RIP Christopher Hitchens

[youngterrier]

Anyway, we disapprove of acts of "immorality" because we understand
1) Harming others does not benefit our species in the long run (biologically)
2) Harming others does not benefit ourselves as individuals in the short term (socially)

While I don't dispute your point that you don't have to believe in a higher power to have morality, your statement above can absolutely be refuted quite easily.

Killing off people that have mental and physical disabilities can absolutely have a positive impact on our species biologically. That's not to say I think we should do that, but to say there is no benefit biologically is simply incorrect.

BTW, my comment on where we go from here was really meant to ask what will become immoral in the future.

but that's bad for social purposes, as the mentally and physically disabled have many friends, family members,etc who love them and thus would rebel against any force that would try to harm them just for the sake of who they are. It also contradicts the whole killing-people-makes-me-uncomfortable shtick. You can't do something immoral without violating one of those three premises.

Eventually, we'll see the golden rule as our means of morality, it pretty much already is.

[JohnStOnge]

Anyway, we disapprove of acts of "immorality" because we understand
1) Harming others does not benefit our species in the long run (biologically)
2) Harming others does not benefit ourselves as individuals in the short term (socially)

I think both of those are false premises. Also, even if the first one were to be a true premise, it still wouldn't provide a basis for declaring innate right or wrong.

Harming others could indeed benefit our species in the long run. We don't like eugenics but they do make sense if all you're thinking of is maximizing the benefit to the species. Also, at some point the population of our species will be too large for this planet to sustain. If we haven't found other places to go culling the population will become beneficial to our species. And if we are to cull the population it arguably makes sense to do so in a selective way.

The other thing is that there is nothing innately good or bad about the existence or well being of our species. Why is doing what's best for our species "good" and why is doing something to harm the interest of our species "bad?" Without the "something else" there is no answer. If and when our species goes extinct then our species is extinct. But it is neither a good or a bad thing in absolute terms. It just is. No more "good" or "bad" than a star exploding. And certainly of no concern to you or me once we're dead. If atheism is correct we no longer exist as beings after that point.

Do you have an argument for why it would be innately bad for Homo sapiens to go extinct? I suspect you might try but when you do I'll show you why it doesn't work.

I don't think I need to even argue the second one if people really think about it. People harm others in order to advance themselves socially all the time. I've given extreme historical examples such as Stalin but there are countless examples in all of our everyday lives.

[JohnStOnge]

Eventually, we'll see the golden rule as our means of morality, it pretty much already is.

The Golden Rule is based on the premise that there is something innately wrong with treating others as you would not want to be treated. And that, in the absense of a "something else," is a false premise.

[89Hen]

but that's bad for social purposes, as the mentally and physically disabled have many friends, family members,etc who love them and thus would rebel against any force that would try to harm them just for the sake of who they are.

So we can kill disabled people who are loners.

[youngterrier]

Anyway, we disapprove of acts of "immorality" because we understand
1) Harming others does not benefit our species in the long run (biologically)
2) Harming others does not benefit ourselves as individuals in the short term (socially)

I think both of those are false premises. Also, even if the first one were to be a true premise, it still wouldn't provide a basis for declaring innate right or wrong.

Harming others could indeed benefit our species in the long run. We don't like eugenics but they do make sense if all you're thinking of is maximizing the benefit to the species. Also, at some point the population of our species will be too large for this planet to sustain. If we haven't found other places to go culling the population will become beneficial to our species. And if we are to cull the population it arguably makes sense to do so in a selective way.

Again, you're not listening, you can't refute one of the premises without infringing on another, eugenics would be harmful in a social setting if it was done against the will of those being tested. The same could be said about mass murder.

The other thing is that there is nothing innately good or bad about the existence or well being of our species. Why is doing what's best for our species "good" and why is doing something to harm the interest of our species "bad?"

Because it contradicts our basic instincts and nature, read what I post.

Without the "something else" there is no answer. If and when our species goes extinct then our species is extinct. But it is neither a good or a bad thing in absolute terms. It just is. No more "good" or "bad" than a star exploding. And certainly of no concern to you or me once we're dead. If atheism is correct we no longer exist as beings after that point.
Yeah, and? Big deal. The world doesn't revolve around us, we find meaning in other things such as self improvement to where one day it might
Do you have an argument for why it would be innately bad for Homo sapiens to go extinct? I suspect you might try but when you do I'll show you why it doesn't work.

