Author |
Topic Search Topic Options
|
Epignosis
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32588
|
Posted: December 28 2009 at 17:49 |
Mike wanted a situation where dogma (call it what you will) is the impetus for antisocial activity (for example, murder). Dahmer referenced there being no God as at least one justification for his actions (if we die and that's it, why not do what you want?). Dahmer's mental insanity is neither here nor there. He makes a point: If there is no God, why not do what you want, including murder?
And yes, I've read the business about morality being a social/evolutionary/developed concept, but Dahmer's absolutely right. If we truly are all evolutionary products and nothing holds us accountable for our actions. You can posit morality on other philosophical grounds (utilitarianism, etc.), but in the end, all of those grounds are just as arbitrary.
|
|
 |
Padraic
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: February 16 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Status: Offline
Points: 31169
|
Posted: December 28 2009 at 17:53 |
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
^ there is simply no good argument in favor of God's existence.
|
I thought this was obvious. The difference is there are people for whom this matters, and people for whom it does not.
|
 |
stonebeard
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 27 2005
Location: NE Indiana
Status: Offline
Points: 28057
|
Posted: December 28 2009 at 18:02 |
Epignosis wrote:
Mike wanted a situation where dogma (call it what you will) is the impetus for antisocial activity (for example, murder). Dahmer referenced there being no God as at least one justification for his actions (if we die and that's it, why not do what you want?). Dahmer's mental insanity is neither here nor there. He makes a point: If there is no God, why not do what you want, including murder?
And yes, I've read the business about morality being a social/evolutionary/developed concept, but Dahmer's absolutely right. If we truly are all evolutionary products and nothing holds us accountable for our actions. You can posit morality on other philosophical grounds (utilitarianism, etc.), but in the end, all of those grounds are just as arbitrary.
|
There is no if--we are evolutionary products and we should deal with it.
Given that--given that we all come from nothing and may end up being nothing in the end--theists and atheists and everyone else are in the same position. Theists only posit that there's a God, too (or Gods, or whatever).
True philosophical systems are arbitrary, but they appeal to our intellect and maybe intuition. We have consciousness and society here, and these are some of the ideas we've come up with to appeal to our intellect and intuition about how to live the best we can. I don't buy into the notion that any of these man-made ideas is objectively true. How could it be? But some seem to be better than others.
I don't know what you believe specifically, but I'm just saying now that anyone who doesn't do socially unacceptably things only because of some mandate by God has a disgusting sense of morality.
Edited by stonebeard - December 28 2009 at 18:03
|
|
 |
Mr ProgFreak
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
|
Posted: December 28 2009 at 18:03 |
Epignosis wrote:
Mike wanted a situation where dogma (call it what you will) is the impetus for antisocial activity (for example, murder). Dahmer referenced there being no God as at least one justification for his actions (if we die and that's it, why not do what you want?). Dahmer's mental insanity is neither here nor there. He makes a point: If there is no God, why not do what you want, including murder?
|
That's the position of a sociopath ... not that of an Atheist. Morality is innate in our species. It is not something invented by religion, or given to us by a divine creator. What religious people for some reason can't understand is that there does not have to be an absolute point of reference for morality. A society can establish and maintain moral values without religion. Don't kill, don't steal, don't lie ... those values are built into everyone, except for, like I said above, sociopaths, or psychopaths or possibly other persons with psychological disorders. But you can't use those people as an example for a point against Atheism.
Epignosis wrote:
And yes, I've read the business about morality being a social/evolutionary/developed concept, but Dahmer's absolutely right. If we truly are all evolutionary products and nothing holds us accountable for our actions. You can posit morality on other philosophical grounds (utilitarianism, etc.), but in the end, all of those grounds are just as arbitrary.
|
It's surely interesting that you would agree with a serial killer. And as Christopher Hitchens would probably put it: If in your opinion all that keeps you from committing those crimes is the fear of God and eternal punishment ... how could that be a moral concept? It seems highly immoral to me. I repeat my central point above: There is no need for an absolute point of reference. Any large community of rational people (meaning: not believing in divine instructions) will establish acceptable, secular laws on their own. It's my opinion, I can't prove it, you can't disprove it. I leave it to the reader to judge which is more probable.
|
 |
Mr ProgFreak
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
|
Posted: December 28 2009 at 18:06 |
Padraic wrote:
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
^ there is simply no good argument in favor of God's existence.
