|
|
|
mattfed
New Member
1 Post |
 Posted - 05/27/2001 : 19:59:04 [Permalink]
|
I find it interesting that CS equates atheism with what most of us would regard as amorality. One of the other respondents pointed out the fallacy that CS equates religion with morality (and, conversely, atheism with amorality/immorality). Allow me to point out to you that the allegedly religious peoples of this planet have brought more pain and suffering on each other as a result of their presupposed morality (versus, of course, the presupposed immorality of those they choose to persecute). Also allow me to point out that an atheist does not have a "higher power" or even some preprinted dogmatic text upon which to rely when it comes to making a decision along the moral lines of what CS has proposed, so is forced to (hopefully) reach a logical conclusion based upon reason alone (which, by the way, is not 100% infallible).
Any reasonably moral person, whether atheist or not, should be able to reach the conclusion that genocide/murder/slavery are not acceptable methods of reaching economic prosperity. Even a pure pragmatist (yikes!), trying to justify enslavement for economic ends, would need to look at a Kantian "what if everyone did this..." sort of question and would also reach the conclusion that enslavement is morally wrong.
One really good question for CS is this:
Why are the right-wing religious nuts in this fine country the ones usually clamoring for the death penalty and not the whacko atheists?
Matt Fed
PS - As a good blood-drinking atheist, I think those on death row should be forced to participate in televised gladiator fights in 70,000-seat stadiums, so we can at least turn a buck from these "drains on the economy".
|
 |
|
|
iweird
New Member
1 Post |
Posted - 05/27/2001 : 20:01:46 [Permalink]
|
this is a free country. Leave us alone. I don't care whatever you babble about.
The topic simply doesn't interest me. Who cares about a 'thought control' experiment? The results all depend on the experimentor. He does not expect other outcome rather than his assumptions... Sheeesh.
I bet if you present these arguements, people will just read it, forget about it in a few hours, and go on with their lives.
|
|
|
|
Tiptup
Skeptic Friend
USA
86 Posts |
Posted - 05/27/2001 : 20:03:36 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by mattfed:
Any reasonably moral person, whether atheist or not, should be able to reach the conclusion that genocide/murder/slavery are not acceptable methods of reaching economic prosperity. Even a pure pragmatist (yikes!), trying to justify enslavement for economic ends, would need to look at a Kantian "what if everyone did this..." sort of question and would also reach the conclusion that enslavement is morally wrong.
I just read the rationally speaking column from the main page about "Game Theory, Rational Egoism and the Evolution of Fairness". Again this is an attempt to find something that either does or does not exist, right and wrong.
The game where two people must agree on the share of money before they can play is totally ignoring the true question. This is also true for any studies that show that whenever human behavior follows high ethical standards that society is better off. Nobody disputes this, especially religious people. It is often religious people who will tell amoralists that they and society would be better off in the long run if they practiced good ethics. The real question is whether or not morality and ethics have a real basis, and why should anyone care about following certain ideas.
Sure a person can play a game with someone else where they must agree on the same distribution of the winnings. But this is simplistic and asks why a person should want to agree. Maybe they want to go down and take the other player with them. What would make this inherently wrong?
Don't try to say that everyone would choose to have the money over nothing. There are many people who act in very self destructive and senseless ways. What makes this evil and what makes the other choice good?
What arbitrarily decides that we should want to be unselfish? If it is simply our evolutionary instincts of survival and success, then why should we consider this to be important?
I find a purpose to morality, and if morality were only a drive of life that formed through a total accident, then once again morality would be meaningless. Mathematics and science can give us the results of and maybe even the reasons why we follow morality, but they will never give us the meaning or purpose for it. Thus, once again, how can rational atheism prevent itself from logically becoming Nihilism? Is there truly good and evil?
Tiptup
-------------------------
I DON'T MAKE SENSE-I GOT MY PRIDE; DON'T NEED NO MEANING; I FEEL NO SHAME-I WILL NOT BELIEVE; I GOT NO CHOICE-I'M OUT OF CONTROL; AND I LOVE IT!! |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 05/27/2001 : 20:05:28 [Permalink]
|
Obviously the people choosing to gain something fairly are making good survival choices that will be passed on and people that want to bring everything down and see that no one wins are far less likely to pass on that trait.
There really is no good or evil. That is a tag each person can assign an act but what makes a choice good is that it is of benefit to more people than the alternative.
So the purpose of all our moral institutions is that it makes us all able to get along better and therefore increases our chances of passing on such attitudes.
How's that? There are no rights or wrongs, but what we call moral are traits that help us survive. This applies to the religious and non religious.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 08/16/2001 : 23:36:54 [Permalink]
|
bump
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
