Hmmm a psychopath
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
@Jordan: "favorable behavior among a group of individuals."
Favorable behavior institutionalized IS morality. Humans are social animals. Our survival had depended upon it.
All your bullshit has been responded to previously. The fact that you can not understand it is not my problem, Go back and read the previous posts or just keep posting the same dip-shit opinions. Repetition of ignorance just demonstrates you have no ability to think rationally, reason effectively, or discuss matters fairly. You are merely trolling.
"life evolved through natural processes which favor the fittest among a group of individuals for the sole purpose of survival, "
Not even close to true, survival of the fittest refers to how well a living thing match their environment. In an environment where behaviours like rape and murder make you far less likely to pass on your DNA, those actions would single out the people who behaved that way as the opposite of fittest in the Darwinian sense.
This is even before we acknowledge such behaviours are barbaric and pernicious. Something you seem determined to ignore for some reason. Is it stupidity, or are you simply trolling? As a theist by the way, you also seem keen to ignore the fact such behaviours are actively encouraged by the deity depicted in the bible, and that simply repenting after a lifetime of such cruelty would mean an eternity of bliss in heaven. While a life spent doing nothing but altruistic and generous service would be rewarded with an eternity of torture, just because you were born into the wrong religion.
Your main point is that human choices are subjective, they are, thus morality is subjective, so what? Just because most theists are petrified by the knowle that we are solely responsible for our actions, doesn't make bronze age morality any more valid, and certainly no more appealing than modern democracies with laws that strive to be just and fair, whilst recognising the value of a single human life is paramount for any just society.
@Jordan thinks that lying and harming others is acceptable. I have no reason to think that she/he is interested in establishing and representing the truth.
What I or anyone thinks is acceptable is just a belief and not based on any scientific evidence.
A matter of taste rather than a belief.
But an individual may base their taste informed by evidence.
"Scientific evidence"? I wasn't aware of any other kind.
@Jordan: re: What I or anyone thinks is acceptable is just a belief and not based on any scientific evidence.
YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY WRONG AGAIN.
The reason cover my mouth when I cough or nose when I sneeze is based completely on the Germ Theory of Disease. (SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE on the spread of germs.)
The reason I go to the doctor for a flu vaccination is completely based on SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE.
The reason more people do not drink bleach and know that it is bad for them is completely based on SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE.
The reason people wear sunblock to prevent skin cancer is based completely on SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE.
The reason sticking a knife into someone or putting a bullet in their head is bad is based COMPLETELY ON SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE (It kills them). The moral judgment is "We do not believe it is right to murder others." (Killing may or may not be justified but "murder" is wrong.) Murder is killing for an unjustified reason.
Many of our "beliefs" are based on "scientific evidence." Hitting another person causes them harm. (A SCIENTIFIC FACT). So, spouse abuse, child abuse, and elder abuse are morally wrong and illegal, (BASED ON SCIENTIFIC FACT)
Try again. I said what anyone thinks is ACCEPTABLE is just a belief not grounding in any science.
Whose to say spreading germs is UNACCEPTABLE? To who? You? WhAt about to the germ? The germ is a clump of cells just like you. What makes your well being of any greater importance than the germs?
@Jordan: YOU ARE WRONG AND YOU KEEP SAYING THE SAME STUPID SHIT.
If science is your measuring stick and morality is based on "Well Being" then all morality is based on scientific evidence. HOW ARE YOU NOT GETTING THIS.
@cognostic define well being. Whose well being? Your well being? It could be for the well being of the population to rape woman, it could bring the psychopath mental well being to murder babies.
After all stabbing someone to death is just one clump of cells killing off another clump of cells. Natural selection
Well being of a university student seeking to graduate with a degree in psychology.
The basis for human morality is always subjective, it cannot be otherwise. Science better helps us form an objective understanding of reality. Thus science can help inform our moral decisions, but cannot decide the basis of our morality. Though paradoxically science can destroy the asinine and pernicious idea that we should blindly follow archaic religious doctrine and dogma, by exposing the religions they belong to as absurd nonsense.
If they show contrition at the end of a life of barbaric cruelty your deity is claimed to forgive them completely and they live an eternity of bliss, but being born into the wrong religion means an eternity of torture, no matter how good a life you lead.
You'd have to be a Moron to believe that's objectively moral.
@sheldon you have to be completely egotistical to make the Assumption that you would be able to comprehend the ultimate plan or reasons behind what a God may or may not do.
I agree, but since I am an atheist who doesn't believe any deity exists, I fail to see the point of this straw man fllacy? Also since you are a theist who believes a deity exists, and that you know what it thinks is moral, then your fallacious claim is something of an own goal.
Now can you please tell me how you know the difference between a moral and immoral action?
Can you tell us differentiates a moral action from an immoral one? I'm curious since you keep making asinine claims about cruel barbaric and even evil behaviours being amoral.
Does empathy or the well being of others not inform your morality at all? Maybe you're a psychopath?
I would say there is no such thing as morals. I say we would have to look to science and nature for examples of favorable behavior among a group of individuals. And since life evolved through natural processes which favor the fittest among a group of individuals for the sole purpose of survival, I would say raping is beneficial for a species when women are not putting out. Also the murder of bums and any other individuals who do not contribute to society should be encouraged. Since rape and murder of young is seen in the wild, I would say that these behaviors are natural and provide potential advantageous outcomes for our species.
We have no evidence that any of these behaviors are wrong so condemning murderers and rapist is an outdated practice backed by no science.
