By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - Atheism and morality

richardhutnik on 22 September 2010
dib8rman said:
richardhutnik said:
dib8rman said:

Universal Human Rights is content for secular conversation.

So, exactly what universal see of agreed to values is going to be selected in order to be able to determine what these rights are?  Do you want to value life as one of them?  If so, then do you want to agree when life begins so that matters?  And as far as "viable" goes, exactly what new born can fend for itself?  Anyhow, if you go down this path, then that means abortion is wrong, because it terminates a human (or potential human).

And who says that "rights" is the correct framework for formulation a system of ethics?

Wow I said that much?

What path? The one your on is thin as ice, probably because it is thin ice.

Religion is an integral part in most current societies ways of percieving their values, yet conversation of Universal Human Rights can only happen in a secular circle. In fact most advances and I mean real advances such as womens sufferage has gone against the buck hence why it met with so much resistance. This is of course if religion is such an integral part of society. That established values would now have to be percieved differently falls on the shoulders at least in part to religions established perception and all frictions incurred therein.

/gg

Again, Universal Human Rights is content for secular conversation. :)

To be fair though in the Koran a woman is seen as an equal to god and all his creations that are done in his image; that sounds nice doesn't it?

It's also established that a husband is a womans gateway to god, heaven and hell. =D Yay for clarity!

Well, I wrote what I wrote to state it is folly to try to come up with something called "Universal Human Rights", and then use it as a foundation of an ethics system.  The reasons I mention state why.  I can also go on how anti-theist Christopher Hitchens is a neo-con and wants perpertual war for perpertual peace, to spread secularism.  I run into other secularists who would be appauled by this.  So, exactly who is going to come up with what these standards are?  

I would also ask, in a an ethics system based around rights (insuring people with rights get what they have rights to), where does the moral call to do charity come in?  Charity is a call to have someone give to another, while rights is demands one group makes on another to have that other give them something.



Around the Network
AOvechkin08 on 22 September 2010

I do think some of them have morals but I have met A LOT of Athiests and all of those ones have just been such egotistic and feeling like they are superior to everyone else and that they can never be wrong about anything and can't grasp the concept that even they can fail. Though this is just the ones I have met i'm sure there are some great atheist's out there, and I mean absolutly no offense to anyone who is an Athiest.



sapphi_snake on 22 September 2010

@richardhutnik:

I gotten perfect scores on exams and tests from time to time.  That is a perfect score.

So have I. There are objective ways you can measure that (for example if all the answers are correct than you get a perfect score). But give me an example of a movie which is perfect. Or a book which is perfect. Or a political system which is perfect. Or of course an ethical/moral system which is perfect (one which cannot be viewed as flawed no matter what social changes or scientific discoveries may occur).

As far as the ethic system goes for Christians, it is "love".

Basing an entire ethics system on a feeling? Yeah... great ideea...

And a perfect ethics system is far less important that people who do the ethics.

Nope, I'd say it's THE most important (if people enforce a bad ethical system, they're not doing anyone any good).



"I don't understand how someone could like Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky, but not like Twilight!!!"

"Last book I read was Brokeback Mountain, I just don't have the patience for them unless it's softcore porn."

                                                                               (The Voice of a Generation and Seece)

"If you cant stand the sound of your own voice than dont become a singer !!!!!"

                                                                               (pizzahut451)

dib8rman on 22 September 2010
richardhutnik said:
dib8rman said:
richardhutnik said:
dib8rman said:

Universal Human Rights is content for secular conversation.

So, exactly what universal see of agreed to values is going to be selected in order to be able to determine what these rights are?  Do you want to value life as one of them?  If so, then do you want to agree when life begins so that matters?  And as far as "viable" goes, exactly what new born can fend for itself?  Anyhow, if you go down this path, then that means abortion is wrong, because it terminates a human (or potential human).

And who says that "rights" is the correct framework for formulation a system of ethics?

Wow I said that much?

What path? The one your on is thin as ice, probably because it is thin ice.

Religion is an integral part in most current societies ways of percieving their values, yet conversation of Universal Human Rights can only happen in a secular circle. In fact most advances and I mean real advances such as womens sufferage has gone against the buck hence why it met with so much resistance. This is of course if religion is such an integral part of society. That established values would now have to be percieved differently falls on the shoulders at least in part to religions established perception and all frictions incurred therein.

/gg

Again, Universal Human Rights is content for secular conversation. :)

To be fair though in the Koran a woman is seen as an equal to god and all his creations that are done in his image; that sounds nice doesn't it?

