Meaning and purpose to Atheists...

[smiley]

I don't have to explain inherent knowledge of right and wrong, because it isn't inherent, it's taught.

so, it isn't inherently wrong to kill 6 million jews because you don't like their race? it isn't inherently wrong to molest children.?
Are you saying these are just prefences of the culture that you are taught?

That definitely seems to be the case. After all, people used to agree pretty much universally that racism and slavery were OK.

[RickD]

I don't have to explain inherent knowledge of right and wrong, because it isn't inherent, it's taught.

so, it isn't inherently wrong to kill 6 million jews because you don't like their race? it isn't inherently wrong to molest children.?
Are you saying these are just prefences of the culture that you are taught?

That definitely seems to be the case. After all, people used to agree pretty much universally that racism and slavery were OK.

Ok, I'll bite. When were racism and slavery universally OK?

[humblesmurph]

I don't have to explain inherent knowledge of right and wrong, because it isn't inherent, it's taught.

so, it isn't inherently wrong to kill 6 million jews because you don't like their race? it isn't inherently wrong to molest children.?
Are you saying these are just prefences of the culture that you are taught?

That definitely seems to be the case. After all, people used to agree pretty much universally that racism and slavery were OK.

Ok, I'll bite. When were racism and slavery universally OK?

It seems that slavery was OK in much of the Western World in 1700 A.D.

[jlay]

jlay, I've already explained why I think that it is wrong to kill 6 million Jews. Molestation, rape and all the rest fit under that same explanation. You can either scroll up, or I'd be more than willing to explain it again. I never, ever, suggested that because a culture says something is acceptable, that it is acceptable.

You did? I understand you THINK they are wrong. So what? I also contend that you are borrowing from inherent goodness. You refer to fairness. Yet in doing so you must admit that fairness has some inherently better quality than unfairness. Same with community.

But will you admit, and be consistent, that you do not think they are inherently wrong? That those actions are not wrong in and of themselves. That it is only a societal preference that you have been taught.

Why does what you think have any more merit than what Hitler thinks, or a rapist, or child molestor? Do you honestly believe that the only reason you view murder, and child molestation as wrong is because the society you live in has preferences contrary to them? Are you not repulsed by such actions?

[humblesmurph]

jlay, I've already explained why I think that it is wrong to kill 6 million Jews. Molestation, rape and all the rest fit under that same explanation. You can either scroll up, or I'd be more than willing to explain it again. I never, ever, suggested that because a culture says something is acceptable, that it is acceptable.

You did? I understand you THINK they are wrong. So what? I also contend that you are borrowing from inherent goodness. You refer to fairness. Yet in doing so you must admit that fairness has some inherently better quality than unfairness. Same with community.

But will you admit, and be consistent, that you do not think they are inherently wrong? That those actions are not wrong in and of themselves. That it is only a societal preference that you have been taught.

Why does what you think have any more merit than what Hitler thinks, or a rapist, or child molestor? Do you honestly believe that the only reason you view murder, and child molestation as wrong is because the society you live in has preferences contrary to them? Are you not repulsed by such actions?

I explained clearly why I think certain things are wrong. You never explained how you know certain things are wrong.
I never stated that fairness or community was inherently better than anything. I stated that they were better for the continuation of humanity.

If our education is a good one, it will teach us to make sound moral decisions. As stated earlier, I make up my own mind about what is right or wrong. The society I live in has laws that loosely resemble my moral outlook. I don't agree with every law, but no society is perfect, nor am I.

My opinion isn't more valid than Hitler's, but my moral conclusions certainly are more defensible. No, I don't believe that the only reason I view murder and child molestation wrong is because the society I live in has preferences contrary to them. I never said that. Not once. Yes, I am repulsed by such actions. What does my repulsion have to do with objective morality? I'd bet you are repulsed by abortion. I'm repulsed at the idea of a woman not having the right to choose. Who is right?

[Kurieuo]

jlay, I've already explained why I think that it is wrong to kill 6 million Jews. Molestation, rape and all the rest fit under that same explanation. You can either scroll up, or I'd be more than willing to explain it again. I never, ever, suggested that because a culture says something is acceptable, that it is acceptable.

