based on higher principles and not rigid rules.

What higher principles? Where do those principles come from?

And righteous laws come from correct principles of governance.

I don't care.

You should.

In your scenario, the ends justify the means.

My scenario is based on your reasoning. In case you forgot, you said, not me:

"It is moral to strive for conditions where each human being has an ample chance to live a full lifespan without undue misery and hardship."

A little evil can prevent much more evil,

It is wrong to do evil that good may come of it.

so the net evil is reduced and by a massive margin.

Wrong. Evil + Evil = More evil, not less.

Now if the condition were that if everyone had to kill their first born to achieve lack of suffering otherwise, I would not take up the bargain.

So be it.

Doesn't take a rocket scientist or a holy man.

Only the "holy man" will be able to tell you WHY it's wrong.

Evolution might have wrote something

Evolution never happened, and could not have written anything, because that requires a scheme, information, which evolution cannot produce.

or the nature of empathy leads most people to it quite independently.

The ability to empathize comes from God.

Like that wasn't transparent from the start.

A very small amount. If I assembled an obstacle course between the street and my door, but later placed a mail box on the street for carriers to use, a little recognition might be due. But, I am the one who set up the obstacles. So, I am no hero. I could just remove them or have had the foresight not to erect them in the first place.

What does that have to do with Christ dying for you, to save you from the sins that you have committed in violation of His righteous laws?
 

Skeeter

Well-known member
Banned
Would it make any difference if it were putting a gun to the baby's head and pulling the trigger? The point is to expose the flaw in your reasoning by showing that it's not ok to do wrong that good may come of it.
Death of a human would suffice.
Demonstrably false.
Yet you fail to demonstrate it.
There's nothing inherently wrong with adding emotional weight to an argument.
When the emotional pull outweighs the value of the evidence, it is inherently wrong because the substance of the case might not determine the outcome. You think it just to give into bias?
Only in an unjust system.
Only in the warped mind of a zealot.
My scenario is based on your reasoning. In case you forgot, you said, not me:

"It is moral to strive for conditions where each human being has an ample chance to live a full lifespan without undue misery and hardship."
Yes, quite brilliant actually.
It is wrong to do evil that good may come of it.

Wrong. Evil + Evil = More evil, not less.
When the magnitude of the good is so great then your attempt at math proves you a simpleton. YOU set up the nonsensical hypothetical where by there is a guarantee of pervasive good across many lives across time for sacrifice of one. It is not a helpful hypothetical because no real death has any guarantees of a pervasive contingent good in the real world. For example, there is little evidence that state killing a guy who killed his neighbor has any deterrent value. A countervailing trend wipes out the value of the threat. his occurs in part because the notion that killing a wrong doer is modeled. as just. Whether you like it or not people in a world where killing is seen as just means that some people will feel justified in vigilant justice.
Evolution never happened, and could not have written anything, because that requires a scheme, information, which evolution cannot produce.
Natural selection imbues meaning on mutations over time. Live with it.
The ability to empathize comes from God.
The old testament God was not able to model empathy well. Jesus does in the New testament.
What does that have to do with Christ dying for you, to save you from the sins that you have committed in violation of His righteous laws?
An all powerful entity sets up purportedly moral laws that are proven too rigid for His creatures and then He makes up some loop hole to get around what HE previously said. It happens to involve some temporary suffering that he knows full well is temporary? He dies with full knowledge that he will live? Does not sound heroic to me.
 
Last edited:

Skeeter

Well-known member
Banned
Natural selection only selects what already exists. That means something. That means that it's NOT a creative force.
Yes - the interface of a mutation that "already exists" and the impact of the associated trait on fecundity creates new information. To process this you need to be able to sequence the events, think of the consequence on the population over time, and understand the impact of two variables at once. It might be too much to ask of you.
 
Last edited:

Right Divider

Body part
Yes - the interface of a mutation that "already exists" and the impact the associated trait of fecundity creates new information.
Nope... that is disinformation.

Mutations never create "new information". INFORMATION always comes from an intelligent source. There is no such thing as "random information".
To process this you need to be able to sequence the events, think of the consequence on the population over time, and understand the impact of two variables at once. It might be too much to ask of you.
Your arrogant stupidity does not impress me.
 
Top