Questions for Atheists

[Steinlight]

Its wrong because society says its wrong.

Maybe the next society will say killing is nifty idea because we need to deal with over population. Or that you really need to up the bran content in your diet, eat a piece of fruit, take a walk. or screw that and just eat bacon and drink beer.

Important point is that people don't lie, steal, kill because an invisible and imaginary magic sky fairy tells them not to. Maybe people don't do those things because they're afraid of getting caught. Or maybe because the reward isn't high enough.

OTOH, I know of a guy who had the opportunity to take $3million in bearer bonds and didn't do it.

What's your frikken point? Or do you just like to nag?

Why does society say it's wrong? Just cause is not a good enough answer.

And you are assuming that everyone in the world agrees with your nice, neat secular world view and definitions of murder, rape and theft and laws surrounding those things are universal, that is not the case. Sorry, the idea that everyone is going to come to a single "rational" consensus on these issues is flawed liberal enlightenment logic.

Different societies come to different social consensuses so this idea we all just clearly know what is "right and wrong" based on "human reason" is absurd.

Until you understand how the first societies and legal systems were formed(through organized religion), and understand the foundations of the morality you take for granted(modern liberalism has it's roots in the enlightenment, which was spawned by the Protestant Reformation), we won't be able to have a constructive conversation.

 

[thebrucebeat]

Its wrong because society says its wrong.

Maybe the next society will say killing is nifty idea because we need to deal with over population. Or that you really need to up the bran content in your diet, eat a piece of fruit, take a walk. or screw that and just eat bacon and drink beer.

Important point is that people don't lie, steal, kill because an invisible and imaginary magic sky fairy tells them not to. Maybe people don't do those things because they're afraid of getting caught. Or maybe because the reward isn't high enough.

OTOH, I know of a guy who had the opportunity to take $3million in bearer bonds and didn't do it.

What's your frikken point? Or do you just like to nag?

Why does society say it's wrong? Just cause is not a good enough answer.

And you are assuming that everyone in the world agrees with your nice, neat secular world view and definitions of murder, rape and theft and laws surrounding those things are universal, that is not the case. Sorry, the idea that everyone is going to come to a single "rational" consensus on these issues is flawed liberal enlightenment logic.

Different societies come to different social consensuses so this idea we all just clearly know what is "right and wrong" based on "human reason" is absurd.

Until you understand how the first societies and legal systems were formed(through organized religion), and understand the foundations of the morality you take for granted(modern liberalism has it's roots in the enlightenment, which was spawn by the Protestant Reformation), we won't be able to have a constructive conversation.

Societies come to different conclusions as to how best to live together in close proximity in relative peace, and when that peace needs to be violated for a higher purpose.
All societies do this.
They don't all agree on methodology.
Murder, rape and theft all impact that peaceful living in proximity thing.
The fact that early societies based that understanding on a diety and the U.S. does not is fascinating, but what do you think you have proved by it?
How about Norway, Sweden, Amsterdam, New Zealand,........

 

[Steinlight]

Its wrong because society says its wrong.

Maybe the next society will say killing is nifty idea because we need to deal with over population. Or that you really need to up the bran content in your diet, eat a piece of fruit, take a walk. or screw that and just eat bacon and drink beer.

Important point is that people don't lie, steal, kill because an invisible and imaginary magic sky fairy tells them not to. Maybe people don't do those things because they're afraid of getting caught. Or maybe because the reward isn't high enough.

OTOH, I know of a guy who had the opportunity to take $3million in bearer bonds and didn't do it.

What's your frikken point? Or do you just like to nag?

Why does society say it's wrong? Just cause is not a good enough answer.

And you are assuming that everyone in the world agrees with your nice, neat secular world view and definitions of murder, rape and theft and laws surrounding those things are universal, that is not the case. Sorry, the idea that everyone is going to come to a single "rational" consensus on these issues is flawed liberal enlightenment logic.

Different societies come to different social consensuses so this idea we all just clearly know what is "right and wrong" based on "human reason" is absurd.