In terms of absolute innate answers, I have none, because there are none. But from the view of the homo sapiens, it's "bad for them". Not existing is bad for the human race, just like mass murder, just like theft is bad for homo sapiens. It's bad because it contradicts the nature of the human race in that it halts our evolution and infringes upon our survival. Every creature evolves, and thus partaking in efforts to deny that evolution is unnatural and thus immoral. We exist to survive. Everything everyone does on a daily basis is to survive and evolve, that's a universal theme, of all creatures. Humanity's nonexistence may not be objectively good or bad, but that doesn't matter, it contradicts the interests of every individual and of the species. This is a really easy concept that you just don't understand.

I don't think I need to even argue the second one if people really think about it. People harm others in order to advance themselves socially all the time. I've given extreme historical examples such as Stalin but there are countless examples in all of our everyday lives.

Oh please, Stalin's undoing was that he was such a cruel tyrant that his own men feared to check up on him when he failed to leave his room at the appropriate time. If he wasn't such an immoral person, he would have lived longer because not many would fear death by his hand. The same can be said of people who do immoral acts in everyday life, they get away with it, but people keep score and they treat them accordingly.

Your arguments are weak sauce

[youngterrier]

but that's bad for social purposes, as the mentally and physically disabled have many friends, family members,etc who love them and thus would rebel against any force that would try to harm them just for the sake of who they are.

So we can kill disabled people who are loners.

No, they could be beneficial to the economy, perhaps a great accountant or otherwise. You'll be hard pressed to find anyone who doesn't offer anything to society, whether it be economic, artistic, social, entertainment, etc. Everyone has worth somehow whether it be to the populace at large or another individual, and everyone is appreciated by at least on other person and thus murdering that person would hurt one's social standing. Why act as if murder is something people smile upon or not frown upon anyway? I'm telling you, we don't think murder is wrong because of religion, but because we're uncomfortable with the idea of ourselves being murdered, thus we condemn and prevent the action from taking place for our own peace of mind. Peace of mind is most certainly in the interest of each individual.

[youngterrier]

Eventually, we'll see the golden rule as our means of morality, it pretty much already is.

The Golden Rule is based on the premise that there is something innately wrong with treating others as you would not want to be treated. And that, in the absense of a "something else," is a false premise.

No, it's under the premise that I don't like being treated like shit and thus other people won't treat me like shit if I don't do as such to them. It's "wrong" because they are capable of doing the same to me and thus harm me socially, which infringes on my ability to grow and evolve as an individual and thus contradicts the nature of existence

[D1B]

While I don't dispute your point that you don't have to believe in a higher power to have morality, your statement above can absolutely be refuted quite easily.

Killing off people that have mental and physical disabilities can absolutely have a positive impact on our species biologically. That's not to say I think we should do that, but to say there is no benefit biologically is simply incorrect.

BTW, my comment on where we go from here was really meant to ask what will become immoral in the future.

but that's bad for social purposes, as the mentally and physically disabled have many friends, family members,etc who love them and thus would rebel against any force that would try to harm them just for the sake of who they are. It also contradicts the whole killing-people-makes-me-uncomfortable shtick. You can't do something immoral without violating one of those three premises.

Eventually, we'll see the golden rule as our means of morality, it pretty much already is.

Thanks to secularists, deists, scientists, artists, atheists, entrepeneurers, merchants, inventors, businessmen and martyrs who fought the tyranny of the church and their tyrants, they now have rights. End of story. You fuck with the handicapped and you go to jail and you lose your job, friends and family. End of story. Unless of course if you're a catholic priest, then you get sent on a vacation to an abbey on the barrier islands like that sick fuck priest from Wisconsin who raped over 200 deaf boys.

Funny thing too, all that sick fuck has to do is repent his sins, ask for forgiveness and BAM he's gets into heaven. Yeah, that's the moral racket we should be following.

Ironic how human rights begin to appear rapidly as science progresses, secularization is no longer punishable by death and the power of church dimishes.

[89Hen]

So we can kill disabled people who are loners.