|
I thought this was obvious. The difference is there are people for whom this matters, and people for whom it does not.
|
Well, I find it unsettling to think that there are people who would base their life on something, but not care if it was true or not. If they are really moderately religious, in that they never go to church and are only "religious on paper", then they are practically Atheists. In any case, I think it would be great if people cared enough to be interested in these questions.
|
 |
stonebeard
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 27 2005
Location: NE Indiana
Status: Offline
Points: 28057
|
Posted: December 28 2009 at 18:12 |
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
Mike wanted a situation where dogma (call it what you will) is the impetus for antisocial activity (for example, murder). Dahmer referenced there being no God as at least one justification for his actions (if we die and that's it, why not do what you want?). Dahmer's mental insanity is neither here nor there. He makes a point: If there is no God, why not do what you want, including murder?
| Don't kill, don't steal, don't lie ... those values are built into everyone, except for, like I said above, sociopaths, or psychopaths or possibly other persons with psychological disorders.
|
But what about:
1) "Kill when your family is threatened" / "Never kill under any circumstances whatsoever."
2) "Never steal" / "Steal if you will die without the food"
3) "Never lie" / "Lie to a killer who wants to know where your daughter is so he can kill her"
A vague sense of innate herd morality cannot even come close to accounting for all of what we consider moral/immoral actions today.
|
|
 |
Epignosis
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32588
|
Posted: December 28 2009 at 18:12 |
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
Mike wanted a situation where dogma (call it what you will) is the impetus for antisocial activity (for example, murder). Dahmer referenced there being no God as at least one justification for his actions (if we die and that's it, why not do what you want?). Dahmer's mental insanity is neither here nor there. He makes a point: If there is no God, why not do what you want, including murder?
|
That's the position of a sociopath ... not that of an Atheist.
Morality is innate in our species. It is not something invented by religion, or given to us by a divine creator. What religious people for some reason can't understand is that there does not have to be an absolute point of reference for morality. A society can establish and maintain moral values without religion. Don't kill, don't steal, don't lie ... those values are built into everyone, except for, like I said above, sociopaths, or psychopaths or possibly other persons with psychological disorders. But you can't use those people as an example for a point against Atheism.
Epignosis wrote:
And yes, I've read the business about morality being a social/evolutionary/developed concept, but Dahmer's absolutely right. If we truly are all evolutionary products and nothing holds us accountable for our actions. You can posit morality on other philosophical grounds (utilitarianism, etc.), but in the end, all of those grounds are just as arbitrary.
|
It's surely interesting that you would agree with a serial killer.
And as Christopher Hitchens would probably put it: If in your opinion all that keeps you from committing those crimes is the fear of God and eternal punishment ... how could that be a moral concept? It seems highly immoral to me.
I repeat my central point above: There is no need for an absolute point of reference. Any large community of rational people (meaning: not believing in divine instructions) will establish acceptable, secular laws on their own. It's my opinion, I can't prove it, you can't disprove it. I leave it to the reader to judge which is more probable. 
| A serial killer can be right about something. Or does being a serial killer mean everything you think is automatically wrong? Some logic. 
How is morality innate? Everyone I've ever observed acts immorally from time to time. I would say immorality is innate.
Notice I didn't say anything against atheism in my point. I simply pointed out that there is no basis for morality in atheism, and you can't argue otherwise.
Besides...suppose societies do create rules on their own (of course they do- I never said they didn't)...my comment had nothing to do with rules themselves. My comment had to do with an impetus for following those rules. Atheism offers no motivation for not behaving antisocially except what society provides irrespective of atheism. I wasn't arguing against atheism, just pointing out what you asked for:
"No God to judge me = I can do what I want, including kill, and I have nothing to worry about except Game Over."
|
|
 |
Epignosis
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32588
|
Posted: December 28 2009 at 18:15 |
stonebeard wrote:
I don't know what you believe specifically, but I'm just saying now that anyone who doesn't do socially unacceptably things only because of some mandate by God has a disgusting sense of morality.
| Says who? You?
|
|
 |
Mr ProgFreak
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
|
Posted: December 28 2009 at 18:19 |
^ I would certainly agree that there is no basis for morality in Atheism. My point is simply that we don't need religion to act morally. If you don't agree with that, I would humbly ask you to please not waste my time and watch Andy Thomson's presentations instead, which make that point quite conclusively. And if you'd like to take my word for it, I can assure you that I am a moral person, and I'm an Atheist.
