|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: What do atheists think of death? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Recon3rd Member (Idle past 5842 days) Posts: 35 Joined: |
True Believer writes: There's really nothing wrong with cannibalism as long as you don't kill other people for it. Sure, it's disgusting, but trust me on this when I say in desperate situation you will do what it takes to survive. By the way, when I mentioned eating other people, I wasn't talking about desperate situation. I was referring to the movie 'Ravenous'. Trust me on this you could eat a whole lot of more disgusting things than a human heart or what ever piece you'd prefer. When it comes to surviving man will do anything trying to. peace
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Recon3rd Member (Idle past 5842 days) Posts: 35 Joined: |
Larni writes: It looks to me like the special quality you are alluding to is the theory of mind. We recognise it in our self and others and conlude that this is important enough to preclude killing. I'm not eluding to it I was responding to another post. You may look at it that way I surely don't. By not killing another human just because another human says it's wrong doesn't cut it for me. Some humans need to be killed but all humans aren't capable of doing the killing so they whine about it while deep down their greatful for us who will do it for them.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member (Idle past 164 days) Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
Retcon3rd writes: By not killing another human just because another human says it's wrong doesn't cut it for me. That's not what I'm saying: I'm saying that a reason people have for not wanting to kill other people is partially hardwired into our brain.
Retcon3rd writes: Some humans need to be killed but all humans aren't capable of doing the killing so they whine about it while deep down their greatful for us who will do it for them. I agree some people do need killing and I have no issue with this. However the whiners should not be dismissed as being deep down greatfull. I used to belive it was true when I was younger but when I met more and more people who I would happilly describe as whiners I had to conlude that they genuinley do see killing (or infact any violence) as abhorent. To keep this on topic I don't believe atheist have much to say about death. It seems xians and other spupernatural beleivers spend a lot more time thinking about not being alive.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Recon3rd Member (Idle past 5842 days) Posts: 35 Joined: |
Larni writes:
I agree some people do need killing and I have no issue with this. However the whiners should not be dismissed as being deep down greatfull. I used to belive it was true when I was younger but when I met more and more people who I would happilly describe as whiners I had to conlude that they genuinley do see killing (or infact any violence) as abhorent. You mean like the violence and killing to help England during WWII, I guess they would rather of had Hitler have his way rather than stand up and fight. How bout the Japanese I guess we should have let them do as they planed. I think deep down they were great full that some of us stood up. Unless they would have preferred the Nisshki over old glory.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
So because of your beliefs that there is no god leads you to believe being a human is not a virtue. I may or may not believe that being a human is a "virtue", whatever that means, but I wouldn't say that my belief in no god led me there. I suggest that if you're interested in my opinions and how I arrived at them, then you should ask me directly -- this "guessing the other person's mind" business gets tedious. -
Our "special quality" comes from an accident of birth? You're going to have to do a better job reading my posts. If you will reread the post to which you're replying, this statement was associated with one possible "special quality" that could be associated with the prohibition against killing namely being born into the same species. Taking it out of that context renders it meaningless. You asked what is that special quality that humans have that would make killing them wrong, and where did that special quality come from. I replied that different people would have different opinions on this. The statement to which you replied was associated with one possibility. -
You don't think this "special quality" matters where it comes from, only the reasoning of a person. Then there, at least from your point of view, isn't a moral standard. Sure it is. Moral standards are about right and wrong. If a person has opinions about right and wrong, then that is a moral standard by definition. It doesn't matter how that person got to her opinions, or the reasoning process that is used -- if it concerns judgments about right and wrong, then it is a moral standard. Now in this instance, I thought we were attempting to evaluate peoples' moral standards, especially in regards to its consistency. You seemed to me to be saying that you felt that the evolutionists morals were inconsistent, at least in regards it the question of whether killing other people is right or wrong. To do this, we only need to examine the premises and logical development of the framework -- we don't need to bring in any extra facts unless there is something in that person's beliefs that is contradicted by factual information from the real world. There is a tragic flaw in our precious Constitution, and I don't know what can be done to fix it. This is it: Only nut cases want to be president. -- Kurt Vonnegut
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member (Idle past 164 days) Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
I would think it is very safe to say that they were greatful that they did not have to kill.
