So Easy To Be An Atheist!

[seer]

Like I said seer, no one is going to change your mind, you believe that morals either must be objective realities, laws of god, or they are meaningless and purposeless. It's for that very purpose, the narcisistic nature of human beings, that we impress morality and the fear of god on children. But then, at some point, it is up to the individual to either grow up, or remain in the pschological prison world of his own mind. "Blessed are the meek, they remain in that world, probably happily so, but blessed too are the righteous, they escape, the scales fall from their eyes, they are born again so to speak, and their moral behavior, good or bad, is no longer a result of a fear of god, but the result of their own mature responsible nature. You are still locked up in the prison of your own mind where, according to your own previous testimony, and for the good of society, it seems you belong for the time being.

Jim you did not deal with my points, again... But in your godless world it would be perfectly rational to dominate and control your fellow man for your own benefit if you had the power to do so. There is nothing inherently wrong or immoral about that because nothing in your world is inherently wrong or immoral.

[seer]

You're right. You're not saying I'm irrational - just less rational than you.

I'm so glad we finally agree on something!

And that is where we disagree. I do not subscribe to a "might makes right" philosophy. That makes whoever is most powerful the definer of right. I do not see "right" being a function of "power." I don't know too many people who do.

But if God or the majority decided it was a moral good to impose their values (as we do with the laws of this land) then that is good and right.

[carpedm9587]

I'm so glad we finally agree on something!

Yes. We agree you said that.

But if God or the majority decided it was a moral good to impose their values (as we do with the laws of this land) then that is good and right.

No.

[seer]

No.

No because you disagree with it? Why would that matter?

[carpedm9587]

No because you disagree with it? Why would that matter?

No because it is simply wrong. You are advocating a "might makes right" philosophy. I doubt you will find many who accept that as true. Might is about power. Power does not define what is right. Not for most of us humans. If it does for you -

[seer]

No because it is simply wrong. You are advocating a "might makes right" philosophy. I doubt you will find many who accept that as true. Might is about power. Power does not define what is right. Not for most of us humans. If it does for you -

No, I'm saying that the the people with the power are defining right, and therefore they are right.

[carpedm9587]

No, I'm saying that the the people with the power are defining right, and therefore they are right.

So might makes right....


Seer - how are you not seeing this...?

[seer]

So might makes right....


Seer - how are you not seeing this...?

Carp, if the powerful define right (as the majority does in this nation) why would their definition be incorrect and yours, for instance, be correct.

[Tassman]

Jim you did not deal with my points, again... But in your godless world it would be perfectly rational to dominate and control your fellow man for your own benefit if you had the power to do so.

It is not rational or even possible to act against our instinctive nature as evolved social animals. Our instinctive tendency towards reciprocal social behaviour is naturally built into us, because such behaviour is beneficial to the survival of our species as social animals.

There is nothing inherently wrong or immoral about that because nothing in your world is inherently wrong or immoral.

[JimL]

Jim you did not deal with my points, again... But in your godless world it would be perfectly rational to dominate and control your fellow man for your own benefit if you had the power to do so. There is nothing inherently wrong or immoral about that because nothing in your world is inherently wrong or immoral.

One can both act immorally and rationally at the same time seer, the one needn't have anything to do with the other. And if behaviors were inherently wrong, then we wouldn't be free to choose otherwise. What you mean to say is that nothing in my world is "objectively wrong," or to put it another way, what you mean to say is that, in my world, right and wrong have nothing to do with, and need have nothing to do with, a god. True, in my world a god isn't needed in order that I act morally. If there were such a thing as objective morality, then god too would need be subject to it, not the source of it.

[seer]

One can both act immorally and rationally at the same time seer, the one needn't have anything to do with the other.

That is just stupid Jim, you don't get to define what is moral or not. If the powerful minority believe it is a moral good to take advantage of others then it is a moral good to them, your disagreement is meaningless, your definition of moral is meaningless. And no more valid than theirs.

[carpedm9587]

Carp, if the powerful define right (as the majority does in this nation) why would their definition be incorrect and yours, for instance, be correct.

You are (again) looking for absolute answers in a relative system. They don't exist. Right is defined, for each person, by how the action aligns to their underlying value structure. It's no more complicated than that. And "the majority" is nothing more than the collective sum of individual moral frameworks. It's a short-hand for saying, "most of the members of this society hold X to be a moral good." It requires individuals to hold that position to get to "a majority." And even if everyone in the country said, "X is moral," if my moral framework says it is immoral, I will continue to see it as immoral.

[Doug Shaver]

But in your godless world it would be perfectly rational to dominate and control your fellow man for your own benefit if you had the power to do so.

Not in my godless world. I don't accept the possibility of a conflict between the smart thing to do and the right thing to do.

[carpedm9587]

No, I'm saying that the the people with the power are defining right, and therefore they are right.

And you're wrong.

They define what is right for them. It does not define what is right for me.

[carpedm9587]

No because you disagree with it? Why would that matter?

It matters because I am the one that defines what is right for me. No one can take that power away from me.