[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Lord Refa [/i]
[B]Honestly.. What kind of a thick headed lump of coal you got to be to believe in God in this time and age?[/B][/QUOTE]
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by sleepy_shadow [/i]
[B]Your analysis is flawed. Selfishness is an unavoidable property of life (with religion and without it). Everything which lives must exhibit selfishness -- if for nothing else, then to bother sustaining itself.
Atheists tend to consider a good life... the only possible reward. As such, they generally try makng life as good as possible -- regardless of how they try achiving this, and whether they serve only themselves (or consider a good life more secure, efficient or meaningful when shared with others).
[i](Regarding criteria: since atheism is not a standardized belief system... atheists have different takes on game theory. Ask different individuals: "what to approve?", "what to disapprove?", "when to cooperate?" and "when to fight?"... and you shall most likely hear different criteria, depending on the persons' experience.)[/i]
The key difference of atheists from religious people is frequently *not* which criteria they raise for particular actions -- both can have sets of values which permit productive cooperation... or sets of values which lead to inevitable conflict.
The difference is mainly... how final they consider a particular loss -- namely loss of life. For an atheist, loss of life is complete loss -- while for a religious person, loss of life *can* sometimes appear a temporary inconvenience.
Religion is ultimately... nothing else but an ideology to "devalue" death. From a practical viewpoint, sometimes devaluaing death is a good choice. For example, you mourn less when someone precious passes away. You may even entertain hope of meeting lost persons again ("we shall meet where no shadows fall").
At other times, to ignore the gravity of death... is a patently bad choice. Like everthing, religion is a compromise, and has a price.
). [/B][/QUOTE]
Your analysis is flawed sleepy because you over generalize from your own curious world view what all athiests will believe. The crux of your argument is that all atheiests would believe absensce of the supernatural that life itself is its only reward.
This argument implies that thusly atheists will be MORE respective of others, which does not logicly follow.
Some athiests will be sensitive to such arguments, but I believe many more will not.
Your respect for life is based entirely on your emotive response to the idea of killing someone just to further your goals. Although you are cloaking it in logic, at the base of it, it desturbs you at a deep level so you decide it is wrong.
Many people will not have that emotive response to the situation though, and will take that opportunity and in a truly athestic world, how can we say that is wrong?
And I would argue, from personal experiences moving around the edge of what is called "decent" society, that the number out there that would discard innocent lives is much higher then you would ever feel comfortable thinking of.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by AnlaShok [/i]
[B]No, at that point, intelligence should take over and determine that the only way to survive as a species is to cooperate. Laws are still effective as well.
True maturity as a species will only be attained when people realize that personal greed and desires do not enhance the survival of mankind as a whole.
One more: [/B][/QUOTE]
Why is the survival of man important beyond my generation? or maybe my childrens generation? How can you now make a moral claim that its important?
[quote][i]Originally posted by sleepy_shadow[/i]
Your analysis is flawed. Selfishness is an unavoidable property of life (with religion and without it). Everything which lives must exhibit selfishness -- if for nothing else, then to bother sustaining itself.[/quote]
No. This isn't true at all. There are societies that have developed around the complete absence of selfishness. Selfishness is a property of modern, Western society. It is not a fundamental property of conscious beings or their societies.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by AnlaShok [/i]
[B]"Religion has actually convinced people that there's an invisible man -- living in the sky -- who watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a special list of ten things he does not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and ever 'til the end of time! But He loves you."
-- George Carlin Politically Incorrect, May 29, 1997[/B][/QUOTE]
Well, that does it for me. I wouldn't have thought someone could boil down several millennia worth of philosophy and culture down to a single paragraph, but boy howdy, was I wrong. Isn't it incredible how one can so fully and irrefutably point out all the flaws in the opposing side of any complex issue? Just start with a simplistic statement proceeding from the assumption that anyone that believes differently than you is a drooling moron, and thus that everything related to them must be equally idiotic, and everything will flow from there.
Wonderful! I'll have to try it myself sometime.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Lord Refa [/i]
[B]Honestly.. What kind of a thick headed lump of coal you got to be to believe in God in this time and age?
[/B][/QUOTE]
Well, I would say that some behaviors and beliefs such as, I don't know, wanting to pleasure oneself to the sight of mass hysteria, are the product of many deficiencies in [i]any[/i] time and age. So, why don't you check out that plank in your eye before commenting on the splinter in someone else's, okay?