Epignosis wrote:
"No God to judge me = I can do what I want, including kill, and I have nothing to worry about except Game Over."
|
Well, if you're a sociopath then that's that ... but it's none of my business. Of course I don't think that you're a sociopath, since I don't think that you actually believe in that statement.
|
 |
Epignosis
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32588
|
Posted: December 28 2009 at 18:24 |
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
"No God to judge me = I can do what I want, including kill, and I have nothing to worry about except Game Over."
|
Well, if you're a sociopath then that's that ... but it's none of my business. Of course I don't think that you're a sociopath, since I don't think that you actually believe in that statement.
| I didn't say it. An atheist did.
My point is that you can only construct your own sense of morality as you like it. Different societies have different rules, many of them contradictory (even irrespective of religion). Abortion is evil, and yet many people in the USA (and other parts of the world) claim it is okay. Either it's evil, or it's not. Atheists have no fundamental basis to say one way or another.
|
|
 |
Mr ProgFreak
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
|
Posted: December 28 2009 at 18:28 |
stonebeard wrote:
But what about:
1) "Kill when your family is threatened" / "Never kill under any circumstances whatsoever."
2) "Never steal" / "Steal if you will die without the food"
3) "Never lie" / "Lie to a killer who wants to know where your daughter is so he can kill her"
A vague sense of innate herd morality cannot even come close to accounting for all of what we consider moral/immoral actions today. |
I think that you underestimate humans. We're not simply upright walking apes, our brains advanced significantly, too, and that includes the ability to reason and make plans about the future. As I would put it - and I don't have a degree in neuroscience, please keep that in mind - humans have empathy. They also have innate mechanisms for protecting kin. Of course all those mechanisms are not hardwired and absolute - there's also our abilities to reason and to make plans. I'm not saying that for example an archaic society of homo sapiens 50000 years ago would have been totally peaceful. In fact I think that violence was common back then, since no doubt resources were scarce and people probably lived in conflicting clans or tribes. What I'm saying is that the idea of how to live a peaceful life is clear to us. We have defined it in our laws, and we don't need divine authority to agree on them, or to change them if we don't feel they're just. Equal rights for women, abolishing of slavery, banning racism ... those have become the basis of civilization not only without divine intervention, but indeed in spite of religion.
|
 |
Mr ProgFreak
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
|
Posted: December 28 2009 at 18:32 |
Epignosis wrote:
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
"No God to judge me = I can do what I want, including kill, and I have nothing to worry about except Game Over."
|
Well, if you're a sociopath then that's that ... but it's none of my business. Of course I don't think that you're a sociopath, since I don't think that you actually believe in that statement.
|
I didn't say it. An atheist did.
|
A deeply disturbed serial killer (and later born again christian, I might add) said that. This reminds me of why debating with you feels like such a waste of time.
Epignosis wrote:
My point is that you can only construct your own sense of morality as you like it. Different societies have different rules, many of them contradictory (even irrespective of religion). Abortion is evil, and yet many people in the USA (and other parts of the world) claim it is okay. Either it's evil, or it's not. Atheists have no fundamental basis to say one way or another.
|
"Abortion is evil" is religious doctrine. I don't care about whether it's "evil" ... I care about whether it is ethically ok. You may claim to have a fundamental basis ... but as it turns out, it is simply a work of fiction by illiterate villagers of the bronze age. If you're comfortable using that as a basis ... be my guest.
|
 |
Epignosis
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32588
|
Posted: December 28 2009 at 18:42 |
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
"No God to judge me = I can do what I want, including kill, and I have nothing to worry about except Game Over."
|
Well, if you're a sociopath then that's that ... but it's none of my business. Of course I don't think that you're a sociopath, since I don't think that you actually believe in that statement.
|
I didn't say it. An atheist did.
|
A deeply disturbed serial killer (and later born again christian, I might add) said that.
But an atheist before. His conversion later did not lead him to kill.
This reminds me of why debating with you feels like such a waste of time.
I too am reminded. You rip things people say out of context:
1. Insinuating I'm a sociopath when I clearly did not say such a thing. I am not thrown off by your apparent inability to read.
2. Using an "argument" you know to be weak to prove a point ("Thou shalt not kill"... "Of course, I know that can be translated 'Thou shalt not murder'").
