56 replies to this topic

[bran319]

You sure do like to talk about raping little kids.

[100YearsToGo]

bran319, on 1-Jul 2009, 12:41 PM, said:

You sure do like to talk about raping little kids.

Maybe he is still affected by this? http://www.groundrep...e-Killed-Before

No seriously...I'll post a reply later after going through all the fucks, damn and other atheist lingo.

[Dmitri]

kismet, on 1-Jul 2009, 07:35 AM, said:

Dmitri, on 1-Jul 2009, 02:47 AM, said:

There are believers that argue the holy spirit guides people to the truth or it could be like you said common sense. I'm agnostic when it comes to religion but I do believe in the spiritual realm; in the soul, which is why I don't think cryonics will work. Also, I still hold some respect for the Catholic Church.

Sorry, but I'm starting to lose respect I had for you (from your posts I assumed you are a rational person). Why the fuck do you value the Catholic Church? Is there anything this despicable bunch has done that could not have been done by Humanists? How can you say that cryonics does not work if it has been shown to work in metazoa and human organs, do you somehow argue from the unscientific notion that humans are different from animals? Have you ever heard something of teacup agnosticism?

It's sentimentality I grew up Catholic after all . Also, I understand that the atrocities they committed in the past were because of people's view of the world during those times as much as lack of education or data in the case of early doctors, scientists with their cruel and experimental treatments. While I don't agree with many of the things the Church is doing now (with condoms, pedophiles, etc) I can at least acknowledge that their charities keep people from starving in some nations, they have built clinics in third world nations and orphanages and schools to educate people, etc. I look at both sides the good and the bad, while those who bash religion only preoccupy themselves with the bad. As for cryonics, frozen organs work only if they're used within a certain timeline; that is not enough proof for me.

I don't understand why you're getting so angry, this really isn't the way to convince people to join the immortality cause.

[Singularity]

100YearsToGo, on 1-Jul 2009, 11:16 AM, said:

No seriously...I'll post a reply later after going through all the fucks, damn and other atheist lingo.

I thought 'damn' was Christian/Islamic/Judea lingo.

dmitry said:

I don't understand why you're getting so angry, this really isn't the way to convince people to join the immortality cause.

Obviously logic doesn't work with you people.

He's just trying to wake you people up; to get you to snap out of your fantasy world.  I feel the same way sometimes.  But, really, I'm not trying to convince you people since I know you are a lost cause.  I just hope some smart kid will read this post and get saved (from religion) early; that's who I'm trying to help; not you guys.  Seriously, it wasn't hard for me to go atheist after a couple years as a born-again Christian; so as far as I'm concerned, the stubborn ones like yourself can stay religious so when the Antichrist (Atheistic world force) comes, you will be easily identified and taken care of.

Does that sound cruel?

[bran319]

Not only cruel but incredibly condescending.

[Dmitri]

Singularity, on 1-Jul 2009, 03:01 PM, said:

100YearsToGo, on 1-Jul 2009, 11:16 AM, said:

No seriously...I'll post a reply later after going through all the fucks, damn and other atheist lingo.

I thought 'damn' was Christian/Islamic/Judea lingo.

dmitry said:

I don't understand why you're getting so angry, this really isn't the way to convince people to join the immortality cause.

Obviously logic doesn't work with you people.

He's just trying to wake you people up; to get you to snap out of your fantasy world.  I feel the same way sometimes.  But, really, I'm not trying to convince you people since I know you are a lost cause.  I just hope some smart kid will read this post and get saved (from religion) early; that's who I'm trying to help; not you guys.  Seriously, it wasn't hard for me to go atheist after a couple years as a born-again Christian; so as far as I'm concerned, the stubborn ones like yourself can stay religious so when the Antichrist (Atheistic world force) comes, you will be easily identified and taken care of.

Does that sound cruel?

Where did I say I believed in religion?

[Singularity]

bran319, on 1-Jul 2009, 02:28 PM, said:

Not only cruel but incredibly condescending.

Ahhh, the gifts of Intelligent Design.  That gives me an idea for a new thread.

[kismet]

Dmitri, on 1-Jul 2009, 02:47 PM, said:

I don't understand why you're getting so angry, this really isn't the way to convince people to join the immortality cause.

