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.
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.
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.
FREE E-BOOKS
Get the book "Why There Is No God" and one more book for FREE!
Sign up below for the Atheist Republic Newsletter to get the books.
Record Your Message!
Record your voice here for it to be aired on the Atheist Republic Voicemails Podcast.
Send us your views and opinions, your personal stories, messages of support, comments on recent news, or any comments you would like to share about your part of the world.
Note : By clicking record you are allowing us to broadcast your message on any of our platforms.
Affiliate Disclaimer
Links to atheist related books, shirts and movies and other atheism related products are affiliate links.
All proceeds will go to keeping the Atheist Republic website up and running; providing resources, advocacy, community tools and encouragement to atheists all over the world.
I'm saying, Aj, that it applies to every species when it comes to biological and physiological changes, not to human relations or social politics.
how does this theory even if correct account for abiogenesis or irreducible complexity? Why don't you tell me how does this not?
(edited)
So if an individual in another species dies or is killed which is a physiological change, that individuals genes do not get passed on. That is survival of the fittest. But if a human is killed this is different because as more intelligent animals the motive may be different?
So if an individual in another species dies or is killed which is a physiological change Oh, man, I don't where to start...
The act of dying itself is not a physiological change that depends on evolutionary factors, and yes, genes of that individual (if he/she doesn't have offspring) do not get passed on, so? I don't know what you mean, man, you should study Evolution in much more detail because you're mixing facts.
But if a human is killed this is different because as more intelligent animals the motive may be different? We are animals with morals! Our intelligence allows us to be able to realize that "social darwinism" is a really bad idea and that has nothing to do with Evolution as a natural science.
Tell the thousands of victims of violence that occur everyday that we are animals with morals. Ever visited a prison, rough part of town, undeveloped country? Your opinion is that social Darwinism is a bad idea. Why is your opinion correct, and the opinion of a rapist or murderer incorrect? A person can die due to a genetic flaw or having genes that did not allow them to survive in their environment.
What makes a rapist incorrect in the Bible? What makes slavery immoral in the Bible? Please cite your verses...
@AJ. As a matter of fact, I have. 3 different prisons, along with social workers. So what? Prisoners have morals; from our point of view, some right, some wrong.
We're animals capable of being moral, creating and adapting moral systems. This doesn't mean that morals are shared by every community/society or that some people don't break moral conventions from time to time.
Why is your opinion correct, and the opinion of a rapist or murderer incorrect? Are you kidding me? My opinion is based on the objetive criteria (and basis of any legal democratic system) "what causes people to suffer (or to die) is wrong" and social darwinism harms people and could lead to totalitarian ideas, so it's objectively wrong.
What is one common issue among humans??? Hmmmm oh that's right the majority believe in a higher power! How can you tell someone "DO NOT KILL...but fuck those people kill all of them every man woman and child but you can keep the young virgins for yourself!!!!! How awesome it must be to have infinite loopholes around your so called morals
“And Moses was angry with the officers of the army, the commanders of thousands and the commanders of hundreds, who had come from service in the war. Moses said to them, "Have you let all the women live? Behold, these, on Balaam's advice, caused the people of Israel to act treacherously against the Lord in the incident of Peor, and so the plague came among the congregation of the Lord. Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man by lying with him. But all the young girls who have not known man by lying with him keep alive for yourselves.”
Numbers 31:14-18 ESV
http://bible.com/59/num.31.14-18.esv
Why are human relations and social politics different than humpback whales or shrimp?
Because we have established more complex societies. Our communication systems, for example, are amazing, if we compare ours to other animals'.
We're able to appreciate how precious life -every life- is.
I’m glad you appreciate life, but many humans do not share your opinion. It’s nothing more than opinion without a moral law giver. An objective standard of morality is necessary in order to have objective morality. If God doesn’t exist, there is no good or evil, murder just is. Honey bees have complex societies and communications, why does social Darwinism apply to them?
Morality changes over time, it is different depending on countries, communities, even individuals... You ask for something that it's impossible to achieve...
But, all societies could tend to establish the most elevated (and civilized) criteria of all: To avoid unnecessary suffering and death of any animal (human beings included).
The rest of morals may be disputable within any society and over time.
P.S. Honey bees have an amazing communicational system, btw. But still, not as complex as ours... Can't you really see the difference between human beings complexity and the rest of the fauna?
(edited)
So would you say that female circumcision isn't wrong, objectively speaking. It's something we just don't agree with? How about throwing weak babies off a cliff? These societies weren't wrong in doing this? So the Nazis weren't objectively wrong in what they did? It may not be something we like, but we cannot say for sure they were wrong for doing what they did?