3. Arguing that New Atheism has no dogma and yet insisting that there are clear moral boundaries one must adhere to (else, Dahmer would not be a sociopath unworthy of representing atheism ).
Epignosis wrote:
My point is that you can only construct your own sense of morality as you like it. Different societies have different rules, many of them contradictory (even irrespective of religion). Abortion is evil, and yet many people in the USA (and other parts of the world) claim it is okay. Either it's evil, or it's not. Atheists have no fundamental basis to say one way or another.
|
"Abortion is evil" is religious doctrine.
I don't care about whether it's "evil" ... I care about whether it is ethically ok.
You may claim to have a fundamental basis ... but as it turns out, it is simply a work of fiction by illiterate villagers of the bronze age. If you're comfortable using that as a basis ... be my guest.
| Abortion is murder and therefore evil. On what basis do you claim anything is evil? Right...you don't. It's either socially accepted or it isn't.
Oh right...female circumcision....

|
|
 |
stonebeard
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 27 2005
Location: NE Indiana
Status: Offline
Points: 28057
|
Posted: December 28 2009 at 18:46 |
Epignosis wrote:
stonebeard wrote:
I don't know what you believe specifically, but I'm just saying now that anyone who doesn't do socially unacceptably things only because of some mandate by God has a disgusting sense of morality.
|
Says who? You?
|
Yes, but I'm not the only one.
I'm committing a red herring here, but I'd like to ask you what you would have our plight be?
Are we not the products of evolution?
Is our morality not based on what best appeals to our intellect and reason?
If we encounter some moral command in an ancient text from any God, should we not test its worthiness based on what our reason tells us now? In other words, should we do what an ancient divine text tells us, regardless of whether we have extreme cognitive dissonance with its command?
I think I can anticipate your reaction in part on the last one, but I hope you'll surprise me. 
|
|
 |
Mr ProgFreak
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
|
Posted: December 28 2009 at 18:50 |
Epignosis wrote:
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
"No God to judge me = I can do what I want, including kill, and I have nothing to worry about except Game Over."
|
Well, if you're a sociopath then that's that ... but it's none of my business. Of course I don't think that you're a sociopath, since I don't think that you actually believe in that statement.
|
I didn't say it. An atheist did.
|
A deeply disturbed serial killer (and later born again christian, I might add) said that.
But an atheist before. His conversion later did not lead him to kill.
|
|
He was a sociopath, maybe also a psychopath. In normal persons, empathy will prevent them from harming others for no good reason. Empathy is a well researched attribute of humans and other animals.
Epignosis wrote:
This reminds me of why debating with you feels like such a waste of time.
I too am reminded. You rip things people say out of context:
1. Insinuating I'm a sociopath when I clearly did not say such a thing. I am not thrown off by your apparent inability to read.
|
I insinuate that you would have to be a sociopath to agree with such a statement.
Epignosis wrote:
2. Using an "argument" you know to be weak to prove a point ("Thou shalt not kill"... "Of course, I know that can be translated 'Thou shalt not murder'").
|
Any Christian country which uses capital punishment uses that argument ... or how else could they rationalize it?
Epignosis wrote:
3. Arguing that New Atheism has no dogma and yet insisting that there are clear moral boundaries one must adhere to (else, Dahmer would not be a sociopath unworthy of representing atheism ).
|
Atheism has no dogma, and does not imply any morality. If Dahmer believed that there is no god, then he was an Atheist ... nobody is arguing that.
Epignosis wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
My point is that you can only construct your own sense of morality as you like it. Different societies have different rules, many of them contradictory (even irrespective of religion). Abortion is evil, and yet many people in the USA (and other parts of the world) claim it is okay. Either it's evil, or it's not. Atheists have no fundamental basis to say one way or another.
|
"Abortion is evil" is religious doctrine.
I don't care about whether it's "evil" ... I care about whether it is ethically ok.
You may claim to have a fundamental basis ... but as it turns out, it is simply a work of fiction by illiterate villagers of the bronze age. If you're comfortable using that as a basis ... be my guest.
|
Abortion is murder and therefore evil. On what basis do you claim anything is evil? Right...you don't. It's either socially accepted or it isn't.
Oh right...female circumcision....