I'm not getting angry at all. I don't want this to sound like an ad hom but I was simply amazed at the sheer craziness of his post (and I just wanted to deliver a little deserved bashing in a slightly sarcastic way). This morality argument is pretty old and has been destroyed so thoroughly, it's not even funny. The problem is that the argument he advanced is GENUINELY and EXTREMELY offensive to any atheist. Why he didn't research the topic before making such bold claims is a mystery to me. I wouldn't mind it if he stated it in a more sophisticated, complete or less offensive way.
Neither am I trying to convince him to join any immortality cause; we're talking about religion.

bran319, on 1-Jul 2009, 12:41 PM, said:

You sure do like to talk about raping little kids.

I will refrain from answering this insult in the way it deserves to be answered, but I wouldn't mind if you contributed to the discussion with some actual arguments e.g. the way I did (I promise I won't cry if you say "rape" or the vulgarised form of "to have sexual intercourse").

bran319, on 1-Jul 2009, 04:28 PM, said:

Not only cruel but incredibly condescending.

...but the way it is, your off-topic posts do not add to the discussion.

100YearsToGo, on 1-Jul 2009, 01:16 PM, said:

bran319, on 1-Jul 2009, 12:41 PM, said:

You sure do like to talk about raping little kids.

Maybe he is still affected by this? http://www.groundrep...e-Killed-Before

BTW, I'm not interested in the Fritzl case. I'm not sure if you know, but apparently he was raised as a catholic. (1) Or is this part of your point; maybe that he was no true (Scotsman... err...) christian?

(1) http://www.spiegel.d...51451-2,00.html

Edited by kismet, 02 July 2009 - 06:17 PM.

[bran319]

Hey, I was just pointing out that you like to talk about raping little children. I could care less if you get insulted by that or not.

[Dmitri]

kismet, on 2-Jul 2009, 12:53 PM, said:

Dmitri, on 1-Jul 2009, 02:47 PM, said:

I don't understand why you're getting so angry, this really isn't the way to convince people to join the immortality cause.

I'm not getting angry at all. I don't want this to sound like an ad hom but I was simply amazed at the sheer craziness of his post (and I just wanted to deliver a little deserved bashing in a slightly sarcastic way). This morality argument is pretty old and has been destroyed so thoroughly, it's not even funny. The problem is that the argument he advanced is GENUINELY and EXTREMELY offensive to any atheist. Why he didn't research the topic before making such bold claims is a mystery to me. I wouldn't mind it if he stated it in a more sophisticated, complete or less offensive way.
Neither am I trying to convince him to join any immortality cause; we're talking about religion.

bran319, on 1-Jul 2009, 12:41 PM, said:

You sure do like to talk about raping little kids.

I will refrain from answering this insult in the way it deserves to be answered, but I wouldn't mind if you contributed to the discussion with some actual arguments e.g. the way I did (I promise I won't cry if you say "rape" or the vulgarised form of "to have sexual intercourse").

bran319, on 1-Jul 2009, 04:28 PM, said:

Not only cruel but incredibly condescending.

...but the way it is, your off-topic posts do not add to the discussion.

100YearsToGo, on 1-Jul 2009, 01:16 PM, said:

bran319, on 1-Jul 2009, 12:41 PM, said:

You sure do like to talk about raping little kids.

Maybe he is still affected by this? http://www.groundrep...e-Killed-Before

BTW, I'm not interested in the Fritzl case. I'm not sure if you know, but apparently he was raised as a catholic. (1) Or is this part of your point; maybe that he was no true (Scotsman... err...) christian?

(1) http://www.spiegel.d...51451-2,00.html

I was referring to the way you responded to my post, it was quite aggressive; did my message offend you as well?

Edited by Dmitri, 02 July 2009 - 07:42 PM.

[kismet]

Dmitri, on 2-Jul 2009, 02:39 PM, said:

I was referring to the way you responded to my post, it was quite aggressive; did my message offend you as well?

No, it was more of disappointment and amazement.   I get your point that the church does some good with the money, but they're incredibly inefficient (at least in Austria; 70% of our "church tax" is used for administration/maintining churches) and they don't need a god to be good or to make good use of funds.

bran319, on 2-Jul 2009, 02:00 PM, said:

Hey, I was just pointing out that you like to talk about raping little children. I could care less if you get insulted by that or not.

Troll somewhere else. Thank you. Now let's try to get back on topic.

EDIT:@comment below
I'm not going to respond to your offtopic/trolling anymore; I merely reminded you to stop several times, because offtopic posts are indeed very irritating. Now, please, let it go.

Edited by kismet, 03 July 2009 - 02:36 PM.

