Question for the atheists?

Originally posted by hotpinkurinalmint
I am interested in how an atheist would answer this question. When I refer to atheists, I am talking about people that believe there is no higher power or moral force that governs the universe. If you believe in some sort of higher power, but have some major disagreements with the organized religions of the world (i) join the huge club and (ii) I would not consider you an atheist.

Imagine you meet a person in the wilderness. The person has a valuable jewel in his body. You are not financially stable, in fact, you are in dire financial straits. If you got the jewel, your financial worries would be over and you and your family would be financially secure for generations to come.

The only way to get the jewel is to kill the person slowly and painfully and rip the jewel from his innards. This person has no friends, no family, and will not be able to do anything for you socially or financially. The person is not an evil person, but he is not particularly likeable either. In fact, he is a bit annoying. If you do kill the person and take the jewel, you will also be able to get away with it without anybody knowing about it and without any worries of any legal liabilities, social stigmas, etc. You will also be able to get therapy that will deal with any trauma or psychological harm you suffer and the therapy will be 100% effective.

My question to you is- do you kill the man and take the jewel?

What does this have to do with Atheism, or religion ... ? This is an ethical question. I'm confused.

Atheist stance on Christmas. Separation of church and state. No displays on government property. That's pretty much it.

On a personal note, the arrogance of trying to own the season, when its clear what happened in regards to Pagan solstice. festivals. It is the Christians who should lighten up and share the season.

Funny how many Fundamental religious people have trouble seeing and understanding how people and animals alike, that do not have any religion, can be capable of having any soically benevolent behaviour towards themselves and others, while most other people do not have that same problem seeing it.

Perhaps it would be better to ask themselves this: 'If their religion makes it harder for them but not others to recognise benevolence in any other living creature that may or may not be religious, that there could be something wrong with that religion?'

Should these people reflect on such a question, they might see that they may have more in common with life than those who blindly follow their faith.

Unfortunately, they seldom do, and life has to suffer their ignorance... time to kill the devil possessed goats...

Originally posted by ixiy
Funny how many Fundamental religious people have trouble seeing and understanding how people and animals alike, that do not have any religion, can be capable of having any soically benevolent behaviour towards themselves and others, while most other people do not have that same problem seeing it.

Perhaps it would be better to ask themselves this: 'If their religion makes it harder for them but not others to recognise benevolence in any other living creature that may or may not be religious, that there could be something wrong with that religion?'

Should these people reflect on such a question, they might see that they may have more in common with life than those who blindly follow their faith.

Unfortunately, they seldom do, and life has to suffer their ignorance... time to kill the devil possessed goats...

edit on 28-12-2011 by ixiy because: (no reason given)

In otherwords,how you view your fellow human being will effect your judgement in this situation.
Better yet,how you view your fellow living organism on this planet.
Kind of like blindly killing that spider that wondered into your house,knowing that if you simply removed it and returned it back into it's habitat,that it will continue on making your time outside more enjoyable 'cause it is eating those pesky flies and bugs.
Dig a little deeper into cause and effect,there is no miracle in that.
That is just life as we understand it.

Originally posted by AwakeinNM
I have a question for atheists... if you don't believe in God, why are you so much against others who do? Why don't you give departments stores and malls a hard time because they have "Santa" there around Christmas? Do you believe in Santa but not God? How about you leave well enough alone - live and let live.

Oh, but no - there's a political motive, isn't there? It's as much about God as "gun control" is about guns.

Well, i'm an atheist and i don't have problems with christians, malls, santas, christmas, nativity, no problems at all.

But of course, i don't live in a country with a religious right who tries to impose their religion through politics to everybody, in that case i suppose i could have a problem.

So what im trying to say is that not all atheist behave equally and a lot of the behaviour have to do with their enviroment.

