What Atheists do and do not beleive

[spidergoat]

So in your opinion, without laws, humans would be prone to random unjustified killing? But if its biological, it cannot be wrong certainly. We could just call it collateral damages.:shrug:

No, in fact most people do not think random unjustified killing is right. That is why this feeling is codified into laws, so that killers will be punished. The deterent effect of these laws is debateable, but at least those few people that are completely immoral or asocial are separated from the rest of us.

 

[Gustav]

So all the animals who are close to us and who murder, as well as all soldiers, hunters and murderers and biologists who breed and dissect animals (ie murder) are mutants?

good one
patel's moronic assertion deserves that bit of claptrap

 

[S.A.M.]

No, in fact most people do not think random unjustified killing is right. That is why this feeling is codified into laws, so that killers will be punished. The deterent effect of these laws is debateable, but at least those few people that are completely immoral or asocial are separated from the rest of us.

Depends on how you define random unjistified killing. Is the Iraq war justified killing? Is Afghanistan? Will those who are sent to kill there be separated from the rest of us as pariahs?

If those people are following the urges of their biology, why is it wrong?

 

[spidergoat]

Even if one does not agree, there are possible rational justifications for the Iraq War. The ostensibly religious people in the White House felt that it was justified. I do not. Religion does not seem to resolve this moral question.

 

[synthesizer-patel]

So all the animals who are close to us and who murder, as well as all soldiers, hunters and murderers and biologists who breed and dissect animals (ie murder) are mutants?

No - its actually the same mechanism at work - while we co-operate and protect those who are "like us", we tend to be much more defensive towrds those we see as "not like us" - basically the greater the genetic divide between us and another member of our species or us and another species altogether, the less altruistic we behave towards them.

Of course these instincts can be made to misfire.

For example many regimes and conflicts were incited by various leaders de-humanising thier opponents - the japanese justified their wars against the chinese on the basis that the chinese were sub-human (their view not mine) - hitler did much the same with jews and gypsies - its much easier to coldbloodedly kill someone if you view them to be of a differnt species altogether.

Likewise in military training - soldiers spend lots of time shoving bayonets into straw dummies - in an effort to condition soliders into beleiving that when the time comes, they'll do it to a fellow human being with the same kind of disspasionate air.

On a dfifferent note, we tend to like and try to protect animals which have anthropomorphic charateristics - dolphins like us are intelligent co-operative and famillial for example so they receive a rather disporportionate amount of attention from the public when it comes to conservation.

 

[S.A.M.]

Even if one does not agree, there are possible rational justifications for the Iraq War. The ostensibly religious people in the White House felt that it was justified. I do not. Religion does not seem to resolve this moral question.

Biology would. Looking after the needs of self and same as self or kin over and above those of others is a natural biological phenomenon. Religion would actually be against this, as faith demands that God will provide as long as you follow the commandments and not covet or kill or steal.

 

[S.A.M.]

No - its actually the same mechanism at work - while we co-operate and protect those who are "like us", we tend to be much more defensive towrds those we see as "not like us" - basically the greater the genetic divide between us and another member of our species or us and another species altogether, the less altruistic we behave towards them.

Of course these instincts can be made to misfire.

For example many regimes and conflicts were incited by various leaders de-humanising thier opponents - the japanese justified their wars against the chinese on the basis that the chinese were sub-human (their view not mine) - hitler did much the same with jews and gypsies - its much easier to coldbloodedly kill someone if you view them to be of a differnt species altogether.

Likewise in military training - soldiers spend lots of time shoving bayonets into straw dummies - in an effort to condition soliders into beleiving that when the time comes, they'll do it to a fellow human being with the same kind of disspasionate air.

On a dfifferent note, we tend to like and try to protect animals which have anthropomorphic charateristics - dolphins like us are intelligent co-operative and famillial for example so they receive a rather disporportionate amount of attention from the public when it comes to conservation.

Correct, so all the murderers are doing what comes naturally.

 

[synthesizer-patel]

good one
patel's moronic assertion deserves that bit of claptrap

sorry - didn't mean to make it look like an assertion when there is in fact PILES of research to back it up - here's a quick starter course for ya:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altruism_in_animals

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coefficient_of_relationship

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_ethics

peer review will take me longer to dig up but if you ahve any specific questions I'll do my best for you

 

[synthesizer-patel]

Correct, so all the murderers are doing what comes naturally.

in a way yes - basically if you impose unnatural values upon someone - by say converting them to a religion - or building inflated ideals of nationalism on someone - you can make them do things against their normal moral nature by causing that same altruistic mechanism to misfire

 

[Gustav]

