Athiesm, Punishment and Killing

[Syzygys]

why so uptight?
Its not like we would be doing anything bad, is it?

What you guys don't get that bad is a relative concept. Let's say I steal your wallet, bad for you, good for me. Now I could bring up several examples when the killing happens for utilitarian reasons and not as an act of justice or revenge...

 

[lightgigantic]

What you guys don't get that bad is a relative concept. Let's say I steal your wallet, bad for you, good for me. Now I could bring up several examples when the killing happens for utilitarian reasons and not as an act of justice or revenge...

let me guess
the purely utilitarian reasons would be good and the pure revenge reasons would be bad ?

 

[Syzygys]

so who are the right people to be killed, and what makes you so sure you are not one of them?

I have no problem if you can make the right argument. Let's give you a few utilitarian examples:

Example #1:

Joe is 40 years old and has lung cancer, he will die in 3 months. His heart is healthy. Pete is 18 years old and he needs a new heart or he will die in 3 days. We could kill Joe and donate his heart to Pete, he would lose only 3 months and he already had 40 years of life, on the other hand Pete is young and he hasn't lived enough.

Example #2:

Have you seen the movie Outbreak? Let's say a very deadly, AIRBORNE and unknown disease breaks out where the sick is a carrier for 3 days then dies in the next 2 days. 3 days is long enough for a carrier to travel great distances even on foot and spread the disease, specially if no symptoms can be seen.
Depending on the geographical location of the outbreak and on the number of people already infected the case could be made that a large enough area annihilated is the best way to stop the disease, instead of taking the chances that it gets really out of hand and whipes out a big portion of humankind.

Is killing let's say 50K people (whom would die soon most likely anyway) justifed to save let's say 200 million???? (numbers pulled out of my ass, I could have gone more extreme)

Oh the hard choices that sometimes we have to make....See? I didn't even involve revenge, just IMAGINATION...

 

[Syzygys]

Oh, here is one just for the anti-capital punishment people:

Example #3:

Johnny is a serial killer in prison. He is 25, healthy like a bull. We could leave him there until he dies at age 85, or we could kill him and donate all his organs (heart, lungs, kidneys, eyes,etc.) to people whom are waiting for donors. By doing this we would help let's say 20 people.

So should Johnny die or live??? What does society gain if he lives? Nothing, but we could help 20 people if he dies, thus we could tell to the relatives of the victims that their loved ones DIDN'T fucking DIE in VAIN...

But again, I am just a practical utilitarian atheist...

Now that we ALL agreed that killing people is not so bad, only if applied for the wrong cause, we can close the thread...

 

[Michael]

This is the main point here: Giving people any reason at all to kill is more than reason enough.

To set about guidelines as clear as mud (such as the "Perfect" Qur'an) where no two people can agree on what the hell it says is basically free-for-all to justify any sort of killing. And that's exactly what has happened. Weather it's someone being stoned to death or someone strapping on a bomb and blowing to bits children there's always this reassurance that somewhere in the mud this action of mine, to kill, is justified by Allah.

IMO, A truly enlightened person will recognize that people are going to kill and then set about attempting to make sure that all people know it is wrong and that they shouldn't endeavor to do it.

As so: Everyone fears punishment; everyone fears death, just as you do. Therefore do not kill or cause to kill. Everyone fears punishment; everyone loves life, as you do. Therefore do not kill or cause to kill.

Or
Though shall not Kill or Killing is a sin etc.. ect...


If you don't get it SAM that's because people become mentally stunted when they labor under the following assumptions:
My Religion is Perfect.
My Religious Book is Perfect.
My Religion is the only True Religion.
Mohammad is the only True Prophet.


There is no way to fix that problem. Basically such a person simply can not understand why it's important that religion teach that killing is wrong and how this makes a positive impact on society over teaching that killing is sometimes ok just as long as you observe the following rule: flies fly just as dirt is made of ground when the moon split in two it's marzlike mountains have deep roots all praise Allah....

