<p>Um, did you not even read my answer? The reason I don’t commit murder isn’t because society says it’s wrong, but because I say it’s wrong, without blind declarations from God, society, or family. I said that I answer to society (et al) for my actions (after the question of “who do you answer to morally”). Don’t put words in my mouth to try and justify some petty argument you may have developed for me. If you say that you know murder is wrong because of your belief in god, and not because you intrinsically realize yourself how “wrong” it is, then yes, your mental acuity must be lacking. Maybe me saying that I just know murder is wrong is unacceptable to you, but it is no different than the statement that one just “knows” god exists.</p>
<p>And again, it is evolutionarily advantageous to deem murder unacceptable. Was my previous post unclear how, we being social animals, struggle with resources when we’re isolated?</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>For the atheist:
Murder is not wrong in all cases.
Corollary: murder is sometimes acceptable.
Therefore, the individual decides the value of another individual’s life upon whim.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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. </p>
<p>I think we can agree than you adopt morals from somewhere and that morals benefit society. Where we disagree is where this comes from.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>How exactly do you believe murder to be advantageous? Humans live in social groups. If you murder someone in that social group, you’re out of the group and have to fend for yourself. </p>
<p>This is clearly not beneficial to the person performing the action because they lose the resources of the group. Natural selection will have favored those individuals who weren’t murderers and therefore kept the benefits of the social group and did not have to fend for themselves. The individuals who get cut off from the group had their reproductive success greatly reduced and most likely they were not as successful at producing offspring. </p>
<p>I think it’s pretty clear to see how this follows to the present day where there is a very minute amount of individuals who commit murder and when the do they are excised from the group and again why murder is considered morally wrong. </p>
<p>And I don’t particularly see how murdering the weak would be advantageous to me as an individual, since I’m doing quite fine. Murdering a weak person would give me exactly what benefits in your mind? </p>
<p>Also, what is your definition of “murder”? People deem it perfectly fine to kill someone in self defense or in protection of their own family, which fits quite well with evolutionary theory and is shown in today’s laws for self defense. </p>
<p>I’m trying to understand the point you’re exactly trying to get across here. You seem to think that it’s pretty easy for an atheist to just flip a switch and start murdering people whenever they feel like it, or “on a whim”. Is this what you’re trying to get across? What is your main point or question exactly? Ethics and morals can be explained through evolutionary advantages and also partially through human culture, so I don’t know what exactly you’re asking about.</p>
<p>And which of us said that? I was pretty clear that murder is always wrong, so where do you get this ridiculous claim that somehow atheists believe that murder. Let’s look at some statistics:</p>
<p>1) Countries with the highest percentage of atheists or non-religious have the lowest percentage of murders, violent acts, wars, etc.</p>
<p>So this idea that atheists view murder as somehow “quasi-acceptable” is neither backed up by anyone on this board, or statistically represented as a majority one pitted against those who believe in god (Christianity, to be specific).</p>
<p>You seem to have difficulty staying on topic. The discussion about morality came about because one of you wanted to move away from the topic of perception and reality. Now you want to change the topic again to the application of morality? You seem to be confused on what the difference between what is and what should be. Think about this for a second please or else we are getting nowhere and we are all wasting time here. In the discussion of morality, we were discussing what should be.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Im not arguing here for an explanation of how the social structure is set up today. Im arguing here about the theoretical grounds for an atheists morals. I view atheist as basing their morality on evolution and reductionism. Im not saying what you currently believe due to the influence of Christianity in Western culture and around the world. Im saying, if we got rid of religions like you want, then where would the drive for morality come from? Will Herberg indicated that modern society tries to use cut-flower ethics to justify a morality without theology. I think what we have here is a classic example of cut-flower ethics. You are saying people will act morally without any theological basis besides materialistic, efficient, and evolutionary ideals. Im saying I disagree with that. Lets do a quick thought experiment. Lets say tomorrow you wake up and you realize there is no such thing as religion (your perfect world). With your intelligence comes awareness of your responsibilities in cause and effect; you realize your actions have consequences (or so they appear). Really, think deeply on this question, why not murder someone if youre not going to be thrown out of your social group. You know, just as well as I do, that every society has minorities. This can be minorities in health, economic status, or personal beliefs.</p>
<p>You want me to show you how murder is advantageous to advancing society in the evolutionary point of view?</p>
<p>The Pope of atheism himself, Richard Dawkins, from The Selfish Gene:
I think nature red in tooth and claw sums up our modern understanding of natural selection admirably.
Charles Darwin remarked in chapter 6 of the Origin of Species:
Natural selection will never produce in a being anything injurious to itself, for natural selection acts solely by and for the good of each. No organ will be formed, as Paley has remarked, for the purpose of causing pain or for doing injury to its possessor. If a fair balance be struck between the good and the evil caused by each part, each will be found on the whole advantageous.