You did? I understand you THINK they are wrong. So what? I also contend that you are borrowing from inherent goodness. You refer to fairness. Yet in doing so you must admit that fairness has some inherently better quality than unfairness. Same with community.

But will you admit, and be consistent, that you do not think they are inherently wrong? That those actions are not wrong in and of themselves. That it is only a societal preference that you have been taught.

Why does what you think have any more merit than what Hitler thinks, or a rapist, or child molestor? Do you honestly believe that the only reason you view murder, and child molestation as wrong is because the society you live in has preferences contrary to them? Are you not repulsed by such actions?

I explained clearly why I think certain things are wrong. You never explained how you know certain things are wrong.
I never stated that fairness or community was inherently better than anything. I stated that they were better for the continuation of humanity.

If our education is a good one, it will teach us to make sound moral decisions. As stated earlier, I make up my own mind about what is right or wrong. The society I live in has laws that loosely resemble my moral outlook. I don't agree with every law, but no society is perfect, nor am I.

My opinion isn't more valid than Hitler's, but my moral conclusions certainly are more defensible. No, I don't believe that the only reason I view murder and child molestation wrong is because the society I live in has preferences contrary to them. I never said that. Not once. Yes, I am repulsed by such actions. What does my repulsion have to do with objective morality? I'd bet you are repulsed by abortion. I'm repulsed at the idea of a woman not having the right to choose. Who is right?

I wonder what the unborn babies would say if they had a choice?

[Kurieuo]

My opinion isn't more valid than Hitler's, but my moral conclusions certainly are more defensible. No, I don't believe that the only reason I view murder and child molestation wrong is because the society I live in has preferences contrary to them. I never said that. Not once. Yes, I am repulsed by such actions. What does my repulsion have to do with objective morality? I'd bet you are repulsed by abortion. I'm repulsed at the idea of a woman not having the right to choose. Who is right?

HS, if you could greatly benefit from doing something which took advantage of others and no one would ever know, would you do it?

[humblesmurph]

I wonder what the unborn babies would say if they had a choice?

You make a valid point. The point I was trying to make is that a strong opinion or a visceral repulsion doesn't equal moral objectivity. We likely agree on 99% of moral issues. However, there are points on which we clearly disagree, like a woman's right to choose. Does that mean that God hasn't put goodness in my heart? Or yours?

[humblesmurph]

My opinion isn't more valid than Hitler's, but my moral conclusions certainly are more defensible. No, I don't believe that the only reason I view murder and child molestation wrong is because the society I live in has preferences contrary to them. I never said that. Not once. Yes, I am repulsed by such actions. What does my repulsion have to do with objective morality? I'd bet you are repulsed by abortion. I'm repulsed at the idea of a woman not having the right to choose. Who is right?

HS, if you could greatly benefit from doing something which took advantage of others and no one would ever know, would you do it?

No.

[Kurieuo]

I wonder what the unborn babies would say if they had a choice?

You make a valid point. The point I was trying to make is that a strong opinion or a visceral repulsion doesn't equal moral objectivity. We likely agree on 99% of moral issues. However, there are points on which we clearly disagree, like a woman's right to choose. Does that mean that God hasn't put goodness in my heart? Or yours?

I agree with someone's right to choice. However, there are social laws to protect us against choices of people wishing to harm or take advantage of us.

For example, there is no violation of preventing my "right" to choice of killing someone else, because it is not my "right" to do so in the first place. There are social laws which protect born babies, so that it is no longer a mother's or parent's right to choose to take their child's life. Would you agree to a mother's choice to kill her newly born infant?

Does a birth canal really make all the difference and change who the baby is? Think on this question logically. One must present very good reasons as to why it is alright to kill the baby in utero, but not once on the outside. Either it is alright to kill them in both instances, or it is not alright.

[Kurieuo]

My opinion isn't more valid than Hitler's, but my moral conclusions certainly are more defensible. No, I don't believe that the only reason I view murder and child molestation wrong is because the society I live in has preferences contrary to them. I never said that. Not once. Yes, I am repulsed by such actions. What does my repulsion have to do with objective morality? I'd bet you are repulsed by abortion. I'm repulsed at the idea of a woman not having the right to choose. Who is right?

