The debate "If atheism is true is killing people wrong" was started by
March 1, 2017, 1:41 am.
By the way, Ematio is disagreeing with this statement.
26 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 6 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
Blu_Ray posted 5 arguments, TheExistentialist posted 4 arguments, historybuff posted 1 argument, braymus17 posted 1 argument, Your_dad posted 1 argument, PsychDave posted 1 argument to the agreers part.
Ematio posted 6 arguments, thereal posted 2 arguments to the disagreers part.
Blu_Ray, TheExistentialist, PsychDave, human, Pugsly, historybuff, Maxshe88, Your_dad, braymus17, Thepanther, irwndedi, makson, FaithofExaltism, invincible_01, ZiraShadow and 11 visitors agree.
Ematio, ProfDoke, TimRSA and 3 visitors disagree.
Atheism is real... I am an atheist
Even if it wasn't? a thing, killing people would still be wrong
That has already been demonstrated to be false in this debate. TheExistentialist went through it already.
Lol there are no grounds for morals in an atheistic worldview
Not unnatural. Just immoral.
Just because you lack religious faith, doesnt mean you lack morals. Killing another human is unnatural, and is wrong no matter what viewpoint you take.
not a Catholic. so that's a question for someone else.
burning sounds like a punishment than a rule. never heard this one. unless u are talking about what priest used to say. that is definitely not there. Jesus taught he is the only way. and he taught lessons agaisnt such ideas.
I am not religious.
I am against abortion (which involves killing someone) for moral reasons.
Therefore, as an atheist, I have morals.
how about the rule that priests should be celibate? that isn't in the Bible at all. the church made it up later. it actually goes against some rules.
or the rule that heretics should be burned? or that killing Muslims wasn't a sin, it was the path to heaven? or that if you pay enough money you can be forgiven for sins?
I can keep going. but I hope I've made my point. morals change and evolve over time based on the culture that interprets them, even religious morals.
he hasn't said he's Christian actually and we do think for ourselves.
I think u have set ur own morals for sure.
the only laws that have changed are the ones Jesus said to change. like eating hoofed creatures. the only other would be punishment. we most definitely don't stone.
thereal, unlike you we are capable of thinking for ourselves. you believe that morality has to come from a book written 2,000 years ago.
no modern country agrees with that logic. that is why we have laws and Constitutions. they codify what, as a society, we believe to be right and what is wrong. like all morality this changes over time.
you will refuse to acknowledge it but Christian morality has changed a great deal in 2,000 years and it will continue to do so. pretending that anyone who won't base their moral code on religion must somehow not have any morals is just idiotic.
What religion do you follow then, thereal?
And then theres Nemiroff getting insecure because he realised he is a monster with no morals!
A lot of people thought slavery was right in the past so does that mean it was right? LMFAO you know you done f***ed up when youre using reasoning like "killing people is wrong because it is wrong"! i merked atheists with this topic before and now theyre going to get merked again!
Morality is defined by our opinions. A lot of people think killing is wrong; therefore it is wrong. We decide what is wrong or what is right.
As an atheist and I don't want to be killed. I know others don't want to be killed and as a group we say it's bad to kill.
I would tend to agree with the comment on the nature of morality; I think the value of objective morality has lost a lot of it's meaning with the progress of neuroscience and evolutionary ethics. Personally, I would advocate for moral nihilism as being the most logically consistent and least problematic stance to take.
I don't necessarily agree that they are troll topics. I believe the people who post these sorts of things are genuine in their belief. I do however belief that a lot of theists post these topics with nefarious intentions and not with the intent to debate the validity of objective vs subjective morality.
getting tired of all these troll topics. does it matter if our morales are absolute handed down by "daddy" or something we consciously chose to adopt because it was the right thing.
perhaps back in biblical times, humanity was the equivalent of a child which God had to regularly guide, and occasionally discipline, but his absence of late may be a sign that it is time for us to stand on our own 2 feet.
only a child justifies his morality by citing daddy.
you are making two claims here. You are claiming God commands x because x is right. You are also claiming that God is good by nature.
I'll address the first claim here:
If God commands x because x is right, then x is right regardless of whether or not God commands it. That means there is an independent standard by which we can measure the "rightness" of x and thus don't need God to command it. We can verify the "rightness" of x without God. This makes God arbitrary.
The second claim is strange and you would have been better off not making it.
By what standard and evidence did you ascertain the nature of God. In other words, how did you eliminate the possibility of a deceptive God?
the world is made of matter and energy, and a thing like the mind does exist... so there goes that argument.
God commands what is right, because God cannot do wrong. it is not in his nature to do so.
otherwise, I agree with your last post.
"I think therefore I am" was part of Descartes' meditations trying to prove the existence of a benevolent God.
Existentialism actually struggles quite a bit with the notion of God and even with the relevance of God. Personally, I'm a nihilist. So I would never claim that morality is absolute. Existentialism is more about self than it is about morality. In fact, existentialism deals very little in the realm of ethics.
Even with God; a statement like "killing is wrong" is subjective. For even in religion, "killing" isn't always wrong. It is only wrong if it is "murder". Murder though is the illegal taking of life and thus legality dictates whether or not "killing" is wrong, not God.
I can further demonstrate that God's morality is arbitrary if you answer the following:
Does God command x because x is right, or is x right because God commands it?
I think, therefore I am, right?
well, I think I'm right, therefore, I'm right is your equivalent moral relativism.
Existentialism in it's bare essence.
In a world where everything is made of matter and energy, things like a mind cannot exist, and neither can morals as they are intangible and invisible. Even Darwin says how can we trust our own minds if evolution is true? Would you trust the mind of a monkey?
sorry, bad speech recog.
I did not say that God was necessary for Morality. I said they thought it was necessary for absolute morality. Everything you positive was based on moral relativism. Through which there is no absolute morality. Therefore you cannot say killing is absolutely wrong.
You don't need absolutes to come to the conclusion that "killing is wrong".
You can get there through a number of philosophical theories.
Utilitarianism gets you to "killing is wrong" (although permitted under some circumstances)
The categorical Imperative gets you to "killing is wrong" (no exceptions)
Virtue ethics gets you to "killing is wrong" (with some exceptions)
Social contract theory gets you to "killing is wrong" (permitted under some circumstances)
Evolutionary ethics get you to "killing is wrong".
Just because I ask this of everyone who claims that "god is necessary for morality".
Does God command x because x is right, or is x right because God commands it?
if there is no God, there is no absolute truth or morality. morality is then relative, and no one can say that killing is absolutely wrong.
atheism is true. you dont believe in god. you're an atheist
Explain to me why it's wrong. (Btw I'm just speaking as if atheism is true, I agree killing is wrong)
Killing for no reason is wrong. even for a reason its wrong. can you explain me why u think its correct to kill someone?
But in a world with no objective morality, feelings don't matter, and everything is relative
its wrong because you all accept killing is wrong. if you feel killing is cotrect then according to you hitler was a great person.
What if I feel like I want to die?
what do feelings have to do with morality?
if i kill you for no apparant reason how would you feel ?
Why is it wrong Blu_ray?
not in any objective sense.
Killing anyone is wrong. Even death penalty is wrong.