ATHEISTS Are Narrow Minded.

[ZoboZeWarrior]

Re: ATHEISTS Are Narrow Minded.

Originally posted by Wiglaf
Atheists are quitters. True believers are those who endure.

Oh! I can say that follow a religion are narrow minded too :

1. They are intolerant. Especially those who believe in a lone God.
2. They don't ill because they are afraid of hell.
3. They tried to be fair because they believe they will go in Heaven.

In fact people who believe in a god act good not because it is in their nature but because they want to go in Heaven and escape from Hell. Looks like they are unfair and coward, right ?

If you want to convince a atheist to believe in a god, you have to
more smart than you are.

Another stupid flame thread.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by MORON
If some religious wacko says that pleasure is immoral and all people should suffer, it is not less justifible than the reverse position. Espically if he apply the rules to himself as well.....

At this rate, anything is justifiable if it doesn't violate the double standard thing you set up.

What is the religious wacko's justification for why pleasure is immoral? Is it better than his opponent's justification for why pleasure is not necessarily immoral? Saying "This is not a double standard" is not sufficient justification (unless if course you would be swayed by such an argument)...

So why is double standards unjustifiable?

Because it is contradictory, like I said in the quote you took from my post. Please read the quotes before you use them next time; if you aren't going to listen to what I say, then there's no point to me saying it, now is there?

So? Some people in societies kill each other while others get laid more. If moral codes makes individuals on the whole more effective in reproduction than it would be logical for it to exist.

Yes, which is why it is immoral to kill; it isn't very effective for reproduction to be expelled from society by killing everybody, thereby losing the society's protection of you.

so what is 'GOOD' ?

Look it up in the dictionary. Better yet, look up "moral," or "ethical."

Its a description of a collective of humans, not something man deliberately made.

Ah, so the US Constitution was not deliberately made by humans? Interesting.

So does that mean I can spam the forums now?

SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM

Why would you be able to spam the forums now? MarkG and DanQ have determined what the optimal balance between freedom and stability is for this forum; you may disagree with them, but you cannot arbitrary redefine the balance.

Is it just me, or your concept of morality is different from what the masses consider to be morality. You are using the word with a different meaning than what is generally accepted.

It's just you. I'll do your homework for you and give you the definition in the dictionary...

Moral (adj.)
1. Of or concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character: moral scrutiny; a moral quandary.
2. Teaching or exhibiting goodness or correctness of character and behavior: a moral lesson.
3. Conforming to standards of what is right or just in behavior; virtuous: a moral life.
4. Arising from conscience or the sense of right and wrong: a moral obligation.

Hmm. Nowhere do I see

X. That which is preferred.
Y. That which is convenient.

Heck, I'll look up judgment for you too...

Judgment (n.)
1. The act or process of judging; the formation of an opinion after consideration or deliberation. [Emphasis is mine.]

In other words, according to the dictionary, something is moral if it has been judged to be so after consideration and deliberation, i.e., after it has been justified.

I guess my definition of what is moral is just too far out there...

[loinburger]

Re: Re: ATHEISTS Are Narrow Minded.

Originally posted by ZoboZeWarrior
Another stupid flame thread.

Actually, Wiglaf ran away quite awhile ago, and the thread has sort of been threadjacked into a debate on morality. If ever there was a thread that deserved to be threadjacked, it's this one.

[MORON]

good (gd)
adj. bet·ter, (btr) best (bst)
Being positive or desirable in nature; not bad or poor: a good experience; good news from the hospital. ....

Hmm. Nowhere do I see
quote:

X. That which is preferred.

Well, desirable and preferred is somewhat alike as far is I know.

Ah, so the US Constitution was not deliberately made by humans?

The US Constitution is a society? I must be missing something.

It describles what the founding fathers think the ideal government and society should be, not the reality of society.

Yes, which is why it is immoral to kill; it isn't very effective for reproduction to be expelled from society by killing everybody, thereby losing the society's protection of you.

But you must assume that reproduction is the goal of life for the person in question while also assuming society will expel the person for killing, neither of which is always the case.

You are assuming all humans have the same desires and hatred, which is not the case. While most humans shares common assumptions and emotions, thus the idea of what is reasonable is largely the same (eg. pleasure is good), not all does.

In other words, according to the dictionary, something is moral if it has been judged to be so after consideration and deliberation, i.e., after it has been justified.

I would agree with this, but I think the justification is merely a extention of out emotions and assumptions of the world, not in it self a deciding factor.