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Arethusa [/i]
[B]No. This isn't true at all. There are societies that have developed around the complete absence of selfishness. Selfishness is a property of modern, Western society. It is not a fundamental property of conscious beings or their societies. [/B][/QUOTE]
Psht? name one of these societies, if you dig deep enough you will find that there was an eliet that was fairly selfish, and its members were no where near as noble as you would be led to believe.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by AnlaShok [/i]
[B]No, at that point, intelligence should take over and determine that the only way to survive as a species is to cooperate. Laws are still effective as well.[/b][/quote]
Feelings, emotions, compassion! That's where it comes from and which naturally tells all normal human beings not to harm one another.
Simply put, at a certain age, when somebody hits somebody else he feels pain, which is an uncomfortable feeling, thus they realise and learn that people shall not hit each other. The other because he feels pain and the other because he sees the other one crying and thus feels compassion and remorse. It's a natural reaction. Thus its naturally in all of us and we learn to realise it when we grow up through experience and education by others.
Well at least we're supposed to, but unfortunately due to these corrupted screwed up societies and parents who don't care often lead and guide us to another path, to a wrong path, which displaces/supersedes our emotions, and intelligence which should tell us to not cause harm, but to cause good to everybody and that's how we also learn to use others for our own personal advantage.
Selfisness, greed, constant pursuit of personal satisfaction, over-individualism, egoism etc. are things which will come into the picture then. And all those things go too often overboard and are the cause of all bad in this world. Economy/currency, capitalism, religions, governments, militaries etc. etc. are all consequences and results of those things, directly, or indirectly. And all of them are more bad than good in the very end. All of those are things which can not exist in a perfectly good world with a naturally perfect moral and ethics.
[quote][b]As far as morality and ethics go, they ARE artificial creations. Pretending they are not is simply ridiculous. What is moral for me is not the same as what is moral for someone on an island in the South Pacific. What is moral to me is not the same as what is moral for a Mormon. Morals, ethics, and laws are all inventions of society to allow people to live together without killing each other. Religion has been a source for this as well, but it has frequetnly been used as a means of control and greed satisfaction by its leaders.[/b][/quote]
Moral, ethics..... see my answer above. It all comes down to not cause harm to one another. That's where moral and ethics ultimately come from, where the basis of all natural healthy moral and ethics is. Do good, not bad. Don't hurt others, help them and love them.
In a complicated society where there are a whole lot of different kind of situations and problems moral and ethics only differ between different people, because of the different level of understanding of those situations and problems, which is due to different level of knowledge, intelligence, experience and so on.
Unfortunately a big part of the people on this planet don't understand many important things very well and/or they ignore them because of their own advantage due to screwed up sense of moral and egoes. Many understand the most basic simple things like not to kill one another, but when things get more complicated understanding alas varies hugely. Thus we unfortunately also have for example many really bad written and unwritten rules and laws in our societies, which are done selfisly by people who do not understand certain things or/and people who have made them for a certain group's advantage and then make the rest of us to follow their rules by force and even in some cases brainwash other people to believe they are actually right and good for them.
[quote][b]True maturity as a species will only be attained when people realize that personal greed and desires do not enhance the survival of mankind as a whole.[/b][/quote]
That requires the end of governments, the end of currency and economy, the end of religions, the radical change of societies and the way the general masses think and behave. It requires people to become truly intelligent and wise etc. and I can't see that happening in a foreseeable future. We are in a circle, which doesn't seem to be able to end. Who knows, maybe human species can evolve after time and maybe in a million, or a billion years a miracle can happen. If our species still is existing then that is.
Anyway, I'm really tired when writing this, so sorry if the post is a little messy badly written rambling. Hard to keep thoughts together. You should get the point anyway, hopefully....
[quote][i]Originally posted by AnlaShok [/i]
[b]Religion has actually convinced people that there's an invisible man -- living in the sky -- who watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a special list of ten things he does not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and ever 'til the end of time! But He loves you.
-- George Carlin Politically Incorrect, May 29, 1997[/b][/quote]
Nice quote. Simply, shortly and effectively presented the stupidity of the human kind, which also shows the huge power of the fear.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Tyvar [/i]
[B]Psht? name one of these societies, if you dig deep enough you will find that there was an eliet that was fairly selfish, and its members were no where near as noble as you would be led to believe. [/B][/QUOTE]
I'm unfortunately in a very bad position to respond to this, as I can't for the life of me recall the name of the specific West African society I'm thinking of, and with school out, I can't ask my anthropology professor about it. It is essentially a society with no conception of ownership.
Still, that's an extreme example; the utopian communities of the 19th century, while small, are still good example of societies without this 'inevitable' element of human selfishness.
[edit]
PJH: it's a clever analysis of religion, but it's not (nor is it intended to be) a very deep one. Certainly touches on Steven J Gould territory.
It's a fight against the concept of Absolute Atheism...