As you can see, this is fair ground for advancing your own survival at the cost of others. Again, I dont see the moral drive here for the kind we treasure today. Simply telling people to not do it because it was bad in the past seems to be an even worse alternative. Let me point out that for your claims to hold weight, you have to show me somehow that the atheistic theology would have higher moral standards than those seen in religions. And by that, I mean you cant borrow from religious morals unless there is something intrinsically superior about the morality of Darwinism, of materialism, of nihilism.</p>
<p>Smallz:
</p>
<p>Although the statistics is not what we were debating, okay, for the sake of argument I guess I must address it. Otherwise, you would falsely think Im conceding. It is in fact, irrelevant to what we were discussing because this is what is happens and not what should be happening.</p>
<p>First, Id like to point out a few things about statistics:
Correlation does not equal causation.
The individual can not be deduced from a population study.</p>
<p>On point 1, just because America is the fattest nation in the world doesnt mean that fat people are more prone to crime. Also, as Richard Dawkins said, just because Hitler had a mustache, doesnt mean everyone who has a mustache is evil.</p>
<p>On point 2, there are many scientific studies that have concluded that data about a population is almost useless when you are trying to see what it means about the individual. Do you know why? Because every person is different an individual. You seem to be trying to say that religion was the sole reason that these people committed crimes. These are the type of statistically irresponsible representations that should never be used in a debate. Rather, it belongs on a ten second sound bite somewhere on cable television. There are so many confounding variables that comes into studies like this that its ridiculous to make claims like you are making. I can just as easily attribute Nazi Germany and Red Russia to atheistic utopias, but I wont even though this would be a better argument. But do you know why I wont? Because there is also a confounding variable of state power and shifting politics.</p>
<p>By the looks of it, we are not accomplishing much with this discussion. The misrepresentation of statistics and the shifting topics illustrates that we are not interested in an open dialogue but rather pleasuring ourselves intellectually. I think we have accomplished what we set out to do: we have tried to see where the other is coming from. At this point, lets just agree to disagree.</p>
<p>I’m changing the subject? Let’s see: you make the outlandish claim that atheists believe murder is sometimes acceptable, with your diction implying that this is a trait that religious individuals don’t share. So I call you out saying that none of us said that (and imrightuarewrong’s statement that you quoted in no way is equivalent to him saying murder is sometimes right). </p>
<p>So then I show you statistics saying that a) most violent criminals are christian, and b) that most christians believe in the death penalty, which is exactly the idea that murder is sometimes ok. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You’re right. Good thing that’s not what I’m claiming at all. You imply that atheists have the quality that they feel murder is sometimes justified, and I show more christians have this quality than atheists. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s funny, because that’s exactly what you did in your quote: </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So…what? Do you just throw these statements out when it’s convenient for you? This is the second time I’ve called you out on these crazy claims, and it’s getting old.</p>
Therefore, the individual decides the value of another individual’s life upon whim."</p>
<p>Murder could be wrong in all cases for an atheist… </p>
<p>I’ll entertain any cogent religious argument but as I see it the major religions are a joke. Theravadan Buddhism is kind of interesting but it isn’t really a religion… I’m a secular humanist.</p>
Yes, I believe you are. I asked you to tell me where your morality would come from and how an atheists morals would be superior intrinsically (without borrowing from religions). Again, this will be the third time Im saying this. Morality is different from actions. We were discussing the standards people set up for proper, ethical, behavior. I wanted to see what your views were on this and you brought up a statistically irresponsible point. In fact, if you remember correctly, the point about murder was simply a starting point to discuss morality and where it comes from FOR ATHEISTS. We know where religious morality comes from texts, verbal tradition, etc. Do you understand the difference between in theory and in practice?</p>
<p>
Okay then, what DO you believe then? This is what Ive been asking you the wholllllllle timeeeee. You said its from yourself. Then I said I dont think thats an actual source or morals that can sustain a society. Are you going to teach your children out of history books? Are you going to let people learn through trial and error? The way I see it, an atheist can commit any crime such as murder (NOTE how this is an example that Im using to discuss a GREATER POINT) as long as they dont get excluded from the social circle that protects their livelihood. Are you saying you should borrow from the moralities you think are best then implement them? If so, how would that be possible without invoking a standard system that people agree on?</p>
<p>Some religious individuals may in fact share the belief that murder is okay, but most religions have a strict moral guideline on what is right and what is wrong. Murder is explicitly put in stone (literally, as in the Ten Commandments) that murder is wrong, period. However, that isnt to say that people who are religious dont murder. Following what your logic is implying, wed have to get rid of laws because people break laws.</p>
<p>
Youre right. Good thing were not discussing the same issue here. Read the previous paragraph above. I dont care how many Christians believe in murder. The fact is we were discussing morality and its source. Again, source of morality. Again, morality and its source was the topic. How many times do I need to say that? And now all of your claims are invalidated if you can not demonstrate that an atheistic moral value system would be significantly better for the world than religious ones.</p>
<p>I dont know if youve taken statistics or not, but you still seem to think that your evidence is valid. Do you really show more Christians have this quality than atheist? Lets see. Do any of your sources do any of the following:
Show that all the crimes committed were in the name of religion and religion alone?