I wouldn't kill him. I don't believe in any definite "higher power". I do believe that it is our duty to treat other people with respect and kindness. Lack of faith doesn't equal lack of morality and ethics. If Christians only treat people well because the bible says so, then maybe it's a good thing no one has convinced them it's a myth. promise of reward and fear of punishment are not a basis for a sustainable system of ethical behavior.

I'm an atheist. And I can honestly answer No I would not kill him. Why? Because between me and my husband we have actually saved 2 people from death. One bleeding on the highway and another drowning. I know the feeling of saving a life and could not imagine having the reverse of that on my mind.
Even most animals care for their own kind if death is sensed.(not all but a fair amount) I would think the sub thought would be ''gee if this happens to this creature it could easily be me.'' and survival kicks in mixed with sympathy.

Originally posted by kdog1982
In otherwords,how you view your fellow human being will effect your judgement in this situation.
Better yet,how you view your fellow living organism on this planet.
Kind of like blindly killing that spider that wondered into your house,knowing that if you simply removed it and returned it back into it's habitat,that it will continue on making your time outside more enjoyable 'cause it is eating those pesky flies and bugs.
Dig a little deeper into cause and effect,there is no miracle in that.
That is just life as we understand it.

It is life as we understand it. We all have certain needs, but the religious have an extra condition in life compared to all other living creatures... their need to obey their God, and in this world, their religion.

And in their thrist to fulfill this need.... everything else becomes secondary, if you are not of their faith... then you cannot be good, even more so should one not have any religion at all. (which would include all animals)

Isn't that why their God made heaven and hell?

So isn't that why they believe that their way is the only way, while all others have to be evil? benevolent behaviour or not.

p.s. this mostly applies to the religious fundamentals.

reply to post by hotpinkurinalmint

Originally posted by covermind
reply to post by hotpinkurinalmint

 

Do you really have to rationalize feelings?

Actually, a person with sociopathic mind NEEDS to read and learn from others because they cannot get inner guidance from their feelings. Nothing in them tells them that what they are doing is wrong.. so maybe it's good that most of them read the Bible.

Looks like it didn't help them much... they end up using their religion as an excuse to kill all others....

Wait, that is the aim.... hmmmm..... soldiers of "God".

(not aimed at you)

The fundamentalist deal in absolutes, unfortunatly their leaders may soon turn the rest of them into soldiers of "God".

The evidence is in the increasing number of ignorant post made by theists, they seem to be getting more and more illogical and disconnected, everything becomes ethier an asset or an obstacle.

Their expressions of peace and friendship often hid their desire to subjugate, their devil is indeed in their details.

Help often comes with a price, unlike others who expect no returns.

And they often claim that only their kind and no one else has virtues?!!!

Intelligent life in the galaxy would be wise to keep the human species isolated on this world.

Imagine a space crusade across the galaxy. (Warhammer 40K... hahhaaa)

We are lucky, none has come our way, or maybe, we are being programmed to carry out one in this galaxy.... it seems logical given the fact, that little is being done to prevent the escalating wars between faiths the came from the same source!

"God" doesn't seem to have a problem with it, never seem to have....

Originally posted by hotpinkurinalmint
Imagine you meet a person in the wilderness. The person has a valuable jewel in his body. You are not financially stable, in fact, you are in dire financial straits. If you got the jewel, your financial worries would be over and you and your family would be financially secure for generations to come.

The only way to get the jewel is to kill the person slowly and painfully and rip the jewel from his innards. This person has no friends, no family, and will not be able to do anything for you socially or financially. The person is not an evil person, but he is not particularly likeable either. In fact, he is a bit annoying. If you do kill the person and take the jewel, you will also be able to get away with it without anybody knowing about it and without any worries of any legal liabilities, social stigmas, etc. You will also be able to get therapy that will deal with any trauma or psychological harm you suffer and the therapy will be 100% effective.

My question to you is- do you kill the man and take the jewel?