HS, if you could greatly benefit from doing something which took advantage of others and no one would ever know, would you do it?

No.

And why not?

[humblesmurph]

My reason for being pro choice is twofold. One, the unborn fetus is not a child. Two, the rights of the fetus have to be balanced against the rights of the the mother. Unfortunately a third and morally unrelated reason is that if women aren't allowed to have safe medical abortions, many women will just get back alley abortions.

As for the hand in the cookie jar with nobody looking question, I wouldn't do it because I don't take advantage of people. It's a general rule that has served me well to this point.

[Kurieuo]

My reason for being pro choice is twofold. One, the unborn fetus is not a child. Two, the rights of the fetus have to be balanced against the rights of the the mother. Unfortunately a third and morally unrelated reason is that if women aren't allowed to have safe medical abortions, many women will just get back alley abortions.

If you don't mind, let us shift the focus from the woman to the unborn "little one" (fetus).

What features make the unborn little one different, as to make it less important in your eyes than a child?

As for the hand in the cookie jar with nobody looking question, I wouldn't do it because I don't take advantage of people. It's a general rule that has served me well to this point.

But if there are no ramifications to yourself (nothing bad would happen to you), then wouldn't it serve you "more well" to take advantage of others for greater personal gain?

Do you have any other reason as to why you would not do so?

[humblesmurph]

My reason for being pro choice is twofold. One, the unborn fetus is not a child. Two, the rights of the fetus have to be balanced against the rights of the the mother. Unfortunately a third and morally unrelated reason is that if women aren't allowed to have safe medical abortions, many women will just get back alley abortions.

If you don't mind, let us shift the focus from the woman to the unborn "little one" (fetus).

What features make the unborn little one different, as to make it less important in your eyes than a child?

As for the hand in the cookie jar with nobody looking question, I wouldn't do it because I don't take advantage of people. It's a general rule that has served me well to this point.

But if there are no ramifications to yourself (nothing bad would happen to you), then wouldn't it serve you "more well" to take advantage of others for greater personal gain?

Do you have any other reason as to why you would not do so?

I don't know why the focus should be shifted from the woman, it's her body...but if you wish. At 3 months a "little one" weighs half an ounce. At 3 months, you can't induce labor and give the "little one" to a nice aunt or a young married couple. At 3 months, the "little one" isn't just dependent upon the woman, it is a part of the woman. I believe a woman should be able to do whatever she wants with any of her parts. The bigger question is what happens if you outlaw abortion. How do you plan to enforce such a law? Miscarriage isn't murder.

I act in such a way that if everybody acted like me the world would be a better place. Obviously, that is just my opinion. It may not actually be the case, but that is my motivation. No, it wouldn't serve me "more well" to take advantage of anybody.

[zoegirl]

First, It's NOT her body....that's the most inaccurate statement ever! Genetically, IMmunologically, histologically, the baby is different from the mother. The baby has different genes, different histological markers (so much so that the mother's immune system must be suppressed do that she will not attack the baby), different blood type, and different brain waves. What part of any of these establishes this "thing" as part of her own body?!?! Shoot, even the placenta is made by the baby and is not the mother's. What a strange part of our bodies, indeed, that we eject OUR part after nine months!! I mean, come on...the logic in this is absurd. IN the end only one question needs to be answered....is it HUMAN?

Second, just because YOU wouldn't take advantage of someone doesn't make you the more virtuous than someone who would (according to the evolutionary model of morality). Certainly the fact that YOU think it is wrong to take advantage of someone has no inherent goodness in it considering that, according to your own worldview, everything is simply the current evolutionary social solution. In fact, the fact that many of us deem "taking advantage" of someone to be wrong is EQUAL to someone who hogs and steals (much as chimpanzees do with food). In the end, all you are is a morality bully (as all atheists who proclaim a certain morality)...insisting that one way is "right" and another way is wrong. There is no right or wrong, merely what your thinking makes it....in which case ANY justification in my mind for an action, to be as honest and blunt as the evolutionary model allow us to be, is fine. The only worry, really, is whether a person could get away with it.

Bottom line: Rapist = non=rapist according to an atheist worldview...oh you may claim morality but there is no foundation for it. It's an empty claim...