It's also established that a husband is a womans gateway to god, heaven and hell. =D Yay for clarity!

Well, I wrote what I wrote to state it is folly to try to come up with something called "Universal Human Rights", and then use it as a foundation of an ethics system.  The reasons I mention state why.  I can also go on how anti-theist Christopher Hitchens is a neo-con and wants perpertual war for perpertual peace, to spread secularism.  I run into other secularists who would be appauled by this.  So, exactly who is going to come up with what these standards are?  

I would also ask, in a an ethics system based around rights (insuring people with rights get what they have rights to), where does the moral call to do charity come in?  Charity is a call to have someone give to another, while rights is demands one group makes on another to have that other give them something.


The only folly was your anecdote.

Read what I wrote to quote myself =/...

"and I mean real advances." I am very far from relying on the intangible here go pick up a book about womens sufferage.



I'm Unamerica and you can too.

The Official Huge Monster Hunter Thread: 



The Hunt Begins 4/20/2010 =D

highwaystar101 on 22 September 2010

Pizzahut, you can post normally, so just paste your reply in as a standard post and just make a note of who it's aimed at. (I guess it's me as VGChartz tells me that I have an unread reply. It must have been your post)



Around the Network
pizzahut451 on 22 September 2010
Scoobes said:
pizzahut451 said:
Scoobes said:
pizzahut451 said:


ok, who the hell ever said that God lives in the clouds and has beard??? God's physical apperence (if he even has one) is nothing like in humans.


What makes you so sure of all that then? If god exists why can't he live on a cloud and have a beard?

Because God doesnt live on Earth, because he is not from this universe, so he cant be living on the clouds (othervise, we would be able to see him) And he cant have a beard because hes not human

My point was you can't actually know whether any of that is true or not (assuming god exists). Their are so many different interpretations of how god should be that what you say could be different to what someone else believes.


i can actually, and i said why in my other post. if someone actually believes god lives in clouds, he or she is seriously uneducated on this matter.



pizzahut451 on 22 September 2010
highwaystar101 said:

Pizzahut, you can post normally, so just paste your reply in as a standard post and just make a note of who it's aimed at. (I guess it's me as VGChartz tells me that I have an unread reply. It must have been your post)


well, i dont have it copied anymore, i wrote that oset yesterday, and there is no way im writing everything again (im not sure if i can btw) and searching those links all over again, ust foget about it. i tried it trice,it failed



pizzahut451 on 22 September 2010
kowhoho said:
pizzahut451 said:
Scoobes said:
pizzahut451 said:


ok, who the hell ever said that God lives in the clouds and has beard??? God's physical apperence (if he even has one) is nothing like in humans.


What makes you so sure of all that then? If god exists why can't he live on a cloud and have a beard?

Because God doesnt live on Earth, because he is not from this universe, so he cant be living on the clouds (othervise, we would be able to see him) And he cant have a beard because hes not human

There is absolutely no consensus on what God is. If I started up my own church and raised a generation of children to believe that God was a man with a beard sitting in the clouds, they would be on this forum saying exactly that. There can be no consensus, as there is no uniformity to religion.

What evidence can you provide that God exists, inside or out of this universe?

Well, if your church teaches you that God is a man (do you have any idea how dumb this remerk is?) and lives in the clouds, i think you should definitevly change your church.

As for your last sentence take a look at this article

http://www.faithfacts.org/search-for-truth/questions-of-christians/does-god-exist



sapphi_snake on 22 September 2010
pizzahut451 said:


i can actually, and i said why in my other post. if someone actually believes god lives in clouds, he or she is seriously uneducated on this matter.

That's kinda like saying Twilight fans are uneducated about vampires.



"I don't understand how someone could like Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky, but not like Twilight!!!"

"Last book I read was Brokeback Mountain, I just don't have the patience for them unless it's softcore porn."

                                                                               (The Voice of a Generation and Seece)

"If you cant stand the sound of your own voice than dont become a singer !!!!!"

                                                                               (pizzahut451)

pizzahut451 on 22 September 2010
sapphi_snake said:
pizzahut451 said:


i can actually, and i said why in my other post. if someone actually believes god lives in clouds, he or she is seriously uneducated on this matter.

That's kinda like saying Twilight fans are uneducated about vampires.


twilight is a movie to entertain people, it DOES NOT have to be true. Tell me, what educated christain,muslim or jew believes that God lives in clouds?