You've already placed this scenario in the wilderness.. currency has zero use in the wilderness. Food and water do but if I am in the wilderness I'd know how to survive without stealing or killing a person anyway.

You asked a question (singling out atheists) yet put provisions so we can't answer honestly which makes the premise of this thread self serving and biased. You say therapy would be available which would be 100% effective which means you already know that people (atheists) would be morally uncomfortable and would say so in response; so you pre-emptively tried to remove that answer as an option in an attempt to force them to give replies that may better serve your purposes. To answer your question we'd have to ignore our own humanity and natural core values. There is no such thing as therapy that could remove all pychological harm from painfully killing an innocent person.. to be able to do that you would need to be born a sociopath without any capability for empathy or remourse.

I don't understand why so many people are calling into question the validity of the OP's question.

The issue of naturalist ethics is a valid one and has permeated the corpus of western philosophy for quite some time.

If you reduce the logic of naturalism down to its component parts, there are a lot of inconsistencies which merit a response.

Originally posted by riley
You've already placed this scenario in the wilderness.. currency has zero use in the wilderness. Food and water do but if I am in the wilderness I'd know how to survive without stealing or killing a person anyway.

You asked a question (singling out atheists) yet put provisions so we can't answer honestly which makes the premise of this thread self serving and biased. You say therapy would be available which would be 100% effective which means you already know that people (atheists) would be morally uncomfortable and would say so in response; so you pre-emptively tried to remove that answer as an option in an attempt to force them to give replies that may better serve your purposes. To answer your question we'd have to ignore our own humanity and natural core values. There is no such thing as therapy that could remove all pychological harm from painfully killing an innocent person.. to be able to do that you would need to be born a sociopath without any capability for empathy or remourse.

edit on 29-12-2011 by riley because: (no reason given)

It goes to show how dangerous certain theists mindsets can get, it takes very little effort for their leaders to alter the flock to perceive any target to be an obstacle.

Any evidence in contre with their beliefs are automaticly filtered or discarded, which can be reversed just as easily, from obstacle to asset and vice versa when the need suits them.

An amazing tool with some flaws, it isn't fool proof...

It is a valid issue but perhaps the question could have been posed in a better way. Some parts of the question are in conflict with eachother.

Originally posted by followtheevidence
I don't understand why so many people are calling into question the validity of the OP's question.

The issue of naturalist ethics is a valid one and has permeated the corpus of western philosophy for quite some time.

If you reduce the logic of naturalism down to its component parts, there are a lot of inconsistencies which merit a response.

I agree. But if the question is of human naturalism, shouldn't the question include the atheist, the agnotic and the theist?

Perhaps the atheists are highlighted because they lack certain attributes that only theists might have excusive rights to claim?

Something that could be the purest, most superior compared to all the other types that may or may not exist in the world.

Very simple...not even a matter of religious/athiest beliefs...just human ethics and respect for life...no need to kill another man for his jewel, it's his...let him keep it unless he just INSISTS that you take it
if you are a family man, u better be hustling ur ass off instead!

The question is quite hypocrite and insulting, to be honest.
Addressing it to "atheists" it automatically implies that human beings have no compassion or moral ethics, except if they receive them from a god. So atheists are just human beasts.
You will be surprised, my friend.
Atheists values and ethics are much stronger than those of a believer, because they come from within, they've been carefully analyzed and thought upon, they come from self-responsibility.
While an atheist's main moral struggle more often is :"is this the right thing to do?", a believer mostly try to find out how bad he will be punished or how great the price would be for behaving morally. Thorn between fear and expectations of a reward, a believer would use any opportunity to slip, if he's convinced enough that maybe god didn't payed attention, or even worse, that god would justify and forgive his weakness on the spot.

Secondly, your question implies that believers never kill, or steal, or lie, because they follow the word of god.
Is that so?
Wake up, and stop making a fool of yourself with questions like these.

reply to post by hotpinkurinalmint


what a stupid question!
what's your basic assumption here? that people need stories about imaginary friends in order to act in a moral way?
spend some time research neurobiology, please, and find out how even our brains are wired for moral action.

but, let's be fair and answer the question:
of course I wouldn't kill that person just for personal gain, that's immoral.