Until you understand how the first societies and legal systems were formed(through organized religion), and understand the foundations of the morality you take for granted(modern liberalism has it's roots in the enlightenment, which was spawn by the Protestant Reformation), we won't be able to have a constructive conversation.

Societies come to different conclusions as to how best to live together in close proximity in relative peace, and when that peace needs to be violated for a higher purpose.
All societies do this.
They don't all agree on methodology.
Murder, rape and theft all impact that peaceful living in proximity thing.
The fact that early societies based that understanding on a diety and the U.S. does not is fascinating, but what do you think you have proved by it?
How about Norway, Sweden, Amsterdam, New Zealand,........

Why did you feel the need to repeat what I said there, well, whatever.

There are plenty of socities where you can get away with theft, and the definition of theft differs legally from society to society(see Russian oligarchs in the 90s, or the recent MF Global scandal in the US, those weren't by the letter of the law considered theft though many think they were). Also, rape, definitely no consensus on that issue, the definition is even disputed within the west and the legal definition has evolved even within the last half century. Also, if you go to Islamic nations like say Kyrgyzstan, kidnap and rape is a cultural tradition. So no, I reject that there is a single definition on the peaceful living in proximity thing as you suggest.


No offense, but you are showing your lack of intellectual nuance here. Just because America wasn't organized by a priestly class like the early Mesopotamian city states, doesn't discard it's religious foundations(the Protestant Reformation, which birthed the Enlightenment thinkers the Founders were inspired by). Sorry, but there is no honest way to ignore the Christian foundations of Western Civilization(that includes the Anglosphere nations you mentioned as well).

 

[thebrucebeat]

Why does society say it's wrong? Just cause is not a good enough answer.

And you are assuming that everyone in the world agrees with your nice, neat secular world view and definitions of murder, rape and theft and laws surrounding those things are universal, that is not the case. Sorry, the idea that everyone is going to come to a single "rational" consensus on these issues is flawed liberal enlightenment logic.

Different societies come to different social consensuses so this idea we all just clearly know what is "right and wrong" based on "human reason" is absurd.

Until you understand how the first societies and legal systems were formed(through organized religion), and understand the foundations of the morality you take for granted(modern liberalism has it's roots in the enlightenment, which was spawn by the Protestant Reformation), we won't be able to have a constructive conversation.

Societies come to different conclusions as to how best to live together in close proximity in relative peace, and when that peace needs to be violated for a higher purpose.
All societies do this.
They don't all agree on methodology.
Murder, rape and theft all impact that peaceful living in proximity thing.
The fact that early societies based that understanding on a diety and the U.S. does not is fascinating, but what do you think you have proved by it?
How about Norway, Sweden, Amsterdam, New Zealand,........

Why did you feel the need to repeat what I said there, well, whatever.

There are plenty of socities where you can get away with theft, and the definition of theft differs legally from society to society(see Russian oligarchs in the 90s, or the recent MF Global scandal in the US, those weren't by the letter of the law considered theft though many think they were). Also, rape, definitely no consensus on that issue, the definition is even disputed within the west and the legal definition has evolved even within the last half century. Also, if you go to Islamic nations like say Kyrgyzstan, kidnap and rape is a cultural tradition. So no, I reject that there is a single definition on the peaceful living in proximity thing as you suggest.


No offense, but you are showing your lack of intellectual nuance here. Just because America wasn't organized by a priestly class like the early Mesopotamian city states, doesn't discard it's religious foundations(the Protestant Reformation, which birthed the Enlightenment thinkers the Founders were inspired by). Sorry, but there is no honest way to ignore the Christian foundations of Western Civilization(that includes the Anglosphere nations you mentioned as well).

It's actually quite easy, but totally irrelevant.
Whatever you fantasize as our roots, the document they wrote is not supportive of your dream of dominionism.
Sorry.
As for the societies that condone variations and deviations from ours, that is the point. No one ever said their was a "single definition" of what constitutes living peacefully in close proximity. That is exactly the OPPOSITE of what I said. You invented that strawman to argue against, probably because you couldn't answer the actual argument presented.
You are a very silly man.

