It goes without saying that to reject religion one must take with seriousness truth. But to what extent do we search for answers?
In life we are faced with questions like " Should I give money to homeless people?" to " Should I share my things with my siblings?"
I think morals are shaped by what we choose to value. If we love someone clearly we would be nice to them because they are meaningful to our lives. But for other aspects in life what do you value?
No one teaches us who to love or give a importance toot?
What do you value as a atheist? Money? People? or just your family? And why?
Religion tells us to worship god, to love thy neighbor, or never kill.
But is this right? How do you know, you're atheist. To you a god is not the arbitrator of your actions.
What's your moral compass and how does it work for you?
Attachments
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
To answer my own question. I choose to defend what I value, my little brother and family. Also I value being productive and as long as I'm not harming anyone I make money for my own satisfaction.
I try to minimize harm while maximizing pleasure. I cannot do better than that.
I agree as long as that pleasure isn't some sort of irrational indulgence, like drugs.
"irrational indulgence, like drugs."
Which drugs, and why are these "irrational"?
Why would anyone sabotage their mind just to experience euphoria and does consequences in the long term. I'm talking about LSD or crack.
Attachments
Attach Image/Video?:
Then say LSD or crack, as using generic terms like drugs is meaningless. As for consequences most things we ingest can be harmful if too much is consumed, it's no different with recreational drugs, some people find it difficult to enjoy some things and then leave them alone, others do not. I'm still not seeing how "drugs" are irrational though. Trying to fight a war on drugs is irrational, it makes no sense at all. You'd think prohibition would have taught us that.
Eh getting off topic, but curious:
What is your thoughts on Alcohol? Sugar? Caffeine? Better or worse than LSD? Why?
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
▮ I am an atheist that always likes a good debate. ▮
▮ Please include @LogicFTW in responses directed to me. ▮
▮ Useful list on forum usage. A.R. Member since 2016. ▮
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
@Logic Re: "What is your thoughts on Alcohol? Sugar? Caffeine?"
Don't forget about Nicotine.
What is your thoughts on Alcohol? Sugar? Caffeine?"
All at the same time if I can, but then I have lived a heathen's hedonistic life, and hope for a little more before I am engulfed by oblivion.
I never really smoked, but like a Cuban cigar from time to time, Monte Cristo No2, but only two or three a year. What's the point of life if you don't enjoy it.
For fun?
Sometimes I have sex just for fun too. Sometimes with another person.
Brilliant, made me laugh again, very good mun.
Oh SHIT! Now everyone knows/ You said you wouldn't tell!!!!
WHAAAAT????.... Sex with another person?... Is that really allowed???
If something pleasurable does a disproportionate amount of harm, I do not see it as desirable.
"If something pleasurable does a disproportionate amount of harm, I do not see it as desirable."
Precisely, now that's a measured rational, and well reasoned idea.
I could spend the next few years vacillating between euphoric highs and debilitating lows on crack or heroin, until it killed me, but that doesn't seem like a sensible trade off, and of course there are others to consider, who might be hurt seeing me spiral into drug dependency.
What if someone threatened your life , would you kill them to save your life?
Also if you knew someone was stealing from you and is very fixed on you but you've got no evidence to give to the police, how would you handle the situation?
@Jair Re: "What if someone threatened your life , would you kill them to save your life?"
Yep. Without any hesitation.
"What if someone threatened your life , would you kill them to save your life?"
As I have said elsewhere, I am the kind of person who will shoot first, and to hell with the questions.
rmfr
@Arakish
...*high five*...
Now that I think of it, this is how I would be...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7YyBtMxZgQs
rmfr
@Jairayathesage
Life is very rarely a hollywood movie, where you know someone absolutely intends to, and will end your life. You can only try to predict that will be the case and try to be prepared for it. Knowing all the while, a vast majority of the time when one human does kill another, the victim likely did not know it was coming and had no recourse to defend themselves.
But in the very rare scenario where I knew someone was going to kill me, and they are highly likely to carry this out, I would, given no other choice kill the other person, their life is not worth more to me, then my own life is to me, (or even serious injury.) Anyone not in armed forces or an officer of the law that finds themselves in dangerous situations, it is very likely a person will never find themselves in such a scenario as it is rather easy to avoid. If I had very good reason to think a 12 year old girl was about to kill me and my only choice (never going to happen there's almost always a ton of less deadly options, but still) was to kill the little girl instead, I would, and I would feel zero remorse for doing so.
I would harden my anti-theft setup. Store valuables in a more secure manner, set up video cameras for evidence etc. Let the person know I am aware they are stealing from me, (should be enough to stop them by it self most of the time.) It should be an extremely rare scenario where I have to take matters in my own hands, instead of being able to rely on the criminal justice system. (Turn vigilante and even the inept criminal justice system could potentially turn against you, creating 2 problems instead of just one.)