So you think the difference between a moral and immoral action is that either does or does not benefit the survival of the human species? In what way is subjugating all moral considerations to the survival of one species of great ape moral?
So you'd not be the least bothered if the people you care about are raped and murdered? Of course we do have evidence of why they are wrong, and several posters have given you explanations of why.The problem is you are pretending that subjective morality can't exist, but the fact is that only subjective morality exists. Raping someone causes unimaginable suffering, nor is it even an efficient way for human procreation, far from it. So if you care remotely about the well being of others or avoiding unnecessary suffering, then you deem it to be an immoral act. Your bible of course does not do this, but offers multiple examples of your deity encouraging humans to commit rape, even the mass raping of female prisoners from ethnic wars, and mass indiscriminate murder.
Science as far as I can see, is just a method to objectively study and better understand reality. Of course making decision about what is moral based on factually correct knowledge is demonstrably better than doing so based on incorrect archaic religious myths and doctrine.
Can you please tell us how you know the difference between a moral and immoral action?
No posters have provided any scientific reasons why any of these so called immoral behaviors are wrong.
If you re-read my post I said I don’t believe true morals exist. I don’t like when people suffer, but I also don’t like onions. Just a matter of opinion. I have stronger opinions about suffering but it is just still a matter of opinion since science cannot proove suffering is wrong or evil.
Suffering is just a part of nature and nature is not good or bad or evil or wrong. It just is. Just like rapists. Everything just exists and there is nothing wrong about it
All you have done is repeat your straw man argument, you seems to have missed my question.
Can you please tell us how you know the difference between a moral and immoral action? If you have no idea what is moral or not, just say so, many theists seem to lack this ability.
Nope, you're wrong again, rapists are sentient, they have a choice, nature is insentient and therefore incapable of understanding that anything suffers. As I keep saying even for a troll, and a theist you seem woefully ill informed.
Curious if you would spout on about there is no morality and it is all just opinion if you got raped, and then maybe get an std you have to deal with the rest of your life. Would you want to live in a society that says "rape is okay" at that point? Or perhaps a society that has laws and rules that protect your own self interest from others?
Do you think you would perhaps get mad and upset that someone would spout on about there is no morality you should not be upset you got raped while they try and win "points" for their argument for their completely unevidenced invisible imaginary sky daddy?
Good point, I wonder how Jordan would feel having been raped, if the police laughed and said there's no real harm done, and he kept getting raped. At what point would the concept of inflicting unnecessary suffering being immoral sink in to his slow witted reasoning?
I suspect if his favours were "roughed off" him nightly in prison among a large group of fellow inmates, even he might see that as wrong, though one can never be sure of course.
What do you think Jordan, hypothetically how many times would you have to be gang raped in prison before it struck you as wrong?
And despite many times of asking you have failed to give your own definition of "right" and "wrong" so that we can respond.
Yes, I get you are completely amoral...but you ask for a reason why one would say "right or wrong" but have yet to define what you mean.
And that would be another point of contention for me with theism, if you can be a dick your entire life... hurting people, killing, raping, being abusive... etc...
But your beardy cosmic wizard says, "oh just say your sorry, I'll forgive you and let you in"...
Then he/she is the biggest twat one can possibly imagine!
IF there is a God it is completely egotistical for man to assume they know and can comprehend Gods reasons or ways.
Also, please define “dick”
Well then your God in that particular scenario would be morally inferior to a moderately evolved primate.
@Jordan Re: "IF there is a God it is completely egotistical for man to assume they know and can comprehend Gods reasons or ways."
LMAO.... Oh, lordy! THAT coming from a guy who has repeatedly been telling us godless heathens what HE believes god wants/thinks and what HE believes his loving god will do to us all in the afterlife. Oh, the irony!... LMAO...
Ya put a judgment in
Ya pull a judgment out
Ya put a judgment in, and you shake it all about
You do the Jordan shuffle and you change it all around
That;s what it's all about.
Ya put assertions in
Ya pull assertions out
Ya put assertions in and you shake them all about.
Then you do the Jordan shuffle and you change them all around
That's what it's all about.
Everything that exists is natural in the sense that it exists in nature. Cognition is a natural phenomenon. Psychopathy is caused by abnormality in cognition. Thus psychopaths are natural. Most psychopaths are functional human beings, by the way, they just lack certain social emotions and thus can't function properly in social settings. Or rather, they can exploit certain social settings. Also it's just a certain portion of paychopaths that develop murderous habits. All this doesn't mean that we shouldn't do anything about psychopaths, because their actions harm others at times.
I think your thinking is underlined by the naturalistic fallacy, which holds that natural things are good, and thus we should do natural things. If a natural thing is bad, you run into a contradiction. But not all natural things are good. Cyanide is natural, but cyanide is bad (for consumption), unless in perhaps in the mouth of a murderous psychopath.
Define “good” good for who? Good for you? Why is cyanide bad? What makes murder wrong or bad? It’s just one clump of cells killing off another clump of cells. Natural selection.
Cyanide is not "bad". Once again you have no idea of clear definitions or use of English. I wrote the book "Handling Cyanide" . Cyanide is present in many everyday uses including lipstick,flavorings and so on. Cyanide (and its compounds) can indeed cause adverse reactions in humans, please define 'bad'.
Once again you are spouting 'utter bollocks' from wonderful depth of ignorance and a clear inability to express yourself lucidly and cogently.