 

[Disir]

What is the meaning of life?

Are murder, rape and theft wrong? If so, why?

The meaning of life is 42.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Its wrong because society says its wrong.

Maybe the next society will say killing is nifty idea because we need to deal with over population. Or that you really need to up the bran content in your diet, eat a piece of fruit, take a walk. or screw that and just eat bacon and drink beer.

Important point is that people don't lie, steal, kill because an invisible and imaginary magic sky fairy tells them not to. Maybe people don't do those things because they're afraid of getting caught. Or maybe because the reward isn't high enough.

OTOH, I know of a guy who had the opportunity to take $3million in bearer bonds and didn't do it.

What's your frikken point? Or do you just like to nag?

Why does society say it's wrong? Just cause is not a good enough answer.

And you are assuming that everyone in the world agrees with your nice, neat secular world view and definitions of murder, rape and theft and laws surrounding those things are universal, that is not the case. Sorry, the idea that everyone is going to come to a single "rational" consensus on these issues is flawed liberal enlightenment logic.

Different societies come to different social consensuses so this idea we all just clearly know what is "right and wrong" based on "human reason" is absurd.

Until you understand how the first societies and legal systems were formed(through organized religion), and understand the foundations of the morality you take for granted(modern liberalism has it's roots in the enlightenment, which was spawned by the Protestant Reformation), we won't be able to have a constructive conversation.

Society says its wrong because people don't like things being taken away from them. Things like their belongings, their truths, their lives.

I haven't read the rest of you post or other posts because I haven't seen you add anything of weight or import. From what I've read, you're just preaching and bible thumping, pretending to be something you most certainly are not. You're free to do that of course ... knock yourself out.

 

[Steinlight]

Societies come to different conclusions as to how best to live together in close proximity in relative peace, and when that peace needs to be violated for a higher purpose.
All societies do this.
They don't all agree on methodology.
Murder, rape and theft all impact that peaceful living in proximity thing.
The fact that early societies based that understanding on a diety and the U.S. does not is fascinating, but what do you think you have proved by it?
How about Norway, Sweden, Amsterdam, New Zealand,........

Why did you feel the need to repeat what I said there, well, whatever.

There are plenty of socities where you can get away with theft, and the definition of theft differs legally from society to society(see Russian oligarchs in the 90s, or the recent MF Global scandal in the US, those weren't by the letter of the law considered theft though many think they were). Also, rape, definitely no consensus on that issue, the definition is even disputed within the west and the legal definition has evolved even within the last half century. Also, if you go to Islamic nations like say Kyrgyzstan, kidnap and rape is a cultural tradition. So no, I reject that there is a single definition on the peaceful living in proximity thing as you suggest.


No offense, but you are showing your lack of intellectual nuance here. Just because America wasn't organized by a priestly class like the early Mesopotamian city states, doesn't discard it's religious foundations(the Protestant Reformation, which birthed the Enlightenment thinkers the Founders were inspired by). Sorry, but there is no honest way to ignore the Christian foundations of Western Civilization(that includes the Anglosphere nations you mentioned as well).

It's actually quite easy, but totally irrelevant.
Whatever you fantasize as our roots, the document they wrote is not supportive of your dream of dominionism.
Sorry.
As for the societies that condone variations and deviations from ours, that is the point. No one ever said their was a "single definition" of what constitutes living peacefully in close proximity. That is exactly the OPPOSITE of what I said. You invented that strawman to argue against, probably because you couldn't answer the actual argument presented.
You are a very silly man.

Lol, I am silly, your getting whipped up to Rachel Maddow proportions by calling me a "dominionist". You hysterics are making you look foolish. Look, you don't need to resort to name calling because you don't understand the foundations and history of modern liberalism.

You can't even recognize your cognitive dissonance, in one breath you talk about societies come to different social consensuses, in then you say how it is obvious that rape, theft and murder are just so obviously wrong universally just cause.

If you can't recognize this cognitive dissonance, we can get nowhere on this issue.

 

[edthecynic]

 

[Steinlight]

Its wrong because society says its wrong.