What is the religious wacko's justification for why pleasure is immoral? Is it better than his opponent's justification for why pleasure is not necessarily immoral? Saying "This is not a double standard" is not sufficient justification

Since I'm not a religious wacko, I don't really know this well. But I'll type out what I know.
1. only though suffering can humanity learn
2. suffering pleases god

If you do not want somebody else to coercively take your freedom from you, then you cannot justify taking somebody else's freedom from them.

MarkG and DanQ have determined what the optimal balance between freedom and stability is for this forum; you may disagree with them, but you cannot arbitrary redefine the balance.

hmmm....so MarkG and DanQ must be immoral Unless I can coercively take their freedom of not giving me more post count as a return for not being able to spam.

[Dimorier Maximus]

Yep, after reading these six pages it can easily be seen that Atheists are narrow minded. Wiggy knew it all along.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by technophile
Why would those who were willing and capable of murder prey on one another exclusively when they can just as well (if not more easily) prey on those who are too gullible or ignorant to recognize that the only "justification" not to murder is societal conditioning?

Huh?

First of all, I was positing small tribal groups. Since members of tribal groups are closely related, it seems reasonable that either an entire group would be murderous, or they wouldn't.

Murderous ones would be killing each other, if nothing else then proximity.

Secondly, just because a person doesn't kill doesn't mean he's either gullible or ignorant. One is not a sufficient or even a necessary condition for the other.

Originally posted by technophile
The risks associated with killing somebody else with the will to murder would be far greater than the risks associated with killing somebody who was gullible or ignorant.

You have it backwards. Suppose that you are in a society with a bunch of murderous thugs. Since you have no idea whether they want to do you in, wouldn't it be better if you get rid of them first?

Originally posted by technophile
I fail to see how the free-thinkers would thin themselves out faster than they thinned out the gullible/ignorant.

How do you equate murderous intents with freethinking and unwillingness to kill with gullibility or ignorance? That just doesn't carry.

Originally posted by technophile
It would be a good reason for martyrdom, but not for sacrifice. In order to take another's life for your benefit you would have to justify that your life was worth more than the one being sacrificed.

Note that I posited the reason for human sacrifices was it could bring benefit to the society as a whole.

[Urban Ranger]

techno,

1 a : relating to or existing as an object of thought without consideration of independent existence -- used chiefly in medieval philosophy b : of, relating to, or being an object , phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind -- compare SUBJECTIVE 3a c of a symptom of disease : perceptible to persons other than the affected individual -- compare SUBJECTIVE 4c d : involving or deriving from sense perception or experience with actual objects , conditions, or phenomena

If you speak of an objective morality, it must exist independently of humans.

However, since you used "anthropocentric" - erroneously - to denote morality as a purely human invention, there seems to be a contradiction that lies at the heart of your definition of morality.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by MORON
Well, desirable and preferred is somewhat alike as far is I know.

Yes? Point being? Why are you comparing the definition for "moral" to the definition of "good"? "Good" and "moral" are different words last time I checked...

The US Constitution is a society? I must be missing something.

It describles what the founding fathers think the ideal government and society should be, not the reality of society.

So US society does not in any way reflect the Constitution? Interesting. Good thing nobody else knows this, otherwise I might not be able to utilize my first amendment rights...

But you must assume that reproduction is the goal of life for the person in question

Now you're contradicting yourself. When you phrased the question, you said

If moral codes makes individuals on the whole more effective in reproduction than it would be logical for it to exist.

The emphasis is mine. If you phrase the question to presuppose that the goal is reproduction, and then you attempt to discredit my answer by saying that I assumed that reproduction is the goal, then it looks to me very much like you don't even bother to read your posts, let alone mine.

while also assuming society will expel the person for killing

No society can survive if it allows its citizens to kill "because they feel like it." If you can name a single viable society in existence today in which murder is legal so long as the murderer felt like killing somebody, then you are correct, I have made a faulty assumption.

You are assuming all humans have the same desires and hatred, which is not the case.

Why would you make the claim that I am assuming this, when two posts ago I said

It's not all logic, either. Stability and rights are both good, but they are to some extent mutually exclusive; it is to some degree a matter of preference whether somebody is a libertarian or liberal (whether one gives a somewhat greater weighting to rights or to stability). Both the libertarian and the liberal can offer good justifications for their positions.

You really don't read what I post, do you?

While most humans shares common assumptions and emotions, thus the idea of what is reasonable is largely the same (eg. pleasure is good), not all does.

Who doesn't? The criminally insane? Hitler?

Reciprocity is a necessary presupposition for participation in some forms of social action, as I've said previously. If somebody never engages in social action, i.e. they live the life of a hermit far from other humans, then yes, they may not share the same presuppositions as other humans. However, so long as somebody engages in social activity, they have by necessity presupposed the principle of reciprocity.

