|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: What do atheists think of death? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4212 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
In that case, how do you define "I" in a way that is not satisfied by your electrochemical clone? Remember, we're assuming nothing supernatural for the sake of this argument. I was using "I" as an example, I could simply have used it collectively stating any living organism. There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Recon3rd Member (Idle past 5865 days) Posts: 35 Joined: |
t4c-
I said; To many, killing an animal for sport is ok. I have no problem with it. I just don't see the point.
Many Christians I know usually complain that other people just don't stand up to their moral standards. Here is an example where a Christian's moral standard is considered lacking by the evil atheist side. Are you saying I'm a Christian, because I've never said I was. I don't hold that sign over my head.
Because I was a child. I was incapable of telling the difference between right and wrong. Unless you are suggesting that this child-like mentality stays with us throughout our lives, I see no point in having a vengeful God watching over our shoulders to keep us in line. If you're talking about distinguishing right from wrong as a child-like mentality, then yes it does stay with us through out our lives. If it didn't why do we, the USA has more (2 mil +) incarcerated people than any other country?
I never claimed to know. However, I do get the impression from your subtle implications that you believe morals come from belief in God. Unfortunately for you, history disagrees with you on this. No, I don't think morals come from belief in a god or god. All history shows is mans lack of morality. I said: A believer in what?
A believer in what Christ symbolizes. A believer in beyond faith belief in Christ. What does Christ symbolize to you? The believer part I don't understand what you're trying to convey. Could you expand just a bit/ peace
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Recon3rd Member (Idle past 5865 days) Posts: 35 Joined: |
If all life is related then why would it be ok to kill one form over another form?
I don't understand the connection. Just because all life is related, why would that mean it isn't ok to kill one form over another form? Why does being related preclude that? If all life is related or connected because of the same organism you can't see the connection? You have a cousin, he's related to you is it ok to kill him like you would a bug? My point is what makes human life more valuable than other life forms. peace
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
You have a cousin, he's related to you is it ok to kill him like you would a bug? I don't think that being my cousin has anything to do with whether or not it's okay to kill him. -
My point is what makes human life more valuable than other life forms. Well, I think that most people would agree that there is nothing special about being human per se. I suspect that most people feel that humans happen to have a special quality that makes killing them wrong, as opposed to killing other species. Some people might thing that quality is being created in God's image. Others might, as you suggest, feel that being of the same species as they are makes it wrong to kill them. I suspect that most people haven't really thought about it. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Recon3rd Member (Idle past 5865 days) Posts: 35 Joined: |
My point is what makes human life more valuable than other life forms.
Well, I think that most people would agree that there is nothing special about being human per se. I suspect that most people feel that humans happen to have a special quality that makes killing them wrong, as opposed to killing other species. Some people might thing that quality is being created in God's image. Others might, as you suggest, feel that being of the same species as they are makes it wrong to kill them. I suspect that most people haven't really thought about it. What would this "special quality" be that makes killing humans wrong? Also where did we get this quality from? peace
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
What would this "special quality" be that makes killing humans wrong? Different people seem to answer the question differently. Some people claim that people are created in God's image. Others would say that what makes people "special" (at least in the sense that they think killing them is wrong) is that they belong to the same species. Other people might very well have different ideas. In fact, some people have traditionally felt that humanness isn't all that important -- it was perfectly acceptable for them to kill others of different tribes or ethnicities, only taking into account the possibility of retaliation. -
Also where did we get this quality from? Well, in the case of being made in "God's image", I don't believe that there is a god, nor that this god created anything, so the "quality" is a fictitious one. Unless it is being used metaphorically, in which case it would depend on what "God's image" means. In the case of being in the same species, the quality "comes from" an accident of birth, like the quality of you and your cousin being in the same family. Personally, I don't think it matters much where the quality "comes from". What matters is the reasoning why that person makes the distinctions that she does. Maybe her reasoning does consider "where the qualities come from," but in most cases I suspect it doesn't. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8536 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.0 |
If you are the same at the time of death then that is true. If you are the same at some point before the death of one, then it does not follow that the other dies as well. Sorry, fgarb, but there are only the two possibilities. If we have exactly the same experiences throughout life, when A gets hit by a truck then B is in the same place at the same time in his reality and gets hit by the doppleganger of the truck. If there are any differences in experience, even to the smallest degree, then A and B are separate indiviuals living separate lives and the death of one has no effect upon the other, thus the dead one in no way can be said to still be living "through" the other. In either case, I will be just as dead. The doppleganger, whether exact or not, has no saving grace between me and death and does not exist from my perspective.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