[bran319]

kismet, on 2-Jul 2009, 07:15 PM, said:

Troll somewhere else. Thank you. Now let's try to get back on topic.

I'm not trolling. It was a legitimate observation. It apparently has you quite upset since you can't seem to let it go even though you are the one that brought up the topic repeatedly.

[Ben Simon]

Singularity, on 30-Jun 2009, 02:18 AM, said:

Uh, ok, it sounds like you are saying God's word was influenced by Man's state of mind.

Well, of course. Doesn't everybody know that?

Listen, you post a lot about the ignorance of religious people here. It's frustrating because I feel that a lot of the time you're actually demonstrating pretty significant ignorance yourself in doing so. The fact that you would post something like the above as though it were in any way surprising indicates that your limited knowledge of religion extends only so far as to banal fundamentalism. Non fundamentalists have been making the very point you just made for centuries! This is a problem that plagues much of 'internet atheism', and it muddies the waters and makes intelligent conversation near impossible (yes, I know, so does a lot of what the internet Christians have to say)... If you're really interested in discussing religion and see it as a danger to the world, educate yourself about it. Because for now I'm just not able to take you seriously. Get your hands dirty... do some research on the various religious points of view, entertain the possibility that there might be some sophisticated, scholarly, subtle versions of religion out there... then come back and talk. There are interesting discussions to be had about this topic. ...But you're for sure not having them.

[Singularity]

ben, on 2-Jul 2009, 07:03 PM, said:

Singularity, on 30-Jun 2009, 02:18 AM, said:

Uh, ok, it sounds like you are saying God's word was influenced by Man's state of mind.

Well, of course. Doesn't everybody know that?

Listen, you post a lot about the ignorance of religious people here. It's frustrating because I feel that a lot of the time you're actually demonstrating pretty significant ignorance yourself in doing so. The fact that you would post something like the above as though it were in any way surprising indicates that your limited knowledge of religion extends only so far as to banal fundamentalism. Non fundamentalists have been making the very point you just made for centuries! This is a problem that plagues much of 'internet atheism', and it muddies the waters and makes intelligent conversation near impossible (yes, I know, so does a lot of what the internet Christians have to say)... If you're really interested in discussing religion and see it as a danger to the world, educate yourself about it. Because for now I'm just not able to take you seriously. Get your hands dirty... do some research on the various religious points of view, entertain the possibility that there might be some sophisticated, scholarly, subtle versions of religion out there... then come back and talk. There are interesting discussions to be had about this topic. ...But you're for sure not having them.

Nice tirade and illusion ben.  Deduct two points from you for making assumptions:  1.) I can read your mind and know the details of your belief system.  I was just asking!.. with a bit of sarcasm thrown in to spice it up (sure did! ahaha).  2.) I am ignorant of the mystical: I am not.

Thanks, once again, for not answering a simple question.  Are you, by chance, wiccan?

Edited by Singularity, 03 July 2009 - 08:03 PM.

[Ben Simon]

Singularity, on 3-Jul 2009, 02:56 PM, said:

Nice tirade and illusion ben.  Deduct two points from you for making assumptions:  1.) I can read your mind and know the details of your belief system.  I was just asking!.. with a bit of sarcasm thrown in to spice it up (sure did! ahaha).  2.) I am ignorant of the mystical: I am not.

Thanks, once again, for not answering a simple question.  Are you, by chance, wiccan?

Yes, clearly it is I who is guilty of making assumptions. For one thing I've said nothing about my belief system. Every time someone disagrees with you you assume it's because they are religious. ...Why? I don't need to be religious to observe that your observations about religion are juvenile.

And no, I am not Wiccan. What gave you that idea? I can only imagine.

Also, who said anything about mysticism? ...Not me. I said you are ignorant of religion, which encompasses diversity. Some of it is mystical, some of it isn't. That was my point, or part of it.

Edited by ben, 03 July 2009 - 10:44 PM.

[kismet]

ben, on 3-Jul 2009, 06:40 PM, said:

Also, who said anything about mysticism? ...Not me. I said you are ignorant of religion, which encompasses diversity. Some of it is mystical, some of it isn't. That was my point, or part of it.

Don't forget you don't need to know all religions to argue against them. They're all based on similar principles. We should not be fooled by the Courtier's reply. If I get to it I will rephrase 100years' argument in a more novel, simpler and less offenisve way (as he may have meant to put it that way anyway) as it's more fun to argue against a hypothesis that has some novelity and hasn't been rebutted a million times.  