No, they could be beneficial to the economy, perhaps a great accountant or otherwise. You'll be hard pressed to find anyone who doesn't offer anything to society, whether it be economic, artistic, social, entertainment, etc. Everyone has worth somehow whether it be to the populace at large or another individual, and everyone is appreciated by at least on other person and thus murdering that person would hurt one's social standing. Why act as if murder is something people smile upon or not frown upon anyway? I'm telling you, we don't think murder is wrong because of religion, but because we're uncomfortable with the idea of ourselves being murdered, thus we condemn and prevent the action from taking place for our own peace of mind. Peace of mind is most certainly in the interest of each individual.

You're reverting back to a sentimental and spiritual arguement. You claimed biolocial and societal. There are plenty of people who dillute the gene pool and are a drain on society. Your claim is not valid IMO.

[JoltinJoe]

Eventually, we'll see the golden rule as our means of morality, it pretty much already is.

All morality results from what Paul Kurtz writes on his website, so long as enough people sign his petition.

All kidding aside, the oldest known articulation of the "Golden Rule" is the Book of Leviticus, attributed to Moses, who attributed it to God.

[kalm]

Eventually, we'll see the golden rule as our means of morality, it pretty much already is.

All morality results from what Paul Kurtz writes on his website, so long as enough people sign his petition.

All kidding aside, the oldest known articulation of the "Golden Rule" is the Book of Leviticus, attributed to Moses, who attributed it to God.

What else does Leviticus say?

[youngterrier]

No, they could be beneficial to the economy, perhaps a great accountant or otherwise. You'll be hard pressed to find anyone who doesn't offer anything to society, whether it be economic, artistic, social, entertainment, etc. Everyone has worth somehow whether it be to the populace at large or another individual, and everyone is appreciated by at least on other person and thus murdering that person would hurt one's social standing. Why act as if murder is something people smile upon or not frown upon anyway? I'm telling you, we don't think murder is wrong because of religion, but because we're uncomfortable with the idea of ourselves being murdered, thus we condemn and prevent the action from taking place for our own peace of mind. Peace of mind is most certainly in the interest of each individual.

You're reverting back to a sentimental and spiritual arguement. You claimed biolocial and societal. There are plenty of people who dillute the gene pool and are a drain on society. Your claim is not valid IMO.

And that claim is debatable without evidence beyond broad generalization therefore in not valid see I can do that too

but seriously, I didn't even mention one thing spiritual, and sentimental is a valid argument IMO. List examples of people who dilute the gene pool and maybe I can give that comment the attention it deserves

[youngterrier]

Eventually, we'll see the golden rule as our means of morality, it pretty much already is.

All morality results from what Paul Kurtz writes on his website, so long as enough people sign his petition.

All kidding aside, the oldest known articulation of the "Golden Rule" is the Book of Leviticus, attributed to Moses, who attributed it to God.

irrelevant

[JoltinJoe]

We'r

All morality results from what Paul Kurtz writes on his website, so long as enough people sign his petition.

All kidding aside, the oldest known articulation of the "Golden Rule" is the Book of Leviticus, attributed to Moses, who attributed it to God.

irrelevant

We're going to get this to 18 pages in no time.

[YoUDeeMan]

The source of Joltin Joke, St. Wronge and Tbag's morality. No wonder they're so fucked up.

The one on the right just isn't praying hard enough.

I interupt my own reading of this thread to laugh my azz off!

Damn, I missed this place.

God one Z!


Edit: I just realized that AZ's contribution to this thread actually was the source of this latest bumb! Congrats AZ!

[YoUDeeMan]

The moral values of the communist were informed by his atheism. They didn't kill because they were communists, they killed because they possessed a morality that licensed such actions.

Can you give me a reason why so many Christians (including those under Stalin) have killed people?

Is it because they possessed a morality that licensed such actions?

[YoUDeeMan]

I never found him that compelling. I would love to have debated him; just as I would love to have debated any atheist. Their whole edifice is a paradox.

Now, if they start off by saying there is no right or wrong they'd be OK. But they don't do that. They want to be athetist and at the same time say there is a right and there is a wrong.

Hitchens was like that too. He'd argue against religion using morality when the fundamental basis of his world view, if true, meant there is no morality.

John...you act as though "right" and "wrong" are some things that are set in stone. Trouble is, moral values change over time. If they were based upon an all-knowing beacon of right or wrong, they would never change.

[JoltinJoe]

The moral values of the communist were informed by his atheism. They didn't kill because they were communists, they killed because they possessed a morality that licensed such actions.

Can you give me a reason why so many Christians (including those under Stalin) have killed people?

Is it because they possessed a morality that licensed such actions?

