Can atheists tell right from wrong?

Oli said:
Which bit did you miss?
Click to expand...

That's not a true point, and that's why different nations have different ideas and customs. Some are isolationist, and therefore not a member of a "world" society

In the end, the Germans were their own society and, therefore according to you, had every right to do as they please. They, the "society" decided it was OK.

Therefore the people attacking German society to force their own "right and wrong" are no different than the Crusaders or Islamic armies that conquered for the same reason
 
yes
Click to expand...
Actually no, as shown by the evidence.

jeez no your wrong.
Click to expand...
Evidence to support your view?

so 2 cannot disagree? after ten years of studying children ive come to the conclusion that they are not born with morals. and am willing to argue that point with anyone.
Click to expand...
You can argue whatever you like. But if it goes against documented evidence then there's little validity.

normal not moral
Click to expand...
What's the difference?

whats the concept here? im not understanding your point.
Click to expand...
Evidently: you stated that anything accepted as immoral by humans would be "considered" moral by animals.
I refuted it with an example.
 
Oli said:
"Can" be said?
It's the only valid definition for normal...

Is there a point?
Click to expand...

well ants are not deciding what is normal. they do not have a choice. they are either born with it or not. they do not have morals as im sure that they are not coming to a consensus as to what survival instinct is immoral.

there is normal behavior in society that is not moral.

societies have different morals. so to say that children are born with morals is to suggest that children are born with a specific type of society. the fact that we have different societies with different morals means that is not true. children are born only with the ability to create morals.

should i site some examples?
 
Last edited:
buckybeam said:
well ants are not deciding what is normal. they do not have a choice. they are either born with it or not. they do not have morals as im sure that they are not coming to a consensus as to what survival instinct is immoral.
Click to expand...
Supposition.
You don't know, and since we're dsicovering more every day about how people and animals work, then it will remain supposition until (if ever) we have all the answers.

see there is normal behavior in society that is not moral.
Click to expand...
Are ants a society or a mechanism?
(Just to jump the other way).

societies have different morals. so to say that children are born with morals is to suggest that children are born with a specific type of society. the fact that we have different societies with different morals means that is not true.
Click to expand...
Nearly correct: we have an in-built moral basis.
Like language: we have the in-born facility, but it's shaped by the society in which we're raised.

children are born only with the ability to create morals.
Click to expand...
Create?

should i site some examples?
Click to expand...
Go ahead.
 
Oli:

If we discover a biological foundation for violence and aggression, are people still accountable for their actions?
 
Norsefire: I did.
Post #46, which you obviously missed.
 
S.A.M. said:
If we discover a biological foundation for violence and aggression, are people still accountable for their actions?
Click to expand...
I thought there was a biological basis.
So shoot me.

Accountable or "held accountable"?
(I'm not quibbling here merely for the sake of it, although it's going to go waaaay off topic if we start on the difference).
 
Norsefire said:
I addressed that
Click to expand...

No.
If the world as whole is viewed as a society then the Nazis become the serial killer equivalent to a single society.
Or are you arguing that because individuals within a society may have different views from that society they should just be allowed to get on with it?
Regardless of the effects?
 
Oli said:
No.
If the world as whole is viewed as a society then the Nazis become the serial killer equivalent to a single society.
Or are you arguing that because individuals within a society may have different views from that society they should just be allowed to get on with it?
Regardless of the effects?
Click to expand...

The Germans had their own society, their own government, their own borders, and their own people and customs. They were not part of the world society because there is no such thing as a world society, especially during the 1940's, apart from a world economy.
 
well yes i guess you are correct that ants may be far more advanced than we suspect. i certainly will not argue that point. but, the likely hood is rather slim. sure some animals, especially apes, are starting to prove wrong many human only beliefs. i find these studies very enlightening as they prove what many, including myself, have suspected from circumstantial evidence. proof that circumstantial evidence isn't worthless.

i haven't forgot the examples just don't want you to think i left.
 
buckybeam said:
well yes i guess you are correct that ants may be far more advanced than we suspect. i certainly will not argue that point. but, the likely hood is rather slim.
Click to expand...
Nah, I'd argue that.
Nearly everything turns out to be far more complicated/ advanced than we think.
 
Oli said:
Supposition.
You don't know, and since we're dsicovering more every day about how people and animals work, then it will remain supposition until (if ever) we have all the answers.
Click to expand...

i never did suggest it as definitive. i did only say that "i am sure they are not". i didnt say "ants do not" and im still pretty sure...

ok ha ha
im moving backwards....
forward ho
 
Oli said:
Nah, I'd argue that.
Nearly everything turns out to be far more complicated/ advanced than we think.
Click to expand...

well go right ahead. i wont stop ya. keep in mind we are discussing whether or not ants are holding societal meetings to make moral judgments....
 
Knowing right from wrong is necessary in any complex society, even one of ants, who have a remarkable moral system based on chemical communication by scent. I must point out that the fixed linguistic moral systems of religion have often been misused.
 
buckybeam said:
i never did suggest it as definitive. i did only say that "i am sure they are not". i didnt say "ants do not" and im still pretty sure...
Click to expand...
Umm,
well ants are not deciding what is normal. they do not have a choice. they are either born with it or not. they do not have morals as im sure that they are not coming to a consensus as to what survival instinct is immoral.
Click to expand...
:D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top