 

[S.A.M.]

*loooooooooooooooooong diatribe on Islam and Muslims*

I suppose there is a point in there somewhere that addresses the OP.

 

[Michael]

Here's the point: Giving people any religious-sanctioned reason at all, to kill, is more than reason enough for people to then kill. It's therefor self-evident that any such religion is a fundamentally flawed beleif system.

 

[S.A.M.]

Did you vote?

 

[Michael]

I am an atheist and I say YES

 

[Norsefire]

Not only justified but necessary. Punishment, for instance.

Also, I put "theist" but I am only Faithful not religious. I believe in God and all the Prophets but I myself follow no specific religion.

 

[Norsefire]

Here's the point: Giving people any religious-sanctioned reason at all, to kill, is more than reason enough for people to then kill. It's therefor self-evident that any such religion is a fundamentally flawed beleif system.

No, because it would be justified under the religion.

 

[Michael]

No, because it would be justified under the religion.

Norsefire,
Religion should keep itself to speaking about "why am I here", "how do I find meaning in this existence" "what happened to Scoobie me Dog and Goldy me fish?" "treat others with dignity" "be good to the planet" blah blah blah ... those sorts of things.

The absolute LAST thing you want religion involved with is politics - to this we must both agree???

And also it's quite evident that religion should never religiously justify killing other people. Look, people are going to kill, simply because of our primate heritage, so don't ever give them an additional excuse. Leave concepts such as when it's ok to proscribe killing to democratically elected representatives of the people. In that way as the society advances past needing mountain-, sky- and sea- daddys so will the laws regarding such actions in said civilizations.


make sense?

Michael

 

[Norsefire]

Norsefire,
Religion should keep itself to speaking about "why am I here", "how do I find meaning in this existence" "what happened to Scoobie me Dog and Goldy me fish?" "treat others with dignity" "be good to the planet" blah blah blah ... those sorts of things.

The absolute LAST thing you want religion involved with is politics - to this we must both agree???

And also it's quite evident that religion should never religiously justify killing other people. Look, people are going to kill, simply because of our primate heritage, so don't ever give them an additional excuse. Leave concepts such as when it's ok to proscribe killing to democratically elected representatives of the people.

Michael

I understand, but that is your mentality. In the mentality of extremists they don't even think like you do, they think on an entirely different level, they feel that what YOU say is ridiculous. I do understand though and partly agree with you though.


However, in the killing of criminals,there is absolutely nothing wrong with that and in my opinion capital punishment is not used enough.

 

[James R]

According to some atheists on this forum, religion should not have ANY decree on murder or killing under any circumstances, as this proscribes capital punishment and/or provides justification for killing.

Do you have any references to atheists on this forum who said that?

However, if we look at societies under atheist rulers, they are replete with murder and torture.

You still seem to be having trouble separating cause and effect here.

How many "atheist rulers" have killed in the name of atheism, or set up societies where people are killed for failing to live up to "atheist ideals", whatever they are meant to be? I'll venture: none.

So, in the absence of scriptures and religion, what is the atheists inspiration for murder? What is the "rational" approach to punishment?

If you need to ask, you probably need to go and do some basic reading on the issue of punishment. Read about the influence of classicism and positivism on the history of punishment. In particular, I suggest you look up the names Cesare Lombroso and Jeremy Bentham and read what they had to say about the rationale and purpose of punishment.

Once you've done that, come back and we can have a useful discussion.

 

[iceaura]

However, if we look at societies under atheist rulers, they are replete with murder and torture.

The confusion of theism with religion is going to dog this whole argument.

Besides, the mindreading involved in determining whether a ruler is atheist or not (and what exactly is meant by that) is beyond me. More useful, I think, to compare childhood and character building environments than states of mind - more reliable data.

As far as why an atheist tyrant would punish and kill - I presume more or less with the same motives anyone would, only with different public justification.