You think Stalinists were Christians?

[D1B]

Can you give me a reason why so many Christians (including those under Stalin) have killed people?

Is it because they possessed a morality that licensed such actions?

You think Stalinists were Christians?

Many of em were, just like the german protestants and italian catholics who ran the concentration camps and murdered jews and others by the millions. Stalin and Hitler didn't run the gulags or ovens or gas chambers, christians did. They didn't pull the triggers.

Hitchens was right, tyrants can only arise from a population of moral weaklings beaten into submission for centuries to acquiesce to authority figures who claim they're god, like Hitler and Stalin.

[D1B]

All morality results from what Paul Kurtz writes on his website, so long as enough people sign his petition.

All kidding aside, the oldest known articulation of the "Golden Rule" is the Book of Leviticus, attributed to Moses, who attributed it to God.

What else does Leviticus say?

[D1B]

Eventually, we'll see the golden rule as our means of morality, it pretty much already is.

All morality results from what Paul Kurtz writes on his website, so long as enough people sign his petition.

All kidding aside, the oldest known articulation of the "Golden Rule" is the Book of Leviticus, attributed to Moses, who attributed it to God.

Paul Kurtz - Ivy League Phd. in Philosophy, world-renowned author, scholar and statesman.

Joltin Joe - Brainwashed catholic since birth, fart sniffer, defender of catholic priest pedophiles, intellectual coward.

The Golden Rule is found in the Code of Hammurabi, 1780 BCE, Leviticus - 1400 BCE, give or take

Also found in Leviticus:

Death for Blasphemy
One day a man who had an Israelite mother and an Egyptian father got into a fight with one of the Israelite men. During the fight, this son of an Israelite woman blasphemed the LORD's name. So the man was brought to Moses for judgment. His mother's name was Shelomith. She was the daughter of Dibri of the tribe of Dan. They put the man in custody until the LORD's will in the matter should become clear. Then the LORD said to Moses, "Take the blasphemer outside the camp, and tell all those who heard him to lay their hands on his head. Then let the entire community stone him to death. Say to the people of Israel: Those who blaspheme God will suffer the consequences of their guilt and be punished. Anyone who blasphemes the LORD's name must be stoned to death by the whole community of Israel. Any Israelite or foreigner among you who blasphemes the LORD's name will surely die. (Leviticus 24:10-16 NLT)

Slavery
However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)

[JoltinJoe]

The Golden Rule is found in the Code of Hammurabi, 1780 BCE, Leviticus - 1400 BCE, give or take

No, it's not. The Code of Hammurabi dealt with the concept of retribution and forbade retribution, i.e, one shall not take revenge in a measure greater than one was harmed.

Leviticus provided that one should love his neighbor as himself, and should treat him as he would like to be treated.

At best, the Code of Hammurabi includes what may be called the "negative" statement of the Golden Rule. But as a positive statement of how one should generally treat others, Leviticus stands as the earliest recording of what is now called the "Golden Rule."

[89Hen]

List examples of people who dilute the gene pool and maybe I can give that comment the attention it deserves

I can't tell if you're serious.

[kalm]

The Golden Rule is found in the Code of Hammurabi, 1780 BCE, Leviticus - 1400 BCE, give or take

No, it's not. The Code of Hammurabi dealt with the concept of retribution and forbade retribution, i.e, one shall not take revenge in a measure greater than one was harmed.

Leviticus provided that one should love his neighbor as himself, and should treat him as he would like to be treated.
."

Unless he plows his fields in the wrong direction. Then it's smite him I say.

[JoltinJoe]

No, it's not. The Code of Hammurabi dealt with the concept of retribution and forbade retribution, i.e, one shall not take revenge in a measure greater than one was harmed.

Leviticus provided that one should love his neighbor as himself, and should treat him as he would like to be treated.
."

Unless he plows his fields in the wrong direction. Then it's smite him I say.

Leviticus is an interesting read, but you cannot take it out of its historical context or, as a Catholic would observe, outside of the text of the entire OT and NT. From the first century forward, many "directives" of the Torah have been deemed inapplicable to the Christian community. To understand why and have a honest exchange over it, it would require far more discussion than can occur here (where one poster at least takes every statement out of context because a fair discussion is something he can't win). Suffice to say there are numerous Gospel passages where Jesus faults his listeners for their inability to distinguish the civil law of Moses from the Commandments of God.