(i'm an atheist, of course)

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

That's what you're having trouble understanding -- it doesn't come from anywhere. Those who reject organized religion typically do so for moral reasons.

Morals don't come from anywhere?? Huh? Then why are the morals so drastically different of cavemen then they are today? Morals are something taught, passed down, reformulated out of what was already given to them and coupled with their own experience. They are passed down from society, culture, religion, parents, teachers, and the list goes on. If they don't come from anywhere, then you would be born with them no? If they don't come from anywhere, then why wouldn't a baby grown with no human interaction not have morals? Morals are an evolutionary process, not formed out of thin air out of complete nothingness. They had to begin somewhere. The question is then, where did they begin? We did find out the atom wasn't the smallest thing didn't we? So if we divide down morals to it's start, then where did it start?

For example, some Christians may say the golden rule and/or the 10 commandments are the "building blocks" of their moral framework around which any moral dilemna can be resolved.

What Christians say this? This sounds like a "they" statement to me, or a "subliminal absolute" to put all the thinking of all Christians in one boat. Can you be more specific.

I am not sure why you would use this as a reference to support your argument. There are actually 613 commandments in the old testament alone and you are going to have to incorporate ALL of them into your analysis to use as proof for your argument then.

For example...
The commandments only say not to lie about your neighbor... not lie in general

Arguably, the original commandment was shortened based off of societal ancient Hebrew needs at the time, and then passed down to us in it's present form. It was used to as a fear tactic because you could be put to death for lying at one time. Although not the people at the top of the food chain of course It's just like it is illegal for you to lie to a police officer, but it is not illegal for them to do it to you. The term "stealing" is a blanket statement used by society, religion, or the individual for it's own use at whatever period of time they are in.

The original translation is "thou shalt not murder," specific to unlawful killing

I don't think murder = the physical act of taking one's life. The jury is still out on that one for me personally, but I think it is a reference to not murdering someone who is truly awake, walking with Christ so to speak, or on their way to being with Christ. In other words, trying to spiritually kill someone, not physically. That's just my opinion as of today, always subject to change, and I will get back to you on it when the jury gets in. However, if you psychically murder someone, then you never give them a chance to be spiritually awake either so the commandment would indirectly apply to the physical world as well, and for those who only see the black and white text of the bible.

The commandments include adultery twice?

No they don't. Again, if you are going to simplify a couple of hundred commandments down to only 10 in your argument, no they don't cover adultery twice. One is adultery, one is coveting your neighbors wife.

"Do not commit adultery."
Adultery is defined as sexual intercourse between a man and a married woman who is not his wife.

"Do not covet your neighbor's wife"
One is forbidden to desire and plan how one may obtain that which God has given to another. Maimonides makes a distinction in codifying the laws between the instruction given here in Exodus (You shall not covet) and that given in Deuteronomy (You shall not desire), according to which one does not violate the Exodus commandment unless there is a physical action associated with the desire, even if this is legally purchasing an envied object.

en.wikipedia.org...

Two drastically different things IMO. Even in a modern dictionary, Covet and Adultery are completely different. Not sure what you are implying here.

The original translation of "thou shall not steal" is specific to stealing slaves

Can you reference or site what you are basing this conclusion off of? From my understanding, it actually has many different meanings and interpreted in many different ways. In the physical realm, it can be about just about anything from kidnapping, putting one "into" slavery, to stealing food or material items. Again, based off of interpretation and societal needs at the time. Not sure how you boiled it down to being "specific to stealing slaves..." and I would like to understand this better is all.

reply to post by NeverSleepingEyes


There are no such things as "stupid questions" just "stupid answers."

www.abovetopsecret.com...