@JontheCat. So would you say that female circumcision isn't wrong, objectively speaking. How about throwing weak babies off a cliff? So the Nazis weren't objectively wrong in what they did?
Yes, yes and yes. For a thousand times... Those cause unnecesary suffering (and even death) to people.
What nazis did was so atrocious, they compelled the world to create an international human rights legal system (international laws, courts, judges, etc.) for the first time in history.
(edited)
Okay. So you're idea is that if we avoid actions which cause unnecessary suffering and/or death is what we call immoral. The point of moral law is to minimize suffering and death. How about killing a children who suffer from terminal cancer? Since there's no way of minimizing death in that case, how about minimizing the suffering by speeding up the death?
@JontheCat. How about killing a children who suffer from terminal cancer?
We can minimize suffering with drugs. If despite the drugs, the child was in terrible pain, in horrific physical and psychological conditions, parents and their child should decide freely if the humane thing to do would be to facilitate euthanasia, in an act of pure unselfish love to avoid unnecesary suffering to a dear one... Which it's not even remotely the same as killing.
And this is a very important difference, Jon. Maybe you must re-examine your unflexible world of solid black and white, because it looks like you've forgotten what compassion means. You're not being very Christian...
P.S.@AJ. And what is Law? What are laws for?
In Protestant Christian theology the purpose of the law is to make us aware that we fall short of the standard of perfection, or can never keep the law perfectly whether in deed or in our heart(attitude). The law points us towards our need for a savior from ourselves our sin.
@Aj, my question was about legal sytems in democracies, not morals in the Bible, but anyway...
The law points us towards our need for a savior from ourselves our sin.
I can't see why. Law points us toward our need for a regulation of coexistence between human beings in reasonable and not harmful ways.
Do you believe there is such a thing as sin?
No
Is anything evil or wrong then?
It's neither of them: SINS are not real (there's no such thing as a punishable crime by an imaginary entity) thus they cannot be used to qualify human behavior.
(edited)
Angiebot, then why are you complaining or against religion if there is no such thing as right or wrong?
Of course not, AJ. I believe there are reprehensible ways of behavior which any society need to regulate, in civilized terms, that is, those which objectively harm others.
Okay. I can actually roll with this. Would you agree then that using this view of morality, abortion should be wrong as it directly causes death to unborn children?
Hi, Jon. We recently had a very long thread on this topic, so I'm not going to get into details. But, NO. The fetus is just a project of human being, it doesn't even feel anything before it is a few months old (because it lacks neural system and other vital organs), but the mother and her circunstamces instead, her suffering, are very real.
We mustn't prefer the welfare of a non-sentient bunch of cells, over a real human being's feelings. That would be inhumane.
(edited)
I agree with thread being too long now. Sorry for sidetracking the dialogue.
Let me go back to reducing unnecessary harm/suffering. This still feels like a value judgement. What prevents a society from saying this death/suffering is unnecessary as opposed to necessary? A society may claim that it is necessary to kill weak newborns to preserve the strength of their society or that it is necessary to circumcise women (for whatever sick reason they may have) and we have absolutely to tell them they are wrong. We still need that objective moral framework to decide between necessary and unnecessary suffering/death.
@JontheCat. I meant we discussed abortion recently, and I wasn't going to get into that topic in detail, but you're also right and we've been off topic for a while.
What prevents a society from saying this death/suffering is unnecessary as opposed to necessary?
Well, we should measure if the dead/suffering of a human being is impartially good and necessary to that human being or others; except for euthanasia, mercy help to death, and prison punishment for crimes, I cannot find any other example, can you?
That's exactly, my point. You say we should "measure if the dead/suffering ..." but to what standard do we measure this? Society's? To some degree I'd agree but the flaw here would be this actually helps enforce the idea that the atrocities I've mentioned earlier weren't morally wrong. They just followed a different standard.
Unless of course, there exists an objective morality which applies to everyone regardless of race, religion, etc, which we can then measure necessary or unnecessary suffering/death.
Well, @JontheCat., Sam Harris in "The Moral Landscape" explains how these values can be measured by Science, depending on the events in the world and those in the human brain. For example, suffering can be brain scanned and we can used Economic and Social Science to determine other needs, such as food, clothes, etc.
Suffering isn't the thing I'm asking about. It's the distinction between necessary and unnecessary.
You'd say, for example that abortion would constitute a necessary suffering, while I say it is unnecessary (I'm just saying this for example purposes; let's not dive into this). I think we'd both agree that the death of an aggressor as a result of self defense is necessary. But I'll look into this Moral Landscape if it answers this question.
Pages