|
Societies can - and should - evolve. Abortion can be considered to be murder depending on whether you consider the fetus a human being or not, or at which point during its development you consider it to be a human being. I'm sorry, the world is simply more complex than you claim it to be. Even in scripture abortion is allowed under certain conditions (for example in Jewish teachings, in early stages when the life of the mother is in danger).
Edited by Mr ProgFreak - December 28 2009 at 18:51
|
 |
stonebeard
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 27 2005
Location: NE Indiana
Status: Offline
Points: 28057
|
Posted: December 28 2009 at 18:50 |
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
stonebeard wrote:
But what about:
1) "Kill when your family is threatened" / "Never kill under any circumstances whatsoever."
2) "Never steal" / "Steal if you will die without the food"
3) "Never lie" / "Lie to a killer who wants to know where your daughter is so he can kill her"
A vague sense of innate herd morality cannot even come close to accounting for all of what we consider moral/immoral actions today. |
I think that you underestimate humans. We're not simply upright walking apes, our brains advanced significantly, too, and that includes the ability to reason and make plans about the future.
As I would put it - and I don't have a degree in neuroscience, please keep that in mind - humans have empathy. They also have innate mechanisms for protecting kin. Of course all those mechanisms are not hardwired and absolute - there's also our abilities to reason and to make plans.
I'm not saying that for example an archaic society of homo sapiens 50000 years ago would have been totally peaceful. In fact I think that violence was common back then, since no doubt resources were scarce and people probably lived in conflicting clans or tribes.
What I'm saying is that the idea of how to live a peaceful life is clear to us. We have defined it in our laws, and we don't need divine authority to agree on them, or to change them if we don't feel they're just. Equal rights for women, abolishing of slavery, banning racism ... those have become the basis of civilization not only without divine intervention, but indeed in spite of religion.
|
Empathy can help us understand others, but it can't help us take the right action based on that information.
I agree with what you said, but I don't think you addressed the issue. Evolution gave rise to our advanced reason, but I can't see how it instilled in us a priori (  ) the nuances of the examples I gave. Is there an intuitively right choice for each other three examples I gave? I don't think so, not intuitively and not without experience and reason. Again, the reason is the product of evolution and the method of solving these kinds of problems, but the predisposition for choosing the respective choices cannot have been determined by evolution.
Edited by stonebeard - December 28 2009 at 18:58
|
|
 |
Epignosis
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32588
|
Posted: December 28 2009 at 18:53 |
stonebeard wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
stonebeard wrote:
I don't know what you believe specifically, but I'm just saying now that anyone who doesn't do socially unacceptably things only because of some mandate by God has a disgusting sense of morality.
|
Says who? You?
|
Yes, but I'm not the only one.
I'm committing a red herring here, but I'd like to ask you what you would have our plight be?
Are we not the products of evolution?
Is our morality not based on what best appeals to our intellect and reason?
If we encounter some moral command in an ancient text from any God, should we not test its worthiness based on what our reason tells us now? In other words, should we do what an ancient divine text tells us, regardless of whether we have extreme cognitive dissonance with its command?
I think I can anticipate your reaction in part on the last one, but I hope you'll surprise me.  | My point (that Mike doesn't seem to grasp) is this:
YES a society can create law and order, and people can feel moral in upholding those laws. But when an anarchist comes along, one who does not believe in any eternal consequence or care about his own life, atheism does not deter him- nay, atheism actually provides the man a philosophical consolation (what I said earlier that Mike attributed to me and insinuated I was a sociopath. ):
"No God = I can do what I want and it's only game over for me if I die. No biggie."
Funny thing is, all of this is sort of a Red Herring as well. God's purpose (in the Bible) is not to make a moral world (as we consider morality, anyway). Were that the case then Jesus would not have been so critical of the Pharisees. 
By the way, being "good" does not earn you eternal life. The Bible categorically contradicts that.
|
|
 |
Mr ProgFreak
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
|
Posted: December 28 2009 at 18:55 |
^^ I didn't said that it had. Cultures and societies evolve as well, and no doubt early societies were much more crude than out modern, civil societies.
The fact remains that our modern societies evolved, despite of religion. A rule against racism can certainly not be derived of religious teachings. Wherever it came from, it did. Why should I explain exactly where it came from? I simply outlined that it could have developed by itself, gradually, since the stone age. That is my opinion.