[100YearsToGo]

Hi there Kismet,

First my apologies if I offended you with my post. It was not meant that way.

I'm thinking in an abstract way and in no way was it meant as an attack on atheists. I could be attacking myself as I consider myself an agnostic.

You said that an Atheist society would breakdown (morally) in smaller groups each with its own set of morals. How small would these groups get? Could they be as small as one person?  Would this not be the same as a society without morals or justice?  How would you implement a court of law and subsequently law enforcement in such  a fractionalized society?

And why does it offend you if I say an atheist that think things through will end with up with no morals? Why is having morals important? Why don't you want to be associated with people with no morals? Remember.  If there is no good and evil there is no good and evil. So saying an atheist would have no morals is just a neutral statement just like all other statements in an atheist society. Or are you perhaps afraid that the Christians will get you?

[rhodeder]

I don't have any problem being ethical as a atheist and all i hope for is a end to philosophical quarrels someday brought on by religion especially toward science and research. This whole thing reminds me too much of the crazy Christians who were making this billboard.
http://www.bravenewt...eism-to-murder/

[bran319]

kismet, on Jul 3 2009, 12:15 AM, said:

No, it was more of disappointment and amazement.   I get your point that the church does some good with the money, but they're incredibly inefficient (at least in Austria; 70% of our "church tax" is used for administration/maintining churches) and they don't need a god to be good or to make good use of funds.


Troll somewhere else. Thank you. Now let's try to get back on topic.

EDIT:@comment below
I'm not going to respond to your offtopic/trolling anymore; I merely reminded you to stop several times, because offtopic posts are indeed very irritating. Now, please, let it go.

Settle down there sparky. If you don't like having observations about your posts made, then just don't post them. It's that simple.  

[cyborgdreamer]

Plenty of atheists, including myself, care deeply about morality.  We avoid hurting others, not because we fear punishment, but because we believe that people shouldn't have to suffer.

Secular Humanism

[Esoparagon]

It doesn't matter what the concsequences of truth are.

Appeal to consequence is a logical fallacy.

Also morality is not governed. It's much more interesting than that. I'd hope that people didn't kill people because it'd make them feel terrible and they would never want to harm anyone (as they don't want be harmed themselves), not because they think they might get in trouble or burn in hell.

Edited by Esoparagon, 06 July 2009 - 10:35 AM.

[100YearsToGo]

Esoparagon, on Jul 6 2009, 06:32 AM, said:

It doesn't matter what the concsequences of truth are.

Appeal to consequence is a logical fallacy.

Also morality is not governed. It's much more interesting than that. I'd hope that people didn't kill people because it'd make them feel terrible and they would never want to harm anyone (as they don't want be harmed themselves), not because they think they might get in trouble or burn in hell.

I'm not appealing to consequence. Have you read the whole thread? Trying to be logical you contradict yourself. You said people don't want to harm anyone, as they don't want to be harmed themselves. So they are afraid of being harmed if they harm others and adapt their conduct accordingly.

Ok I'll be fair. Maybe you are talking about some inbuilt capability of empathy that people have which is not mediated by external factors. In fact most of the atheist that say they are moral beings make an appeal on this inbuilt empathy capability. In my opinion a very weak argument.  There is plenty of proof out there that we are not capable of feeling empathy that is not mediated by exernal factors. Proof of this is that we are able to kill (innocent) people that are outside our group without feeling remorse. However when it is in our group we feel remorse. Why? because it is mediated by social factors (you are a bad boy, we don't like you anymore).

So far Kismet has been the only one that pictured for us what a pure atheist society would look like.The fear of harm could work if the atheist society were not morally fractionalized. But if it is then there would not be a large enough support for any one set of laws. As most of you know the set of laws needed for a society to function is vast and complex.

Some atheist stated they are deeply ethical. I believe them. But is it not because they are embedded in a non atheistsociety? They like everyone else need social acceptance and need to to respect local customs. What would happen in a pure atheist society? I proposed it would break down.

Edited by 100YearsToGo, 06 July 2009 - 02:26 PM.

[Esoparagon]

100YearsToGo, on Jul 6 2009, 09:37 AM, said:

I'm not appealing to consequence. Have you read the whole thread? Trying to be logical you contradict yourself. You said people don't want to harm anyone, as they don't want to be harmed themselves. So they are afraid of being harmed if they harm others and adapt their conduct accordingly.