If we look at societies under rulers, they are replete with murder and torture. With exceptions, naturally.

Something to consider: given the lack of the crutch and pre-groomed underlings, tyrants that have no religion supporting their seizure of power might find murder and torture more needful. That may account for their extreme rarity - to last, tyranny requires a moral as well as a physical authority, and without the supportive priest a tyrant's task becomes more difficult.

Given a fear of God to work with, the tyrant may need less fear of violence, say.

 

[James R]

iceaura:

Very Machiavellian.

 

[Adstar]

If you are a threat to the safety of other people then you should be put in a place safe to both you and them until such time that you are no longer a threat to their safety.

I agree. Feels odd agreeing with you snakelord but i suppose the odds where that we would eventually find some point of agreement somewhere along the way. lol

Anyway As a Christian i do not see the need for humans to carry out punishments upon offenders. If a person cannot function properly in society, that is they cannot control their temper or cannot control a compulsion to steal or offend in some other way then they should be removed from society until such time as they have had their flaw rectified.

I do not believe in Jails as such, It would be far batter to put such people in a self sufficient kibbutz type guarded labour camp maybe located on islands, where they would grow their own food make their own clothes ect ect and have counselling and training. Once they where deemed by the authorities to no longer be a threat to society they could be released. That could take 3 months or 30 years for two different people who committed the same crime. Once released if the person re-offended then they would be returned to the camp for the rest of their lives, because they would have demonstrated that they where capable of fooling the experts in the system who formerly recommended their release.

The current system in most of the world only provides offenders with a facility where they can learn to be more effective criminals and turns petty criminals into people with psychological scars capable of great violence because from the abuse they received in prison.

As a Christian i believe that no one will escape justice for offences committed on earth God will judge. So punishing people here is to me pointless.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

 

[Xev]

According to some atheists on this forum, religion should not have ANY decree on murder or killing under any circumstances, as this proscribes capital punishment and/or provides justification for killing. Some also disagree with the notion of forgiveness/compensation of crime as an alternative to punishment, while agreeing that prisons are full of innocent but convicted people.

However, if we look at societies under atheist rulers, they are replete with murder and torture.

 

[John99]

Is there a way to just kill the labels?

 

[Bells]

According to some atheists on this forum, religion should not have ANY decree on murder or killing under any circumstances,

That could be because a lot of people, be they atheist or theist are against capital punishment.

as this proscribes capital punishment and/or provides justification for killing.

Yes.

Some also disagree with the notion of forgiveness/compensation of crime as an alternative to punishment,

As in making the criminal pay for forgiveness? I doubt a parent, who has had a child murdered, would want to put a price on just how much that child was worth before they granted forgiveness, can you? In some instances, the convicted will be forced to pay compensation and other times, he/she will be imprisoned. And sometimes they may have to do both.

while agreeing that prisons are full of innocent but convicted people.

Yes. There are people who are wrongly convicted.

However, if we look at societies under atheist rulers, they are replete with murder and torture.

Indeed.

Look at Saudi Arabia as an example. Oh wait..



As others have already pointed out in this thread, how many of those "atheist rulers" who ran societies that were apparently "replete with murder and torture", did all of the murdering and torturing in the name of 'atheism' and 'atheist ideals'?

So, in the absence of scriptures and religion, what is the atheists inspiration for murder? What is the "rational" approach to punishment?

So theists need scripture and religion as an inspiration for murder? Now I understand why one theist member, on here, recently said that one should kill if God asks them to kill.

But to answer your (bizarre) question, I simply would not know what inspires one to murder. Some kill out of jealousy, greed, revenge, etc. As an atheist, I have not murdered anyone, to date. I'll be sure to let you know if I am ever 'inspired though'...

As for a '"rational" approach to punishment'? I am not a supporter of capital punishment, but at the end of the day, it depends on the crime involved. Some warrant life imprisonment and others do not.