fgarb Member (Idle past 5413 days) Posts: 98 From: Naperville, IL Joined: |
bluescat48 writes:
fgarb writes:
bluescat48 writes:
I will no longer exist, but the $2.89 worth of Hygrogen, Oxygen, Nitrogen, carbon etc. will. And will be recycled into whatever it will. But as for me, whatever it is that separates me from the mineral world will cease, at death. In that case, how do you define "I" in a way that is not satisfied by your electrochemical clone? Remember, we're assuming nothing supernatural for the sake of this argument. I was using "I" as an example, I could simply have used it collectively stating any living organism. Say it how you will. Whatever entity you are referring to, my point is that an electromagnetic clone of the entity is the entity ... by any reasonable non-supernatural definition you can come up with. It is no more a lifeless mix of chemicals than was the original entity. Maybe we're just arguing semantics here.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
fgarb Member (Idle past 5413 days) Posts: 98 From: Naperville, IL Joined: |
AZPaul3 writes: Sorry, fgarb, but there are only the two possibilities. If we have exactly the same experiences throughout life, when A gets hit by a truck then B is in the same place at the same time in his reality and gets hit by the doppleganger of the truck. I am using a non-supernatural definition of "experiences" here. That is, the sum of Joe's life experiences are just what he thinks they are according to his body's electrochemical properties, which will exist in an identical form elsewhere in the universe if the assumptions I have stated previously are true. There is no need for two people to exist in the same place or time to have the same "experiences". There is also no need for their surroundings to be the same. According to my arguments, there may very well be a Joe B existing elsewhere in the universe who is not about to be squished. If you disagree with the science of the arguments then please tell me what you think is wrong with them. Or if you don't understand them then please speak up and I will try again to explain. Edited by fgarb, : switching electromagnetic to electrochemical for correctness
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3314 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
It's something to be avoided at all cost, and I don't care if I have to start eating people...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18312 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
Why is survival so important to you? If I were in the "Donner" party or in any other extreme survival situation, I say now that I would never eat anyone. I consider our survival equally important. If we were in a rowboat, however, and I concluded that I was in better survival shape than they were, I may throw them overboard.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
reiverix Member (Idle past 5841 days) Posts: 80 From: Central Ohio Joined: |
I say now that I would never eat anyone
I'm not so sure you can say that with 100% certainty. People do desperate things when their life is on the line.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3314 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
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'.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Recon3rd Member (Idle past 5865 days) Posts: 35 Joined: |
recon3rd writes: What would this "special quality" be that makes killing humans wrong? Chiroptera writes: Different people seem to answer the question differently. Some people claim that people are created in God's image. Others would say that what makes people "special" (at least in the sense that they think killing them is wrong) is that they belong to the same species. Other people might very well have different ideas. In fact, some people have traditionally felt that humanness isn't all that important -- it was perfectly acceptable for them to kill others of different tribes or ethnicities, only taking into account the possibility of retaliation. As with most questions different people answer differently. In Creationism I can understand why people would think human life more valuable. Some say killing a human is wrong because they are human also that makes no sense, to me at least. Some people feel being human doesn't matter and it's ok to kill other humans only if there's no possibility of retaliation. One only has to look at the Palestinians and Israel's war to see retaliation isn't a factor.
recon3rd writes: Also where did we get this quality from? Chiroptera writes: Well, in the case of being made in "God's image", I don't believe that there is a god, nor that this god created anything, so the "quality" is a fictitious one. Unless it is being used metaphorically, in which case it would depend on what "God's image" means. In the case of being in the same species, the quality "comes from" an accident of birth, like the quality of you and your cousin being in the same family. Personally, I don't think it matters much where the quality "comes from". What matters is the reasoning why that person makes the distinctions that she does. Maybe her reasoning does consider "where the qualities come from," but in most cases I suspect it doesn't. OK, you don't believe in god so I have to assume you're an Atheist and I suppose an Evolutionist. So because of your beliefs that there is no god leads you to believe being a human is not a virtue. Unless the image of god is being used as a metaphor, in which case your basis for belief depends on your perception of what "God's image" means........scratching head...... Our "special quality" comes from an accident of birth? 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. peace
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024