Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
It's wrong to hurt people and there is no greater way to hurt someone than to snuff out their life.
Why is it wrong to hurt some one I the next question you're likely to ask. I'm not a philosopher and so I can't articulate the answer except to say it just is. I don't need orders from a supernatural being to know not to be a dick.
Then not murdering people becomes your opinion instead of a directive from something outside of yourself such as a creator.
If I understand your query, you are asking, if one is not of the Judeo-Christian persuasion, how can they be a 'good person'?
If that is your point.....you're not serious, are you?
1. Reason or Morality....Which one should guide society?
Either our ability to use logic and reason, or obedience to the morality forged in the crucible of millennia of human interactions and experience?
I know....both would be nice. But, with secularism in the ascendancy, the cultural battle rarely allows for compromise.
So....where, then, is the great change, the great difference between the bending of the knee to what we call God, or the bending of the knee to the god called reason?
And, is the world better due to this change?
Then not murdering people becomes your opinion instead of a directive from something outside of yourself such as a creator.
Such a directive doesn't come from "outside of yourself."
1. Reason or Morality....Which one should guide society?
Either our ability to use logic and reason, or obedience to the morality forged in the crucible of millennia of human interactions and experience?
I know....both would be nice. But, with secularism in the ascendancy, the cultural battle rarely allows for compromise.
So....where, then, is the great change, the great difference between the bending of the knee to what we call God, or the bending of the knee to the god called reason?
And, is the world better due to this change?
Ignoring the factual errors in the OP and sticking to the primary question only because it is a false dichotomy.
The motivation for this false dichotomy is the same one the PoliticalSpice always uses because she has her religious agenda and this is her way of promoting that agenda.
Basically she is stating that Good = God & Moral while Bad = Reason & Immoral.
This is patently absurd because we have plenty of current instances of those who profess to believe in God committing immoral acts while those who uphold reason are doing so on a moral basis.
There is no black or white question here.
What we have in this nation today is a working example of a 3rd viable and pragmatic option.
The Constitution of We the People with the Bill of Rights as the moral equivalent of the 10 Commandments.
Reason AND Morality living side by side with a stipulated partition separating religious beliefs from secular government.
Reason AND Morality living side by side with a stipulated partition separating religious beliefs from secular government.
Then not murdering people becomes your opinion instead of a directive from something outside of yourself such as a creator.
Such a directive doesn't come from "outside of yourself."
Then you are left with your opinion ...
They tried that at Masada already anyway---
no---what is the rationale for NOT killing.
Again, rationale is part of Reason and Morals..........They are one in the same to me. If I feel I'd go to hell if I did so would I have a rationale based on religion...........
ok--- then an atheist rationale for laws prohibiting murder
They tried that at Masada already anyway---
And were thus immortalized thereby proving Gandhi correct.
Again, rationale is part of Reason and Morals..........They are one in the same to me. If I feel I'd go to hell if I did so would I have a rationale based on religion...........
ok--- then an atheist rationale for laws prohibiting murder
Your right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness can not be infringed by someone else.
anyone else wanna give it a shot ?
I'd like to shoot your red herring, but I'll offer the definition of murder for a start:
"At common law, the killing of one human being by another with malice aforethought, either expressed or implied, that is, with deliberate intent or formed design to kill".
Ballentine's Law Dictionary, 1969
And, from the Principles of a just war:
"A just war can only be waged as a last resort. All non-violent options must be exhausted before the use of force can be justified."
A war is just only if it is waged by a legitimate authority. Even just causes cannot be served by actions taken by individuals or groups who do not constitute an authority sanctioned by whatever the society and outsiders to the society deem legitimate."
A just war can only be fought to redress a wrong suffered. For example, self-defense against an armed attack is always considered to be a just cause (although the justice of the cause is not sufficient--see point #4). Further, a just war can only be fought with "right" intentions: the only permissible objective of a just war is to redress the injury"
A war can only be just if it is fought with a reasonable chance of success. Deaths and injury incurred in a hopeless cause are not morally justifiable."
The ultimate goal of a just war is to re-establish peace. More specifically, the peace established after the war must be preferable to the peace that would have prevailed if the war had not been fought."
The violence used in the war must be proportional to the injury suffered. States are prohibited from using force not necessary to attain the limited objective of addressing the injury suffered."
The weapons used in war must discriminate between combatants and non-combatants. Civilians are never permissible targets of war, and every effort must be taken to avoid killing civilians. The deaths of civilians are justified only if they are unavoidable victims of a deliberate attack on a military target."
Think in terms of what Hamas and Isreal are engaged in today and what the right wingers in our own nation are doing as they (seem) to seek Civil War in America.
IS this really such a difficult question to understand young herring shooter. Reason vs Morality.
Why do atheists ( people who use reason as a basis for acting ) favor rules that outlaw taking someone else's life ?
How come atheist are anti murder ?
That always depends on the person. Just because they don't believe in God does't mean they don't have an ethics code.
I understand that. I'm trying to acertain what that code would be based on.
Again, rationale is part of Reason and Morals..........They are one in the same to me. If I feel I'd go to hell if I did so would I have a rationale based on religion...........
ok--- then an atheist rationale for laws prohibiting murder
Your right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness can not be infringed by someone else.
1. Reason or Morality....Which one should guide society?
Either our ability to use logic and reason, or obedience to the morality forged in the crucible of millennia of human interactions and experience?
I know....both would be nice. But, with secularism in the ascendancy, the cultural battle rarely allows for compromise.
So....where, then, is the great change, the great difference between the bending of the knee to what we call God, or the bending of the knee to the god called reason?
And, is the world better due to this change?
Ignoring the factual errors in the OP and sticking to the primary question only because it is a false dichotomy.
The motivation for this false dichotomy is the same one the PoliticalSpice always uses because she has her religious agenda and this is her way of promoting that agenda.
Basically she is stating that Good = God & Moral while Bad = Reason & Immoral.
This is patently absurd because we have plenty of current instances of those who profess to believe in God committing immoral acts while those who uphold reason are doing so on a moral basis.
There is no black or white question here.
What we have in this nation today is a working example of a 3rd viable and pragmatic option.
The Constitution of We the People with the Bill of Rights as the moral equivalent of the 10 Commandments.
Reason AND Morality living side by side with a stipulated partition separating religious beliefs from secular government.
That always depends on the person. Just because they don't believe in God does't mean they don't have an ethics code.
I understand that. I'm trying to acertain what that code would be based on.
My rights end where yours begin and vice versa. I am obliged to uphold your rights and you are obliged to uphold mine even though neither of us necessarily agree on anything else other than that each of us has certain rights.