Maybe the next society will say killing is nifty idea because we need to deal with over population. Or that you really need to up the bran content in your diet, eat a piece of fruit, take a walk. or screw that and just eat bacon and drink beer.

Important point is that people don't lie, steal, kill because an invisible and imaginary magic sky fairy tells them not to. Maybe people don't do those things because they're afraid of getting caught. Or maybe because the reward isn't high enough.

OTOH, I know of a guy who had the opportunity to take $3million in bearer bonds and didn't do it.

What's your frikken point? Or do you just like to nag?

Why does society say it's wrong? Just cause is not a good enough answer.

And you are assuming that everyone in the world agrees with your nice, neat secular world view and definitions of murder, rape and theft and laws surrounding those things are universal, that is not the case. Sorry, the idea that everyone is going to come to a single "rational" consensus on these issues is flawed liberal enlightenment logic.

Different societies come to different social consensuses so this idea we all just clearly know what is "right and wrong" based on "human reason" is absurd.

Until you understand how the first societies and legal systems were formed(through organized religion), and understand the foundations of the morality you take for granted(modern liberalism has it's roots in the enlightenment, which was spawned by the Protestant Reformation), we won't be able to have a constructive conversation.

Society says its wrong because people don't like things being taken away from them. Things like their belongings, their truths, their lives.

I haven't read the rest of you post or other posts because I haven't seen you add anything of weight or import. From what I've read, you're just preaching and bible thumping, pretending to be something you most certainly are not. You're free to do that of course ... knock yourself out.

People in Kyrgzstan like rape and kidnap apparently. So there clearly isn't a universal consensus that comes out of human reason as you secularists like to suggest. You can't separate morality from culture. You can't separate western morality from it's Christian roots, sorry.

 

[thebrucebeat]

Why did you feel the need to repeat what I said there, well, whatever.

There are plenty of socities where you can get away with theft, and the definition of theft differs legally from society to society(see Russian oligarchs in the 90s, or the recent MF Global scandal in the US, those weren't by the letter of the law considered theft though many think they were). Also, rape, definitely no consensus on that issue, the definition is even disputed within the west and the legal definition has evolved even within the last half century. Also, if you go to Islamic nations like say Kyrgyzstan, kidnap and rape is a cultural tradition. So no, I reject that there is a single definition on the peaceful living in proximity thing as you suggest.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DKAusMNTNnk

No offense, but you are showing your lack of intellectual nuance here. Just because America wasn't organized by a priestly class like the early Mesopotamian city states, doesn't discard it's religious foundations(the Protestant Reformation, which birthed the Enlightenment thinkers the Founders were inspired by). Sorry, but there is no honest way to ignore the Christian foundations of Western Civilization(that includes the Anglosphere nations you mentioned as well).

It's actually quite easy, but totally irrelevant.
Whatever you fantasize as our roots, the document they wrote is not supportive of your dream of dominionism.
Sorry.
As for the societies that condone variations and deviations from ours, that is the point. No one ever said their was a "single definition" of what constitutes living peacefully in close proximity. That is exactly the OPPOSITE of what I said. You invented that strawman to argue against, probably because you couldn't answer the actual argument presented.
You are a very silly man.

Lol, I am silly, your getting whipped up to Rachel Maddow proportions by calling me a "dominionist". You hysterics are making you look foolish. Look, you don't need to resort to name calling because you don't understand the foundations and history of modern liberalism.

You can't even recognize your cognitive dissonance, in one breath you talk about societies come to different social consensuses, in then you say how it is obvious that rape, theft and murder are just so obviously wrong universally just cause.

If you can't recognize this cognitive dissonance, we can get nowhere on this issue.

Not whipped up in the least.
You are creating arguments to joust with.
I said that your three amigos (murder, rape and theft) are all dealt with by societies. I never said they are universally thought of by all people. If you think I did, please quote me. That should be easy.
Here's what the quote will look like.

"Murder, rape and theft all impact that peaceful living in proximity thing." Nowhere do I say how any given society will deal with that impact. Good luck attributing any such thing to me. Cognitive dissonance, anyone?