It doesn't matter if God created the world in 6 actual days to confound the best minds of science, or if his creation days were 2 Billion of our Earth years, and he simply started the processes, laws of physics, and evolution and is now sitting back letting things run their course.
You either believe that everything just happened by chance, or that there is a creative force that put it forth. There are way too many lucky events piled up for me to accept the former.
;)
So, if you take as a given then, that there is a creative force who started all this, your next thought is what kind of relationship you as part of this creation would be to this creative force.
I would hope for a loving, personal relationship, rather than a cruel, logical, indifferent being in charge.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Tyvar [/i]
Your analysis is flawed sleepy because you over generalize from your own curious world view what all athiests will believe.[/quote]
Since they don't believe in spiritual ideologies... I doubt the main difference (of considering life impossible to replace) can be refuted. I think it holds.
Atheists may disagree about all other things... but by definition, theoretically... one thing they should agree about: that nobody is going to heaven or hell, and nobody is getting a second chance.
There may exist grey areas... zones of transition... but for purposes of analysis, I think the distiction is clear enough.
[quote] The crux of your argument is that all atheiests would believe absensce of the supernatural that life itself is its only reward.[/quote]
What else could a reasonably selfish individual (one who wishes to live)... in normal conditions (which permit life to be somewhat enjoyed) think on the matter?
Sure, exceptions exist. A desperate but sane person involved in conflict... might live to invite the enemy along to nothingness. A madman could live for fame, monuments or memory.
But a sane person in conditions which leave some hope... would most likely live to enjoy rewards offered by life. At least for me... this seems a non-question.
(A far more poignant question for me appears -- how they would secure those rewards? Would they figure out a way of securing those without help from others... would they cooperate with others... or would they try taking without permission from others? That is the difficult question of human society.)
-----------
Regarding superstition, however... discussing this point would require establishing a smooth scale of "believing in the supernatural" extending from religion to atheism.
Superstition would probably be somewhere in the middle -- resemblant of religion, but without aspirations of completeness.
[quote] This argument implies that thusly atheists will be MORE respective of others, which does not logicly follow.[/quote]
My argument cannot imply that.
It could only imply so... if something automatically guaranteed that atheists care about other peoples' lives -- which does not logically follow. Not from atheism, but something else.
Instead I think... that ability to recognize where cooperation maximizes profit... comes from subjective experience and understanding of game theory (ability to consider the consequences of different behaviours).
[quote] Your respect for life is based entirely on your emotive response to the idea of killing someone just to further your goals.[/quote]
Emotions are fine reminders.
But I also observe: having to kill someone to further my goals (having to eat plants/animals to sustain myself)... is an indicator of my inefficiency.
Inability to develop without consuming resources pre-processed by others... indicates my dependence. It embarrasses me, reminds me of my vulnerability... and propels me to wish for better modes of existence.
[quote]Although you are cloaking it in logic, at the base of it, it desturbs you at a deep level so you decide it is wrong.[/quote]
The question of choosing optimal behaviour has multiple facets -- and multiple infulences at work with us.
Instinct is certainly one... experience and prejudice are strong influences. However, when we have time to consider... reason can sometimes become the foremost.
[quote] Many people will not have that emotive response to the situation though, and will take that opportunity and in a truly athestic world, how can we say that is wrong?[/quote]
When the long-term projection of a behaviour predictably harms me (or my vital interest)... then who needs "right" or "wrong"? Nobody.
If threatening behaviour occurs, I will first try dissuading the individual from behaving so... but should explanation not suffice... I will oppose them with means suitable to diminish projected harm.
[quote] And I would argue, from personal experiences moving around the edge of what is called "decent" society, that the number out there that would discard innocent lives is much higher then you would ever feel comfortable thinking of.[/QUOTE]
I have had my little encounters with less-than-decent individuals. Some such encounters harmed me, some harmed them.
I know fairly well -- given suitable opportunity, human nature gets ugly.
I also know -- ways exist to prevent this, avoid this, influence how people perceive the relation of their own benefit to other peoples' benefit.
Random ChaosActually Carefully-selected Order in disguise
For Sanfam:
[quote]
"This is like being nibbled to death by... What are those earth creatures called? Feathers, long bill, webbed feet... go quack?"
"Cats"
"Cats! Like being nibbled to death by cats"
--Londo and Vir
[/quote]
Biggles<font color=#AAFFAA>The Man Without a Face</font>
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by CurZ [/i]
[B]Cats are evil. If you don't believe it, just look at this second picture and tell me it doesn't look like a satanic killing machine:
Comments
[B]Honestly.. What kind of a thick headed lump of coal you got to be to believe in God in this time and age?[/B][/QUOTE]
Since we're name calling... You're an idiot...