Edited by Mr ProgFreak - December 28 2009 at 18:56
|
 |
Mr ProgFreak
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
|
Posted: December 28 2009 at 19:01 |
Epignosis wrote:
My point (that Mike doesn't seem to grasp) is this:
YES a society can create law and order, and people can feel moral in upholding those laws. But when an anarchist comes along, one who does not believe in any eternal consequence or care about his own life, atheism does not deter him- nay, atheism actually provides the man a philosophical consolation (what I said earlier that Mike attributed to me and insinuated I was a sociopath. ):
"No God = I can do what I want and it's only game over for me if I die. No biggie."
|
You are a sociopath if you think that only God's authority is keeping you from committing those crimes.
Epignosis wrote:
Funny thing is, all of this is sort of a Red Herring as well. God's purpose (in the Bible) is not to make a moral world (as we consider morality, anyway). Were that the case then Jesus would not have been so critical of the Pharisees. 
By the way, being "good" does not earn you eternal life. The Bible categorically contradicts that.
|
And your point is? You're not a Christian, but you believe that Christ is God. You don't think that God's purpose has anything to do with morality, but you insist that Atheists would be immoral.
      
|
 |
Epignosis
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32588
|
Posted: December 28 2009 at 19:04 |
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
"No God to judge me = I can do what I want, including kill, and I have nothing to worry about except Game Over."
|
Well, if you're a sociopath then that's that ... but it's none of my business. Of course I don't think that you're a sociopath, since I don't think that you actually believe in that statement.
|
I didn't say it. An atheist did.
|
A deeply disturbed serial killer (and later born again christian, I might add) said that.
But an atheist before. His conversion later did not lead him to kill.
|
|
He was a sociopath, maybe also a psychopath. In normal persons, empathy will prevent them from harming others for no good reason. Empathy is a well researched attribute of humans and other animals.
So if a person is for whatever reason born without the ability to empathize, they are morally excused from murder?
Epignosis wrote:
This reminds me of why debating with you feels like such a waste of time.
I too am reminded. You rip things people say out of context:
1. Insinuating I'm a sociopath when I clearly did not say such a thing. I am not thrown off by your apparent inability to read.
|
I insinuate that you would have to be a sociopath to agree with such a statement.
And I insinuate that you would have to be illiterate to think that I would agree with such a statement.
Epignosis wrote:
2. Using an "argument" you know to be weak to prove a point ("Thou shalt not kill"... "Of course, I know that can be translated 'Thou shalt not murder'").
|
Any Christian country which uses capital punishment uses that argument ... or how else could they rationalize it?
So what? It's what the language says.
You remind me of a juvenile who will make wisecracks about an old person who might say "We had a gay old time the other night."
Except in this case, it's not the same word changing its meaning over time, it's three completely different Hebrew words.
Epignosis wrote:
3. Arguing that New Atheism has no dogma and yet insisting that there are clear moral boundaries one must adhere to (else, Dahmer would not be a sociopath unworthy of representing atheism ).
|
Atheism has no dogma, and does not imply any morality. If Dahmer believed that there is no god, then he was an Atheist ... nobody is arguing that.
So why then is he disqualified from speaking about atheism?
Epignosis wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
My point is that you can only construct your own sense of morality as you like it. Different societies have different rules, many of them contradictory (even irrespective of religion). Abortion is evil, and yet many people in the USA (and other parts of the world) claim it is okay. Either it's evil, or it's not. Atheists have no fundamental basis to say one way or another.
|
"Abortion is evil" is religious doctrine.
I don't care about whether it's "evil" ... I care about whether it is ethically ok.
You may claim to have a fundamental basis ... but as it turns out, it is simply a work of fiction by illiterate villagers of the bronze age. If you're comfortable using that as a basis ... be my guest.
|
Abortion is murder and therefore evil. On what basis do you claim anything is evil? Right...you don't. It's either socially accepted or it isn't.
Oh right...female circumcision....

|
Societies can - and should - evolve. Abortion can be considered to be murder depending on whether you consider the fetus a human being or not, or at which point during its development you consider it to be a human being.
I'm sorry, the world is simply more complex than you claim it to be. Even in scripture abortion is allowed under certain conditions (for example in Jewish teachings, in early stages when the life of the mother is in danger).
| Could you point out a Bible verse where abortion is "allowed under certain circumstances?"
I'm going to watch George Lopez. I'll be back either tonight or tomorrow at some point.
|
|
 |