Have a percentile breakdown comparing atheists who committed crime to religious people who committed crime?
Know for certain that the person who committed the crime was actually a follower of the religion and not a hypocrite?
Controlled for all the variables including the individual, the historical time frame, the location, the political climate, the socioeconomic status?</p>
<p>I must say, Im very disappointed in what youre doing to these statistical claims. I expected more from someone who was all about truth and rational thinking. If this were a formal debate, this alone would be enough reason for me to get up and leave.</p>
<p>
The funny thing is youre hiding behind ambiguities here. I told you to define your source of morals. The response I got from imrighturwrong was in fact an indication that morality is relative. Using this line of reasoning, it is a valid claim to say that murder is sometimes acceptable. Look:
Right and wrong are relative
Murder is a type of wrong.
Therefore, murder can be relative.</p>
<p>With that as the only indication I got about your beliefs on murder, it was a sound line of reasoning. Now if you are going to say that murder is always wrong, then Ill have to ask you why. In your nihilistic, minimalist, Darwinian body of knowledge, where does it anywhere indicate that it is always wrong?</p>
<p>Also, where in my quote was there a population study on statistics? I believe I was deducing an individual based on an individual’s statement. Maybe I should have wrote “for AN atheist” rather than “for THE atheist” but that’s semantics now. I used THE because it was a way to present my argument following that particular line of reasoning.</p>
<p>Just since we are on the topic of murder, consider this:</p>
<p>If I killed Hitler in 1937 I would have (in theory) prevented the deaths of over 60,000,000 people. Is killing Hitler wrong then? Maybe so…</p>
<p>My reasoning is very unorthodox. If I didn’t kill Hitler, those 60,000,000 people still would have died eventually. Not only that, they would have had children. If we assume 40,000,000 of them would have had 2 children if they lived then we are looking at about 80M people by 1970 and 160,000,000 people by about 2000, and now perhaps 200,000,000 people would have been born that weren’t because of World War 2. Everyone who is born must die, so Hitler actually prevented 200M (and this number will grow as long as humans exist) deaths by directly or indirectly murdering 60M people from 1938 to 1945.</p>
<p>You consider a murderer a villain, but sound logic could also consider the same murderer a hero. I actually don’t believe that because I don’t believe there is a “right” or “wrong”, but I still think it is an interesting concept to reflect on.</p>
<p>That’s a very interesting point you make. I’d still consider murdering Hitler murder nonetheless. Simply because I prevented his murders would not take away from the fact that I murdered someone because Hitler was the one doing the murdering and not me. In no way does it mean that if I don’t murder Hitler that I am murdering the millions that he intends on murdering. But the reason I hold Hitler responsible for the murders is because his will made the conscious choice to have people killed even though it wasn’t his own hands that did the killing. That’s my 2 cents. Don’t know if you guys will agree.</p>
<p>I do like how consistent you are in your logic. For me, however, I seem to disagree perhaps because one of our underlying assumptions are different. I don’t want to put words in your mouth so I’d like you to explain to me a couple things:
Do you see human life as valuable?
Is a death without human intervention the same thing as a death due to human intervention?</p>
<p>Please explain to me what a secular humanist believes in. I’m not too familiar with what it is.</p>
<p>You could have prevented the deaths caused by Hitler not by killing him, but by finding some other means of arresting his rise to power or avoiding his atrocities. You create a false dichotomy of “Hitler dies, or 6M people die.” There are numerous alternatives to this situation.</p>
<ol>
<li>No. Being valuable implies assigning value, and I’m not sure how you could set a value to your life.</li>
<li>Well, the result is the same isn’t it?</li>
</ol>
<p>Well, secular humanism isn’t strictly defined but the general idea is to better humanity through science and reason. </p>
<p>I’m really the combination of an Atheist and Buddhist. A couple things I believe in are anatta, determinism, hedonism. If you haven’t heard of them, check them out on Wikipedia, particularly determinism. </p>
<p>I actually have a theory (which I’m sure someone has thought of before me) that is kind of like an afterlife. The premise is that the universe expands and contracts in one grand cycle that takes an unfathomnable number of years. The universe contracts, then explodes out again setting forth a chain of events. Now, the explosion could be the same every time or it could be different, I’m not sure, but even if it is different there are only so many combinations that can be made before one repeats… So in theory, every event that ever happens has happened before and will happen again an infinite number of times. When you die, maybe a trillion years would pass but you wouldn’t know it. The second you loose consciousness you’d regain consciousness 1T yrs later in your mothers womb… I’m no astrophysists though so there is probably something wrong about this idea but it’s fascinating for now.</p>
<p>Gordon, you bring up what is known Big Bounce cosmology. It is by no means certain, but it is a serious hypothesis about the universe and the origins of the Big Bang. I wonder how your view of determinism fits with quantum mechanics.</p>
<p>Gordon: That’s very interesting. With those assumptions, I can definitely see how your logic would work. I may not agree with it but it’s fascinating nonetheless.</p>