theslowclap

That’s really all I wanted to hear as a response. I simply wanted to hear you say that your idea of right and wrong and relative. Now that we agree on this point, follow me on this one.

For the atheist:
1. Murder is not wrong in all cases.
2. Corollary: murder is sometimes acceptable.
3. Therefore, the individual decides the value of another individual’s life upon whim.

Let me remind you that there are so many logical reasons to murder people. You can do it for resources, survival, or disease control. The reason we don’t do it is because we see it as morally offensive (I think we agree on this point, that’s why I picked this vice). But the question is why we find it morally wrong. Again, you fall back on evolution. But like I said previously, if you now have the evolutionary knowledge to understand why we feel murder is wrong, isn’t there reason to murder the weak to benefit the species? Sure, your emotions say it’s wrong because of your upbringing, but it’s the same type of rationalization you hold religious people to adopt by putting objective reason over subjective experiences. And no, I never said atheists are murderers. You seem to be misunderstanding the difference between what people do and what people should do.

Are you asking me to show you how evolution favors opportunistic actions like raiding another tribe or murdering "other" tribes? You dodge the question by calling all humans a unit of cooperative beings, but really, in evolution, it's every man for himself. In a limited environment, the dynamics change enough for murder to be highly advantageous.

About saying atheists have a god: I was pointing out that they use nihilistic, minimalistic, rationalization to answer all questions. I didn’t mean this literally; it was a rhetorical device. Obviously, I know atheists don’t believe in a god. I meant it to mean that they say with enough time and small enough probability, anything can happen without any greater motives. Given that, you (should) view the human as nothing more than a group of subatomic particles. You (should) view humans just as valuable as a pile of rocks. To you there shouldn’t be anything greater than the material world and the value of the human “spirit” is an illusory manifestation of evolution.

What I’m still wondering is where the source of your ethics comes from. Please bear with me. You probably already answered this but I still haven’t read a satisfactory answer. Are you going to adopt your own ethics from reading history to pass onto your children? In an atheist’s perfect world, what would be the source, the drive, the vision, that has people decide what’s right and wrong. Sure, you say it’s “yourself,” but that avoids the question, in my opinion. If I can make my own ethics, any absurdity would be acceptable.

I think we can agree than you adopt morals from somewhere and that morals benefit society. Where we disagree is where this comes from.

Look guys, I respect your views and I understand this can get frustrating. I just ask you respect my views in return. I actually think discussions like these are beneficial.