Questions for atheists

[finder]

If you aren't an atheist, you've constructed a strawman that holds human justice as the enforcer of moral codes for atheists. What catches up to you in your justice system? Yourself?

How is an atheist morally responsible for murder? I mean since with one or more less people means more food and goods for him. It's only about self preservation, eh? If he gets caught, oh well. Mean time the people are still dead, where is the justice that is a part of any morality worth considering? How can you say atheism is responsible, he pay with his life maybe? That wouldn't reinstate the lives he took so where is the morality from atheism? Only God can right a wrong and that's where ultimate morality comes from.

[minorwork]

Well "potential personal repercussions" can be defined in one of two ways. Either it is man not caring about the betterment and/or detriment of society and him doing whatever benefits himself. Or it can be him weighing in his options with such and acting on the results. The first account would mean that man solely acts selfishly and doesn't care.

Don't understand why I must infer "doesn't care" from acting selfishly. Maybe I don't understand what you mean by acting selfishly.

The second account would suggest he will do what he can get away with (If you disagree then just re-read the post). In either account, man is entirely selfish and cares only for his survival and reputation. If man only cares about personal repercussions than he is entirely selfish either way and wouldn't give a damn about anything else other than survival as Darwinism would predict.

And group-selection theory doesn't apply because man will do whatever benefits himself most as long as he can get away with it (surprise comparison to how most people operate today???)

Sounds great. Where do I sign up? Who amputates my conscience? Who stops the loved ones from calling me to sacrifice so they don't have to? Is this one of those secrets that if you told me how you'd have to beat me up real bad? I can do tight shoes for ten minutes.

He cares about putting food in his mouth and maybe his kid's mouths (it wouldn't be very beneficial for him to even try and raise children now would it? Just more mouths to feed...)

A general good will (agape) to society then and love who I must. Which side does that fall on?

Can you expand on the meaning of the word "care?" Is it a voluntary condition or maybe an action that oxytocin or other hormones induce without volitional control? Would you suggest God hold me responsible for Tourette's induced actions? I doubt it. But the world and other people respond without consulting his Gloriousness.


Tourettes or not, repercussions occur. I intended 'repercussions' to be neutral, but should have used 'effects' probably. That would bring a more detached consideration to the computation of the optimum path thru moral dilemmas with personally appropriate measures of justice and charity. Repercussions connotes negatively a bit it seems to me.

Don't accept that your choices are the only possible ones. Can I quit rereading now?

[minorwork]

How is an atheist morally responsible for murder? I mean since with one or more less people means more food and goods for him. It's only about self preservation, eh?

So says the ultimate authority on atheism? Excellent. Don't think I'm ready for but the responsible part. Can't we just consider the concept of responsibility first?

If he gets caught, oh well. Mean time the people are still dead, where is the justice that is a part of any morality worth considering?

Alright. Now comes a theist who is an authority on atheist justice. Its a bloody miracle. What morality is worth considering? The ultimate one, eh? The one connected to nonexistence and fantasy myths from the times of ancient tribes of herders.

How can you say atheism is responsible, he pay with his life maybe?

If you say so as the grand arbiter of justice for atheists, then who am I to object?

That wouldn't reinstate the lives he took so where is the morality from atheism? Only God can right a wrong and that's where ultimate morality comes from.

Hey! Good job. A true authority on the atheist condition. No experience of being atheist qualifies you as an authority? Excellent. I claim the same type of authority on God. Shall I pronounce sentence upon you now? Or do you prefer to wait until the hour of your death and let God read my notes?

No God. No ultimate authority. Right? Pretend God. Pretend ultimate authority.

Only God can correct a wrong? What have I got insurance for then? Isn't Jesus an insurance policy agin sinning whether from volitional acts and/or from heritable origins thanks to Adam and Eve?

[BlackSheep]

How does killing the unweaned cubs strenthen the pride?

It doesn't I never said it did. Killing the unweaned cubs lets the Lion reproduce sooner and increases the odds of his genes passing on. What I was saying is the Lion does not kill the unweaned cubs.

Any new born that comes as a result would still be unweaned.

But they will be the new Lion's cubs and will accelerate him passing on his genes. Lion often do not control a pride long and any advantage increases the odds of passing on his genes.

And the new cubs wouldn't necessarily be stronger then the ones killed. The older lion who lost the battle of dominance may have very well been stronger then the victor in his prime.

Absolutely correct. Evolution works on the individual or the individual gene not the group, but the group surviving in the case of a social animal is of great assistance and so if something helps the pride and does not impede his reproduction then evolution will tend to favor it.

Is it your contention the lions think these things out? Have a moral code?

I believe I was very clear in that this is not morality per say. I said:

The emotions and drives that are created by biological evolution are filtered by survival and the ability to successfully procreate. This is not true morality, just what starts early social groups

I think we just need to make sense out of things that don't. We just can't reconcile the self centered brutality that we see in the animal kingdom so we apply human rationale to enable us to reconcile it. And we do that because we have an innate since of morality.

If you studied animal behavior and were trying to make sense of this you would see clearly the influence evolution has had on social behavior. The brutality of the animal kingdom is often more a figment of our imaginations than anything else.

[BlackSheep]

How is an atheist morally responsible for murder? I mean since with one or more less people means more food and goods for him.

Actually it generally means less food and goods for him. Social groups succeed due to the grouping. A group can do things an individual can not. They can defend themselves from other groups better. They can specialize and be more productive.

It's only about self preservation, eh? If he gets caught, oh well. Mean time the people are still dead, where is the justice that is a part of any morality worth considering? How can you say atheism is responsible, he pay with his life maybe? That wouldn't reinstate the lives he took so where is the morality from atheism? Only God can right a wrong and that's where ultimate morality comes from.

I don't think morality is about justice. It is about doing what is what is "right". Justice is a whole different conversation.

[Peter]

Atheists do not believe there is an accounting unless human justice catches up to them. So they do not understand, much less trust in ultimate justices so they think we just pass the buck. That is because to the atheist accountability is subject only to oneself and whether or not they get caught.

An atheist is good because of his own conscience. A theist is good because of his faith that he'll be punished by a god in some afterlife if he isn't good. That's why atheists are generally good people. That's why theists are good only if they happen to interpret their magic book in a way that allows them to be good.

[finder]

An atheist is good because of his own conscience.

Correction, God given conscience.

A theist is good because of his faith that he'll be punished by a god in some afterlife if he isn't good.

Wrong. At this point and since the truth of the matter has been explained at nausea, I to have ask...Are atheists typically intellectually dishonest or just plain stupid?

That's why atheists are generally good people.

I guess as long as they can move the bar on societal whims it would make it rather hard to be bad. In a surreal atheistic delusional kinda way.

That's why theists are good only if they happen to interpret their magic book in a way that allows them to be good.

So now you are an expert on knowing God? With the view of an ostrich?

[finder]

I don't think morality is about justice. It is about doing what is what is "right". Justice is a whole different conversation.

What good is morality without justice?

[finder]

So says the ultimate authority on atheism?

You sit in front of your computer day and night typing garbage opinions on what theists believe and you have the audacity to question true objective remarks I make about atheism?

[Sigma_Tau_Theta]

What good is morality without justice?

Another thread would be needed to discuss what "justice" is before that question could be answered properly, at least in my opinion.

[BlackSheep]

What good is morality without justice?

It is people trying to do right by each other.

[BlackSheep]

You sit in front of your computer day and night typing garbage opinions on what theists believe and you have the audacity to question true objective remarks I make about atheism?

And from this outrageous observation what do you conclude?