I would imagine that the act of killing would have a predicted catastophic psychological effect on this type of person: although untill ones does kill someone else I guess it is difficult to predict how one would react. But thats not really to the point of the OP. I guess one could argue that if you were religious you could have the attitiude of 'kill 'em all and let god decide' and so sleep soundly knowing that god will sort the good form the bad. But then you don't need to be religious to happilly want people dead for certain crimes but I would argue the athiest may be more worried about a false positive than a xian who can really on their god to sort out any mistakes in heaven or where ever it is falsly executed people go.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Agobot Member (Idle past 5530 days) Posts: 786 Joined: |
Why is death, and the alleged afterlife, so extensively discussed and birth is so hastily omitted? If, as religious people claim, we have been born by the will of god on a certain date, then the consequent ever-lasting spiritual life becomes a paradox. On one side of the equation we have a definite beginning(birthday) and on the other eternity(whatever eternity means to religious people). I know we are not supposed to seek logic in religion, but the author of the thread is presumably a believer, so maybe he/she can try to solve the paradox.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
Let me sort of recap what we are saying.
I first responded to you when you made the claim that "evolutionist ethics" were inconsistent since, as you put it, everything was related and therefore it should be immoral to kill anything. I want to repeat that there is no reason to use "relatedness" as a criterion to decide whom it is acceptable to kill and whom it is not. It is just as arbitrary a criterion as anything else one can choose. Now some people may use degree of relatedness in deciding whom it is acceptable to kill and whom it is not. For example, tribal feuds can be based on this principle. Some people choose to use the species Homo sapiens as the limit -- it is unacceptable to kill anyone in our species, but alright to kill anything of a different species. Others will push the limit to include the higher primates -- these people, for example, are against the use of chimpanzees in medical research but don't have a problem with using rats, largely because chimpanzees are closer kin to humans than rats are. Of course, it's pretty arbitrary where one sets the demarcation. On the other hand, the very choice of criteria to choose whom one can kill with impunity and whom it is not is arbitrary to begin with. There is a tragic flaw in our precious Constitution, and I don't know what can be done to fix it. This is it: Only nut cases want to be president. -- Kurt Vonnegut
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Grizz Member (Idle past 5471 days) Posts: 318 Joined: |
Why is death, and the alleged afterlife, so extensively discussed and birth is so hastily omitted? In short, the answer is because nobody is anxious over the fact that they were born.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Recon3rd Member (Idle past 5842 days) Posts: 35 Joined: |
Chirotera writes: Let me sort of recap what we are saying. I first responded to you when you made the claim that "evolutionist ethics" were inconsistent since, as you put it, everything was related and therefore it should be immoral to kill anything. I was asking Evolutionists or anyone for that matter if they don't believe in Creationism how do they put a value on different forms of life since they say all life can be traced back to the mud bug.
Chirotera writes: I want to repeat that there is no reason to use "relatedness" as a criterion to decide whom it is acceptable to kill and whom it is not. It is just as arbitrary a criterion as anything else one can choose. If all life stemmed from the same organism how can some life forms be of more importance than another? If I can kill an ant why can't I kill you? Whats the difference?
Chirotera writes:
Now some people may use degree of relatedness in deciding whom it is acceptable to kill and whom it is not. For example, tribal feuds can be based on this principle. Some people choose to use the species Homo sapiens as the limit -- it is unacceptable to kill anyone in our species, but alright to kill anything of a different species. Others will push the limit to include the higher primates -- these people, for example, are against the use of chimpanzees in medical research but don't have a problem with using rats, largely because chimpanzees are closer kin to humans than rats are. Of course people all have their own opinions, I'm not asking everyone I'm asking Atheists and Evolutionists.
Chirotera writes: Of course, it's pretty arbitrary where one sets the demarcation. On the other hand, the very choice of criteria to choose whom one can kill with impunity and whom it is not is arbitrary to begin with. To me killing a man isn't difficult at all, not just any random man but an evil one, just kill him he's of no use and a danger. Killing an animal for food isn't difficult either, killing an animal for sport is just pointless to me. Do you think it's in mans nature to kill other men for reasons other than self preservation?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Recon3rd Member (Idle past 5842 days) Posts: 35 Joined: |
Larni writes: I would think it is very safe to say that they were greatful that they did not have to kill. But they did allow and were on board with those who stood up. They may have been greatfull that they didn't have to actually pull the trigger or thrust a bayonet but they were greatfull to those who did.