/eek

Ever since our ancestors, the macrotermitine termites, achieved ten-kilogram weight and larger brains during their rapid evolution through the late Tertiary Period, and learned to write with pheromonal script, termitic scholarship has elevated and refined ethical philosophy. It is now possible to express the imperatives of moral behavior with precision. These imperatives are self-evident and universal. They are the very essence of termitity. They include the love of darkness and of the deep, saprophytic, basidiomycetic penetralia of the soil; the centrality of colony life amidst the richness of war and trade with other colonies, the sanctity of the physiological caste system; and the evil of personal rights (the colony is ALL!); our deep love for the royal siblings allowed to reproduce; the joy of chemical song; the aesthetic pleasure and deep social satisfaction of eating feces from nestmates' anuses after the shedding of our skins; and the ecstasy of cannibalism and surrender of our own bodies when we are sick or injured (it is more blessed to be eaten than to eat).

the termite's way of life

 

[spidergoat]

Biology would. Looking after the needs of self and same as self or kin over and above those of others is a natural biological phenomenon. Religion would actually be against this, as faith demands that God will provide as long as you follow the commandments and not covet or kill or steal.

Religion is vague on the specifics. Conservative Protestants are against abortion, stem cell research that involves embryos, removing life support from dying people, but they support capital punishment. Catholics and liberal Christians are against capital punishment.

Moses is supposed to have ordered 3,000 men to be put to death on God's authority.

And he said unto them, Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side, and go in and out from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbour.

Exodus 32:27​

The second Commandment says:

Make no images of anything in heaven, Earth, or the Sea.​

But no one really follows that.

 

[Gustav]

I'll do my best for you

nice. my prior post had an eek linked to an old thread where i spout off on much the same thing

yet
i doubt if this "we are genetically programmed to find murder abhorrent" can ever be proven. it is a disposition and nailing down the source of the imperative can be tough

the best i managed was....

i hold that a basic morality has been hardwired in to our systems. it is the means by which we ensure our survival as a species. witness the altruism involved b/w a parent and child. the co-operation within groups/species/etc these tactics enhance survival. it is instinctive.

basic or rudimentary is the key
even then the nature/nurture dichotomy is not entirely dispensed with

 

[S.A.M.]

Religion is vague on the specifics. Conservative Protestants are against abortion, stem cell research that involves embryos, removing life support from dying people, but they support capital punishment. Catholics and liberal Christians are against capital punishment.

Moses is supposed to have ordered 3,000 men to be put to death on God's authority.

And he said unto them, Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side, and go in and out from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbour.

Exodus 32:27​

And so what? Biologically, they were killing foreigners and protecting their kin. The Israelis are still doing it. Shared ethnicity as a basis of segregation and discrimination. If its right now, why should it be wrong then? Nothing scientifically wrong with protecting your shared genes. One could argue that as progeny of a tribe, they are protecting their shared genetic heritage.

 

[synthesizer-patel]

nice. my prior post had an eek linked to an old thread where i spout off on much the same thing

yet
i doubt if this "we are genetically programmed to find murder abhorrent" can ever be proven. it is a disposition and nailing down the source of the imperative can be tough

However the evidence for it from genetics and ethology is good - proven? no - likely? yes - very

 

[spidergoat]

So what is the difference between the morals of the religious and non-religious again? By our modern standards, acts of the religious have been abhorrent, and they did so because of religion, nothing else.

 

[S.A.M.]

in a way yes - basically if you impose unnatural values upon someone - by say converting them to a religion - or building inflated ideals of nationalism on someone - you can make them do things against their normal moral nature by causing that same altruistic mechanism to misfire

The murderers are being altruistic to themselves first, how is this a misfire? Even an animal (sans religion) would, if push came to shove, kill for himself.

 

[Carcano]

therefore by killing a member of our own species - who very likely carries many of the same genes as we do, we lessen the chances of our genes reaching the next generation.

Humans are the ONLY animals who do kill members of their own species...in large numbers.

 

[S.A.M.]

So what is the difference between the morals of the religious and non-religious again? By our modern standards, acts of the religious have been abhorrent, and they did so because of religion, nothing else.

I don't see it that way. Religion expanded the tribe. instead of the family, it was the tribe under religion that was protected. That was a step up and the bigger the tribe became the less chances of people murdering people of the same tribe. Except of course, those still governed by biological instincts above tribe morality, the ones who like the murderers in prison today, could not see beyond their own preservation and disowned the tribe.

 

[Gustav]

However the evidence for it from genetics and ethology is good - proven? no - likely? yes - very

i'll take all the citations you got

 

[Myles]

I don't see it that way. Religion expanded the tribe. instead of the family, it was the tribe under religion that was protected. That was a step up and the bigger the tribe became the less chances of people murdering people of the same tribe. Except of course, those still governed by biological instincts above tribe morality, the ones who like the murderers in prison today, could not see beyond their own preservation and disowned the tribe.

Why can't you just carry on believing whatever seems right to you and stop using strawmen to make some point or another, which makes many of us embarrassed on your behalf.

Your obsession with theism/ atheism suggests that you have doubts aboput your beliefs , which you wish to have expelled. Perehaps part of you is saying I believe in God while another part is asking am I sure ?