Ok I'll be fair. Maybe you are talking about some inbuilt capability of empathy that people have which is not mediated by external factors. In fact most of the atheist that say they are moral beings make an appeal on this inbuilt empathy capability. In my opinion a very weak argument.  There is plenty of proof out there that we are not capable of feeling empathy that is not mediated by exernal factors. Proof of this is that we are able to kill (innocent) people that are outside our group without feeling remorse. However when it is in our group we feel remorse. Why? because it is mediated by social factors (you are a bad boy, we don't like you anymore).

So far Kismet has been the only one that pictured for us what a pure atheist society would look like.The fear of harm could work if the atheist society were not morally fractionalized. But if it is then there would not be a large enough support for any one set of laws. As most of you know the set of laws needed for a society to function is vast and complex.

Some atheist stated they are deeply ethical. I believe them. But is it not because they are embedded in a non atheistsociety? They like everyone else need social acceptance and need to to respect local customs. What would happen in a pure atheist society? I proposed it would break down.

"In classical logic, a contradiction consists of a logical incompatibility between two or more propositions." - What were my two propositions that were logically incompatible?

"Proof of this is that we are able to kill (innocent) people that are outside our group without feeling remorse. However when it is in our group we feel remorse. Why? because it is mediated by social factors (you are a bad boy, we don't like you anymore)."

Exactly, I agree 100% that SOME people can kill people outside of their group with no remorse. Those people have been programmed that way socially. They are programmed that way because it helps the group survive and therefore themselves too. But even with this social programming, it is not always the case that people can kill the enemy without hesitation. In previous wars, it was found that soldiers had a very strong aversion to killing people. They found many soldiers rifles backed to the top with gun powder and bullets. They were trying to look busy. It seems that most people have this aversion and modern armies make a point of programming a conditioned response into soldiers. "Human silhouette equals shoot". That way they don't have time to consider the action. But even then, people can feel terrible and suffer mental trauma from having killed someone; yes even the enemy. This strong aversion took roots in our evolution. It is not an evolutionary advantage to kill any one of your own species. If everyone did that the species would die out. Any species or group that arose that did kill each other would not survive long and they would thus be spat out of the gene pool. So I'd say that there is an in-built sense of preservation of the species.

So what does this all mean? It means, to me, that there is no morality. Morality is what we make it. To me, morality is doing the least physical/mental harm possible to other people. That's it. To help everyone prosper and feel safe and live our lives. If I know no one else is going to kill me in return for me not killing them, I'm happy with that! My life is the most important thing.

Well if you are saying: God must exist because if he does not humanity will fall. Then that is an appeal to consequence.

I'll assume - given your objection- that you weren't saying that.

Now.

"But unstoppably it creeps upon him that he can now do as he pleases."

No, not really. In fact, not at all. Not if he wants to continue living in a peaceful society himself. Not if he isn't insane. I would say that only most twisted, maladjusted psychopaths feel nothing for other people. If everyone did as they pleased there would be chaos and no one would be safe. At that point people would get fed up and agree that if they are to live together they must all agree to not hurt each other. That's my morality right there. There is nothing specially divine about it to me.

Now.

If I was able to kill anyone without remorse or any humane feeling and I didn't care about my own life or others then, yes, I could kill people as I pleased for personal gain and there would be no other consequence than going to jail if I get caught. (But then so what? I thought everyone knew that.) But since the majority of the population do care about their own lives and the lives of others, the point where EVERYONE is killing everyone couldn't arise. Thus the death of men does not occur. You can have morality without god. I might prefer to call it something else because of the mystical aura that's been placed on the word 'morality'. It's the societal contract to better everyone's lives by not harming anyone as much as possible so that we can all prosper and live happy long healthy lives and continue to advance our species. People who break this contract ruin it for everyone who lives and will live including themselves.

So that's why an atheist society would not break down. There'd be law and order. There'd be a type of morality.

Anyway, your entire argument is moot because there are lots of majority Atheist countries that are thriving. There's Sweden, Vietnam, and so on. You may argue they aren't 100% but then your social acceptance argument is moot too.

Also, "the Pirahã have no concept of God or religion. They believe in spirits. These "spirits" can be jaguars, trees, or other visible, tangible things.The closest they have is everything has an 'essence'."

http://en.wikipedia....i/Pirahã_people

360 people living as non-believers in God or religion - what I would call soft Atheists - and they are not killing each other off.

Edited by Esoparagon, 06 July 2009 - 03:36 PM.