Larni writes: I would imagine that the act of killing would have a predicted catastophic psychological effect on this type of person: although untill ones does kill someone else I guess it is difficult to predict how one would react. I suppose if your completely against killing another human and you did, it could have some adverse effects on you. So could having to live under the rule of a nut job.
Larni writes: But thats not really to the point of the OP. I guess one could argue that if you were religious you could have the attitiude of 'kill 'em all and let god decide' and so sleep soundly knowing that god will sort the good form the bad. I'm not 'religious' but I do think that evil, sick, depraved men should be killed. They serve no purpose other than to raise hell.
Larni writes: But then you don't need to be religious to happilly want people dead for certain crimes but I would argue the athiest may be more worried about a false positive than a xian who can really on their god to sort out any mistakes in heaven or where ever it is falsly executed people go. If I kill a sworn enemy of the USA who wouldn't think twice about killing any Americans so be it. They chose that course of life and it comes with the territory. SSD-Recon
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
I was asking Evolutionists or anyone for that matter...how do they put a value on different forms of life.... This is a fair question. All you have to do is ask. The problem is that you add:
...if they don't believe in Creationism... since they say all life can be traced back to the mud bug. You phrase the question in a way that is difficult to answer. You attempt to link together different things that have nothing to do with one another. All I'm just trying to get you to understand that. If you just ask a specific person, "Why do you think it's wrong to kill another person but all right to kill an ant," then that question can be answered. But when you continue to ask, "Why is it wrong to kill some things and not other things when we are all related," then we are going to continue to go round and round on this. -
Of course people all have their own opinions, I'm not asking everyone I'm asking Atheists and Evolutionists. Different atheists and different evolutionists are going to have their own opinions. If you would ask, "why do you think it's wrong to kill another human being," then that question can be answered. But if you continue to ask such a broad question like, "why do atheists think it's wrong to kill other human beings," then we are going to continue round and round. -
Of course, it's pretty arbitrary where one sets the demarcation. On the other hand, the very choice of criteria to choose whom one can kill with impunity and whom it is not is arbitrary to begin with.
Do you think it's in mans nature to kill other men for reasons other than self preservation? Your question doesn't seem related to the quote. Can you elaborate? Edited by Chiroptera, : made analogy more apt There is a tragic flaw in our precious Constitution, and I don't know what can be done to fix it. This is it: Only nut cases want to be president. -- Kurt Vonnegut
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
I was asking Evolutionists or anyone for that matter if they don't believe in Creationism how do they put a value on different forms of life since they say all life can be traced back to the mud bug. Self interest. I like to live in a society where humans don't get killed because I am a human. Therefore I will endevour to reduce the number of needless human deaths as it is in my power to do to minimize the chances that I will needlessly be killed. Likewise, I kind of like dogs - so I will try and avoid having them killed needlessly. It makes me feel good when a dog's life is allowed to be happy and bouncy and it makes me feel bad when a dog suffers. Ants, on the hand don't do that for me. The principle reason is probably primal - they don't trigger in any paternal instincts in me because they are so unlike me, they don't posess 'cute' characteristics (round eyes, quizical look, rakish ears etc). Intellectually, I know they have minimal brains so I know that apart from simple appearances 'suffering' for an ant is surely more limited and abstract than in the case of another mammal. I am imbued with empathy. I am blessed with the ability to anthropomorphize animals which means I am inclined to understand or feel their needs. An excellent trait for an tracker/hunter as well as an agricultural primate. I am cursed with the ability to dehumanize other humans making it easier to justify killing them. In short - I have a fluid in group/out group boundary that can include animals and exclude some other humans all dependant on what I feel is part of belonging to my people. These boundaries don't always pattern themselves around logical consistency, and fortunately the atheist is free from having to resolve tensions between their actual feelings and beliefs and an absolutist objective framework.
Do you think it's in mans nature to kill other men for reasons other than self preservation? There are some hunter/gatherer societies where there is a strong correlation between the men killing rival tribesmen and their fecundity. There are some interesting topics on the subject of male-bonded coalitionary violence, some of it is quite in depth. In short - yes killing others for reasons above and beyond self-defence is almost certainly a significant part of the human psyche. Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024