I notice you rant and rave but never address your creation of the strawman you made. I am sure you won't address this new one, either.
You are just getting sillier.
You aren't addressing any of my posts.
You are ranting in the hope no one will notice you are avoiding issues you can't handle.
Anyone tell you your avatar looks like Greenspan?
Don't worry. No one will confuse you. He had a grasp on grammar. Look at all the red errors above in one short post!
Quite impressive.

 

[Steinlight]

It's actually quite easy, but totally irrelevant.
Whatever you fantasize as our roots, the document they wrote is not supportive of your dream of dominionism.
Sorry.
As for the societies that condone variations and deviations from ours, that is the point. No one ever said their was a "single definition" of what constitutes living peacefully in close proximity. That is exactly the OPPOSITE of what I said. You invented that strawman to argue against, probably because you couldn't answer the actual argument presented.
You are a very silly man.

Lol, I am silly, your getting whipped up to Rachel Maddow proportions by calling me a "dominionist". You hysterics are making you look foolish. Look, you don't need to resort to name calling because you don't understand the foundations and history of modern liberalism.

You can't even recognize your cognitive dissonance, in one breath you talk about societies come to different social consensuses, in then you say how it is obvious that rape, theft and murder are just so obviously wrong universally just cause.

If you can't recognize this cognitive dissonance, we can get nowhere on this issue.

Not whipped up in the least.
You are creating arguments to joust with.
I said that your three amigos (murder, rape and theft) are all dealt with by societies. I never said they are universally thought of by all people. If you think I did, please quote me. That should be easy.
Here's what the quote will look like.

"Murder, rape and theft all impact that peaceful living in proximity thing." Nowhere do I say how any given society will deal with that impact. Good luck attributing any such thing to me. Cognitive dissonance, anyone?

I notice you rant and rave but never address your creation of the strawman you made. I am sure you won't address this new one, either.
You are just getting sillier.
You aren't addressing any of my posts.
You are ranting in the hope no one will notice you are avoiding issues you can't handle.

They clearly aren't, there isn't even a consensus on the definition of those words from society to society, much less universal laws of enforcement. So no, trying to suggest there is an engrained sense of right and wrong in man, independent of his culture, of his faith is simply false.

And you don't know what cognitive dissonance means...

 

[thebrucebeat]

Lol, I am silly, your getting whipped up to Rachel Maddow proportions by calling me a "dominionist". You hysterics are making you look foolish. Look, you don't need to resort to name calling because you don't understand the foundations and history of modern liberalism.

You can't even recognize your cognitive dissonance, in one breath you talk about societies come to different social consensuses, in then you say how it is obvious that rape, theft and murder are just so obviously wrong universally just cause.

If you can't recognize this cognitive dissonance, we can get nowhere on this issue.

Not whipped up in the least.
You are creating arguments to joust with.
I said that your three amigos (murder, rape and theft) are all dealt with by societies. I never said they are universally thought of by all people. If you think I did, please quote me. That should be easy.
Here's what the quote will look like.

"Murder, rape and theft all impact that peaceful living in proximity thing." Nowhere do I say how any given society will deal with that impact. Good luck attributing any such thing to me. Cognitive dissonance, anyone?

I notice you rant and rave but never address your creation of the strawman you made. I am sure you won't address this new one, either.
You are just getting sillier.
You aren't addressing any of my posts.
You are ranting in the hope no one will notice you are avoiding issues you can't handle.

They clearly aren't, there isn't even a consensus on the definition of those words from society to society, much less universal laws of enforcement. So no, trying to suggest there is an engrained sense of right and wrong in man, independent of his culture, of his faith is simply false.And you don't know what cognitive dissonance means...

The red above is the EXACT OPPOSITE of my argument.
Now I think you are simply insane.

 

[LuckyDuck01!]

I'm an atheist and I believe that any action towards me, such as an attempt to murder, rape or, steal from me, is wrong, thus I believe that I should not murder, rape or steal from another person. I don't need an all-knowing (silly), all-powerful (silly), invisible (sillier yet) deity to set basic morals. All you need is common sense and care for others.