I stole this idea from Chris Dills and Taylor – ask me a question about whatever you want and I’ll try my best to answer it here.
Have at it.
…
Question 1:
Since we are in the midst of a conversation on morals it is only fair that you present how a non theistic person determines morals. Meaning, as an atheist, do you hold to moral relativism or is there some great non-theistic cosmic morality that we all are confined to?
I think there are certain morals we are all generally instilled with, for quite obvious reasons. There are some others that are subjective and vary person to person.
Some examples of morals almost all of the mentally stable have include not murdering, not raping, and, to a lesser extent, not stealing (this one is often instilled by parents since no one comes out understanding the concepts of money and what have you). There is a very simple Darwinian reason for this adaptation: a community where murder, rape, and theft all fly isn’t a community that’s going to last very long. The reason behind things like having love for other animals and our children is the survival of our species. Murder, rape, and theft can very quickly dissolve a community and destroy those living in this society. Things like that flying destroys a community and could easily lead to a premature extinction.
Beyond that, there are many subjective morals. For example, some people may have grown up in a household with a mentally challenged sibling or relative, so they think it’s immoral to call someone a retard. Or a fundamentalist may think being homosexual is a sin because they think it will condemn them to eternal torture. A lot of morals we pick up from others.
If someone was raised in a vacuum, they could still go out into the world and not kill and rape wantonly.
Why is the sky blue? lol, ok seriously though this is a good idea, kudos to Chris.
Finally. My mission in life now is to respond in kind and overwhelm you with millions of questions!
Seriously though, since we are in the midst of a conversation on morals it is only fair that you present how a non theistic person determines morals. Meaning, as an atheist, do you hold to moral relativism or is there some great non-theistic cosmic morality that we all are confined to?
Ok, my answer should be up by tomorrow.
Yah i made one of these pages too, sorry.
No response to my question yet…
Sorry, I forgot. I’ll get it up tomorrow.
So basically, you’re saying that the only rigid immorality comes in the form of actions that would hinder the maintenance of a society, right? So would all of the fringe moral issues be left up to relativism?
I’d say so.
So what happens when say, my fringe moral issues enter into conflict with yours?
Then we debate.
Nope, sorry. My fringe morals are against debate. I believe we have to battle with daggers. And I’m a beast with a dagger. Sorry dude.
lol
I appreciate the invitation to be a contributor to this blog but I don’t have enough time to even do mine properly. Could you please remove me as a contributor? Best of luck to you and thank you.
Super J.
So, you’re an atheist? Bullshit.
Try to scientifically refute this…
The problem with trusting in Richard Dawkins is, he’s not a real scientist. No real scientist would ever say there is no God, because of three very specific scientific reasons noted below. If Dawkins doesn’t know if there is a God, then he say so; otherwise, he’s plainly just a liar and a fraud:
1) There is no evidence that there is no God, thus it is scientifically irrational to say so.
2) There is no known evidence that any object or substance has ever come into being by it’s own volition, without something else apart from that object or substance, being involved in the process.
3) There is no evidence that anything in motion has ever come to be in motion by itself, without something else first causing it to be put in motion. (Quite obviously, Socrates, Newton and Einstein, who all three believed in God, could argue circles around Dawkins, as can also, any grade school child with half a brain.)
Thus, the entire position of Richard Dawkins is scientifically, fundamentally flawed to the core. There is no such thing as “science” that is not based on evidence.
Nobody knows exactly who or exactly how, the pyramids in Egypt came to be as we can observe them today. Richard Dawkins and every other scientist, archaeologist and human being with half a brain, just assumes that someone designed and built them. This is because, all known evidence and human experience indicates that someone did.
And much more so, all known evidence and human experience by default, indicates there is a Creator or Creators. Thus, the correct scientific position is, there is a Creator or Creators until someone can prove otherwise, just as A squared plus B squared is true regarding isosceles triangles, until someone can prove otherwise and, just as the pyramids of Egypt are a product of design until someone can prove otherwise.
Anyone who pretends there is no Creator is complete liar, an obvious charlatan and a fraud, no matter how many Oxford degrees they may or may not honestly possess.
And you think George Bush is a moron; he’s only a beginner ! ! !
Ok, I’ll save Chillin the trouble.
1) Russell’s teapot
2) That refutes the big bang as adequately as it refutes God – for who created God?
3) Same as number 2.
Your application of physical principles is bizarre. Perhaps I should point you towards Hawking! Also Einstein was an Atheist. Please look it up, and save yourself the embarrassment! Newton and Socrates were products of their time., who no doubt believed other things we know now to be fallacious.
Dawkin’s is a biologist – nothing you have said challenges established biology or evolution. Have you read Dawkins? Obviously not, I assume all you have seen is expelled! Moron.
What the hell does the Pyramids have to do with anything? Did God make them? Prove it.
You are lazy. You believe that just because we do not know everything now, we must cop out and claim god did it. If scientist had always done this there would be no scientific advancements. You would have no computer to write your idiotic comments. Your argument has nothing to do with science! You have shown not just your ignorance, but also your arrogance for thinking that if scientists do not know all the answers, they never will, so let us just believe in your tyrannical sky god. What bliss is your ignorance! Do not worry, at the rate science is advancing, they may well account for all your mysteries rather soon. When will your bible account for science?
I am inclined to think you, or Richard Aberdeen, are a case of what many call “Poe’s Law”, for there is no other explanation for your comment posted above!
Damn, a few grammatical errors in there, it is late where I am! What’s Richard’s excuse for his errors (logical not grammatical!)?
@Richard
1) There is also no evidence that there is no Flying Spaghetti Monster, thus it is scientifically irrational to say so. Are you asserting the positive belief in his tasty goodness? (Ramen)
2) If there is no known evidence that any object or substance has ever come into being by it’s own volition, without something else apart from that object or substance, being involved in the process…then where did your amazingly powerful and complex God come from?
3) I’m honestly not really sure what you’re talking about on this point. If it makes you feel better I’ll concede that while something obviously happened at the beginning of the universe I for one am willing to admit that we don’t know for sure what it was (yet). Do you mean to suggest to me that people thousands of years ago who thought the world was flat and that the sun revolved around the earth figured it out? Really?!
You ought not be ragging on George Bush’s lack of intelligence too forcefully there my friend.
Super J
Thanks for fielding those, guys. I just don’t have it in me to deal with these guys anymore.