I would agree with this, but I think the justification is merely a extention of out emotions and assumptions of the world, not in it self a deciding factor.

As I have said previously, we would not have invented the terms "good" or "evil" if we did not have certain emotional responses to our own or others' actions. Morality is not disconnected from emotion, particularly when weighing two objective moral goods (meaning two things that are morally justified, don't try to pull that "but good can mean desirable" argument again).

Since I'm not a religious wacko, I don't really know this well. But I'll type out what I know.
1. only though suffering can humanity learn
2. suffering pleases god

That's not much of a justification, especially when countered with the argument that for many people learning is a pleasurable experience, and with the argument that god has little to no evidence which would cause us to believe that he is pleased by suffering.

hmmm....so MarkG and DanQ must be immoral Unless I can coercively take their freedom of not giving me more post count as a return for not being able to spam.

Excellent reasoning!

First off, MarkG and DanQ have justified their position on why excessive spamming should not be allowed.

Second off, I have not seen MarkG or DanQ spam, have you? They're hardly applying a double standard here.

Thirdly, would you also argue that it is wrong for us to coercively take freedom from a murderer, or that not allowing people to murder is coercively taking away their freedom? If you are unwilling to argue this, then you would be contradicting yourself if you called MarkG and DanQ "immoral" for punishing spammers or taking away our "freedom" to spam.


Please, please, please think about what you're going to post before you respond. I'm beginning to suspect that I'm talking to myself here, because you don't seem to process a thing that I say.

[Guynemer]

This thread is much less funny now that Wiggy has gone AWOL. What's the story? Was he banned? Come on, we need the comic relief.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Guynemer
This thread is much less funny now that Wiggy has gone AWOL. What's the story? Was he banned? Come on, we need the comic relief.

I think he just lost interest.

[loinburger]

Thanks for returning to the thread, UR. I was getting tired of the monologue I was having with myself here.

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Secondly, just because a person doesn't kill doesn't mean he's either gullible or ignorant. One is not a sufficient or even a necessary condition for the other.

Sure it is. If someone is incapable of realizing that he has been conditioned, i.e. they continue to unquestioningly adhere to their conditioned responses, then they're gullible/ignorant for believing that their responses are anything other than conditioned reactions to stimuli. If you can tell somebody something, not even attempt to justify it, and have them believe you, then what term would you use to describe that person?

You have it backwards. Suppose that you are in a society with a bunch of murderous thugs. Since you have no idea whether they want to do you in, wouldn't it be better if you get rid of them first?

I'd imagine that a murderous thug would be more frightened of a murderous thug who was killing powerful people (other murderous thugs) than of a murderous thug who was killing weak people (gullible/ignorant people who will not fight back simply because they've been told not to); and, if a murderous thug is frightened of something, then the murderous thug would probably kill it. Remember, these aren't sociopaths we're talking about, these are rational people who weigh risks and rewards. The reward for killing someone who wants to kill you most likely outweighs the risks, but the reward for killing someone who kills only the weak (i.e. people not like you) is minimal compared to the risk, especially considering that killing a powerful person will attract attention to you from other powerful people.

How do you equate murderous intents with freethinking and unwillingness to kill with gullibility or ignorance? That just doesn't carry.

Same as before: the murderers have broken free of their conditioning, the "moral" people have failed to recognize that morality is just a set of unjustified rules.

Note that I posited the reason for human sacrifices was it could bring benefit to the society as a whole.

I realize that. If the person being killed volunteered to sacrifice himself to benefit society, then by all means, sacrifice him. If the person being killed did not volunteer, then there is no justification for why they are being sacrificed and not you.

If you speak of an objective morality, it must exist independently of humans.

You'll have to justify that statement for me; I've offered justification for my position, and will consider as invalid an unjustified refutation of my position.

However, since you used "anthropocentric" ... to denote morality as a purely human invention, there seems to be a contradiction that lies at the heart of your definition of morality.

Like I said, I've justified my position, and will not accept an arbitrary refutation of it.

- erroneously -

Anthropocentric doesn't mean "human-centered"? Dictionary says

Regarding humans as the central element of the universe.

[Ramo]

So if Joe says "Murder is morally correct because I enjoy it, but it is only morally correct for me because while I enjoy killing I do not enjoy being killed," and Bill says "Murder is immoral because I do not wish to be murdered and it is inconsistent for me to apply a double standard," then these justifications are equally valid?