[bacopa]

Quote

Some atheist stated they are deeply ethical. I believe them. But is it not because they are embedded in a non atheistsociety? They like everyone else need social acceptance and need to to respect local customs. What would happen in a pure atheist society? I proposed it would break down.

I disagree.  I think morals and ethics can come about through just doing some introspection and good critical thinking.  Many transhumanists adopt a high moral standard because they see the importance in bettering and helping the human condition.  That's the case with me.  I simply realized one day how fragile and vulnerable we all are and wanted to simply do the right thing on all fronts.  Through conscious or unconscious reasoning I figured if I really want to help people than shouldn't I just be a good person and hold myself to a higher moral standard?  This included becoming a nicer person as well as a more respectful person to all walks of life.  For instance I started to notice all the discrimination against race, mental capability, the elderly etc. and wanted to help those suffering in some way possible, and one of these ways was just becoming a better person myself.  Perhaps you will make an argument that this is stemming from some kind of societal force but I just don't see it.  Of course my parents were and still are, well my dad is still alive, ethical so this was one force that did act on me.

Edited by dfowler, 06 July 2009 - 05:11 PM.

[Esoparagon]

dfowler, on Jul 6 2009, 12:10 PM, said:

I disagree.  I think morals and ethics can come about through just doing some introspection and good critical thinking.  Many transhumanists adopt a high moral standard because they see the importance in bettering and helping the human condition.  That's the case with me.  I simply realized one day how fragile and vulnerable we all are and wanted to simply do the right thing on all fronts.  Through conscious or unconscious reasoning I figured if I really want to help people than shouldn't I just be a good person and hold myself to a higher moral standard?  This included becoming a nicer person as well as a more respectful person to all walks of life.  For instance I started to notice all the discrimination against race, mental capability, the elderly etc. and wanted to help those suffering in some way possible, and one of these ways was just becoming a better person myself.  Perhaps you will make an argument that this is stemming from some kind of societal force but I just don't see it.  Of course my parents were and still are, well my dad is still alive, ethical so this was one force that did act on me.

That's exactly what I was getting at. Being moral is logical.

[trevinski]

This is a topic that is invariably doomed to come up as long as people have beliefs that can't logically be proven either way. I think God can be interpreted many ways. I interpret God as the life force or perhaps a symbolic figure which represents the harmony and universal laws in the world. It satisfies my imaginary and rational side.

I think people need intellect, self-analysis and an awareness of what is needed in the present. There are many things which people still follow today which were inspired in my opinion as a response to control a specific situation occurring at that time in the past, whether these ideas even restored order then is debatable. Some of the things I have read that are attributed to the Gods sound like something any governing body,i.e., king or dictator at that point would say to control someone, and since some of the rulers were perceived as being corrupt then what better way to influence a body of people than having an omnibenevolent being backing your thoughts. . .

There are many things which still have credence, for instance, many of the teachings of the new testament, and if these things steer certain people to making better decisions in their life that they otherwise would be incapable of making, then yes the God of religion has its place. But I am all about the increase of Sanity in our society, which means being mindful in the present. I don't think it is particularly sane to be worked up by every moral error(according to religions) especially if the text which decides the morality is far outdated. I am quite certain if it came down to it, if God was perfectly rational, he would excuse me for using my reflection of his rationality to follow what I perceive as truth with a lot of confusing options, with some of the options that were historically supposed to lead more to him creating lots of violence in the world.

[Ben Simon]

cyborgdreamer, on Jul 5 2009, 11:21 PM, said:

Plenty of atheists, including myself, care deeply about morality.  We avoid hurting others, not because we fear punishment, but because we believe that people shouldn't have to suffer.

Secular Humanism

The conflict does not arise due to any religious perspective that one should act justly so as to avoid punishment - and I would question whether that is a religious point of view at all. The conflict arises because the religious perspective (or one of them anyway) is that there are objective moral truths derived of God. But atheism, rationalism and materialism would seem to denote that no such truths exist. And yet, often you'll find people wanting to have their cake and eat it too.
You yourself are using the language of objective moral truths when you say people "shouldn't have to suffer". But how do 'should' or 'should not' even enter into it in a wholly material universe? Should and should not are make believe concepts if there is no objective morality. And if there IS objective morality then it must be derived of something.

Also, you appear to be saying morality is about the avoidance of suffering? 'To do harm is to do wrong'. How would that work exactly? I mean I tend to see that as part of the picture... but surely there's more to it right?

Edited by ben, 08 July 2009 - 05:03 AM.