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
▮ I am an atheist that always likes a good debate. ▮
▮ Please include @LogicFTW in responses directed to me. ▮
▮ Useful list on forum usage. A.R. Member since 2016. ▮
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
Isn't that what they make baseball bats and hidden cameras for?
I'd have to echo sapparo here, very well put!
Furthermore, morals are clearly social constructs in my opinion... we've obviously been living in groups and relatively harmoniously since the age of primitive man, before there were any major religions.
When we were merely simple pattern seeking primates that are curious and wish to know the answers to life's mysteries.
It's a case of what benefits the group.
Jairayathesage @ "How does a atheist choose his morals?"
Hi J.
In my opinion your question is ill formed. An atheist is a human being that happens not to believe in God or Gods. As human beings we get our morals the same way all human beings get their morals. Morality is a result of our cognitive development. This is true for the religious and the non-religious alike.
The religious will tell you that they get their morality from a God in their book. The same god that butchers men women and children. The same god that causes plagues and kills off entire cultures.; The same god that cuts open the stomachs of pregnant women and tosses unborn babies on rocks or kills off the first born of every family in Egypt because a king pissed him off. What really happens is cultures grown and change and so does morality. That's why we have a New Testament, and why the Christians still ignore Jesus when he tells them to hate their families if they want to follow him or that he came to fulfill the teachings of the old testament and not to change them. Morality evolves with our cognitive ability.
The first humans were not much more than walking hamburgers in the wild. They had no claws, no sharp teeth, no venom, no scales, and they were slow. They could not outrun a tiger, fly like birds, swim better than a crocodile, or climb like a monkey. Humans protected themselves by forming small family groups. Living in groups meant living together and living together meant having rules. Who ate first. Who did which jobs. Who did the hunting. How was the food shared. What happens with the sick? How do you treat the dead. What belongs to whom and who can use it? Is stealing okay? Is possession okay? Can we own people? All of these things were worked out time and time again in small clans, tribes, tribal communities and on into modern times - whether or not a bible and a god were involved. Perhaps better stated, regardless of the bible or god that was involved.
WE ARE THE MORAL BEINGS - it is in our genetics.
In the clan, tribe and community, those that did not follow the rules, who acted immorally were turned out into the world and banished. As individuals on their own, they did not survive long. The beasts and the elements would soon take their toll, unless of course they could band with another group. The genes for moral behavior, cooperation, and socialization were passed on. We continue to do this today. Those individuals who are incapable of participating in the society are removed from it. Those people who behave outside the moral boundaries are incarcerated and even put to death.
Morality and moral behavior comes from us, from the culture around us, and it has evolved and will continue to evolve with us.
You are right in the aspect that we are social animals. Also in my question, I was just trying to imply that, we as atheist don't believe in god so how is it that we decide morals. I didn't meant to sound like I was saying why atheist consider themselves moral without god.
And I think people are a little more distinct in the fact that some don't always conform into a pack. What I wanted to be key is, how come some people help the homeless and some don't. If what you say is true,that our morality is rooted by society. Why do some of us exhibit different behavior. For example some people are not pathological liars and some are.
@ Why do some of us exhibit different behavior? For example some people are not pathological liars and some are.
It's a good question and if we had an answer the prison system would not be necessary. Nothing works. Not counseling, not training, not God or religion, NOTHING. The recidivism rates for prisoners.
One study tracked 404,638 prisoners in 30 states after their release from prison in 2005.[1] The researchers found that: 1. Within three years of release, about two-thirds (67.8 percent) of released prisoners were rearrested. 2. Within five years of release, about three-quarters (76.6 percent) of released prisoners were rearrested. 3, Property offenders were the most likely to be rearrested, with 82.1 percent of released property offenders arrested for a new crime compared with 76.9 percent of drug offenders, 73.6 percent of public order offenders and 71.3 percent of violent offenders. (And obviously not counting the ones that got away with it.)
https://www.nij.gov/topics/corrections/recidivism/Pages/welcome.aspx
These people are removed from society, as stated above. The difference between today and the past is that in the past they were sent into the wild where they died off. We let them live and even reintroduce them to our society today in the hopes that they will change. "It's not working" in my opinion.
Now that we touched this topic. What's your opinion on execution?
@Jairayathesage
"Now that we touched this topic. What's your opinion on execution?"
I will offer my opinion on that matter after you have answered these questions.
What is your opinion on an old man having sex with a very young child?
Should apostates be murdered?
It depends on the nature of the crime, the age, the harm of the child , if she lived or died. If the victim was tortured or killed. Then I think execution would be permissible. But if it was a girl at 14 years of age and didn't die from rape. I think we should sentence the man to prison for a very very long time. And for him to get therapy after he's done as well not let him live by schools and confine him to his home.
Fair enough, you responded.
I am opposed to state sanctioned executions.
In the case of sexually assaulting any child, the harm to the child should not be factored into the sentence. Life, no parole, solitary, forever in a 2 by 2 meter cell without any windows.
Pages