By objective criteria, absolutely. Only after assuming subjective assumptions, can one can "objectively" assess the validity of such statements.

Because you associate this indignation with "evil," it is therefore evil for you to steal," (perhaps using a truncated argument), then the child will probably accept your justification because it is consistent. However, if you tell a child "Do not steal because I said so," then the child is much less likely to accept your justification because it is arbitrary, especially if the child is old enough to realize that you are not omniscient.

But what is evil? The former is a circular justification (and less succinct), no better than the latter.

If everybody has made the same assumption then we can base our objectivity on the mutual presupposition.

But everyone hasn't made the same assumption. Hitler and Stalin, for instance probably didn't believe murder was "evil."

If a society does not have some means of stabilizing itself then it will quickly deteriorate, so workable societies must incorporate some stabilizing measures (systems of justice, taxation, whatever--depends on the society and what it requires for stability). As for maintaining individual rights, Locke, Hobbes, Rousseau, etc. have explained this better than I could hope to. A summary of their arguments is that outside of a society humans have their full assortment of inherent rights (life, liberty, property, etc.), and the purpose to sacrificing rights to form a society is to maintain the rights that have not been sacrificed (for example, individuals may say "We will sacrifice 10% of our property in order to maintain a militia, and this militia will protect our lives, our liberty, and the remaining 90% of our property).

Those are all subjective arguments, judged by subjective criteria, none of which self-evident.

There's a difference between a society that cannot exist without human sacrifice, and a society in which human sacrifice may take place.

But if human sacrifices occur frequently enough in such a society, it is not illogical to associate human sacrifices with that society. Likewise with feudalism.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Ramo
By objective criteria, absolutely. Only after assuming subjective assumptions, can one can "objectively" assess the validity of such statements.

What assumptions? The assumption that hypocritical arguments are inferior to consistent arguments (based on the justification that one would not accept a hypocritical argument from somebody else, and cannot expect somebody else to accept one's hypocritical arguments)? Hypocrisy is illogical because it is inconsistent; if someone applies predicate 'p' to subject 'a', then they must also apply predicate 'p' to substantively equivalent subject 'b'. The assumption that we take part in social activity, thereby presupposing our acceptance of reciprocity?

But what is evil? The former is a circular justification (and less succinct), no better than the latter.

"Evil" is "morally wrong or bad" according to my dictionary.

I don't see how the former is circular. It relies on the assumption that the child associates being stolen from with "evil," and uses this assumption to justify to the child why it is "evil" to steal from others.

But everyone hasn't made the same assumption. Hitler and Stalin, for instance probably didn't believe murder was "evil."

Would they have allowed someone else to murder them? Would they have failed to consider attempts on their life as "evil"? The longevity (and paranoia) of Stalin leads me to believe otherwise with regards to him; I can only assume that Hitler would have been quite upset if someone attempted to murder him.

Therefore, if you are saying "Hitler and Stalin probably didn't believe that it was 'evil' to murder others, but themselves would not have wanted to be murdered," then their moral codes are hypocritical and unjustifiable. If you are saying "Hitler and Stalin would not have minded being murdered," then I disagree with your assumption and request justification of it.

Those are all subjective arguments, judged by subjective criteria, none of which self-evident.

Alright, I'll examine my "subjective" arguments one by one:

"If a society does not have some means of stabilizing itself then it will quickly deteriorate"

From the dictionary:

"Society: The institutions and culture of a distinct [/i]self-perpetuating[/i] group."

I've added the italics. So, by definition, a society must have some way of maintaining itself (or stabilizing itself, to use my original wording) for purposes of self-perpetuation. Unless you are willing to argue that this definition cannot be objectively applied (e.g. the dictionary is wrong), then my statement is objectively correct.

outside of a society humans have their full assortment of inherent rights (life, liberty, property, etc.)

Are you also disputing this statement?

"Right: Something that is due to a person or governmental body by law, tradition, or nature."

"Natural: Present in or produced by nature."

Would you accept the statement if I said "outside of a society humans have their full assortment of natural rights (life, liberty, property, etc.)," wherein I would essentially be saying that "in a state of nature, man has the rights produced by nature"?

"the purpose to sacrificing rights to form a society is to maintain the rights that have not been sacrificed"

I'm willing to accept that this statement, and the similar statements made by Locke, Hobbes, Rousseau, etc., are not objectively correct. However, my argument does not stand or fall with the objectivity of this statement ("rights" and "stability" are still objectively good, and this statement is only saying that the two goods are sometimes mutually exclusive).

But if human sacrifices occur frequently enough in such a society, it is not illogical to associate human sacrifices with that society.

Granted.