;)
[B]Your analysis is flawed. Selfishness is an unavoidable property of life (with religion and without it). Everything which lives must exhibit selfishness -- if for nothing else, then to bother sustaining itself.
Atheists tend to consider a good life... the only possible reward. As such, they generally try makng life as good as possible -- regardless of how they try achiving this, and whether they serve only themselves (or consider a good life more secure, efficient or meaningful when shared with others).
[i](Regarding criteria: since atheism is not a standardized belief system... atheists have different takes on game theory. Ask different individuals: "what to approve?", "what to disapprove?", "when to cooperate?" and "when to fight?"... and you shall most likely hear different criteria, depending on the persons' experience.)[/i]
The key difference of atheists from religious people is frequently *not* which criteria they raise for particular actions -- both can have sets of values which permit productive cooperation... or sets of values which lead to inevitable conflict.
The difference is mainly... how final they consider a particular loss -- namely loss of life. For an atheist, loss of life is complete loss -- while for a religious person, loss of life *can* sometimes appear a temporary inconvenience.
Religion is ultimately... nothing else but an ideology to "devalue" death. From a practical viewpoint, sometimes devaluaing death is a good choice. For example, you mourn less when someone precious passes away. You may even entertain hope of meeting lost persons again ("we shall meet where no shadows fall").
At other times, to ignore the gravity of death... is a patently bad choice. Like everthing, religion is a compromise, and has a price.
). [/B][/QUOTE]
Your analysis is flawed sleepy because you over generalize from your own curious world view what all athiests will believe. The crux of your argument is that all atheiests would believe absensce of the supernatural that life itself is its only reward.
This argument implies that thusly atheists will be MORE respective of others, which does not logicly follow.
Some athiests will be sensitive to such arguments, but I believe many more will not.
Your respect for life is based entirely on your emotive response to the idea of killing someone just to further your goals. Although you are cloaking it in logic, at the base of it, it desturbs you at a deep level so you decide it is wrong.
Many people will not have that emotive response to the situation though, and will take that opportunity and in a truly athestic world, how can we say that is wrong?
And I would argue, from personal experiences moving around the edge of what is called "decent" society, that the number out there that would discard innocent lives is much higher then you would ever feel comfortable thinking of.
[B]No, at that point, intelligence should take over and determine that the only way to survive as a species is to cooperate. Laws are still effective as well.
True maturity as a species will only be attained when people realize that personal greed and desires do not enhance the survival of mankind as a whole.
One more: [/B][/QUOTE]
Why is the survival of man important beyond my generation? or maybe my childrens generation? How can you now make a moral claim that its important?
Your analysis is flawed. Selfishness is an unavoidable property of life (with religion and without it). Everything which lives must exhibit selfishness -- if for nothing else, then to bother sustaining itself.[/quote]
No. This isn't true at all. There are societies that have developed around the complete absence of selfishness. Selfishness is a property of modern, Western society. It is not a fundamental property of conscious beings or their societies.
[B]"Religion has actually convinced people that there's an invisible man -- living in the sky -- who watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a special list of ten things he does not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and ever 'til the end of time! But He loves you."
-- George Carlin Politically Incorrect, May 29, 1997[/B][/QUOTE]
Well, that does it for me. I wouldn't have thought someone could boil down several millennia worth of philosophy and culture down to a single paragraph, but boy howdy, was I wrong. Isn't it incredible how one can so fully and irrefutably point out all the flaws in the opposing side of any complex issue? Just start with a simplistic statement proceeding from the assumption that anyone that believes differently than you is a drooling moron, and thus that everything related to them must be equally idiotic, and everything will flow from there.
Wonderful! I'll have to try it myself sometime.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Lord Refa [/i]
[B]Honestly.. What kind of a thick headed lump of coal you got to be to believe in God in this time and age?
[/B][/QUOTE]
Well, I would say that some behaviors and beliefs such as, I don't know, wanting to pleasure oneself to the sight of mass hysteria, are the product of many deficiencies in [i]any[/i] time and age. So, why don't you check out that plank in your eye before commenting on the splinter in someone else's, okay?
[B]No. This isn't true at all. There are societies that have developed around the complete absence of selfishness. Selfishness is a property of modern, Western society. It is not a fundamental property of conscious beings or their societies. [/B][/QUOTE]
Psht? name one of these societies, if you dig deep enough you will find that there was an eliet that was fairly selfish, and its members were no where near as noble as you would be led to believe.
[B]No, at that point, intelligence should take over and determine that the only way to survive as a species is to cooperate. Laws are still effective as well.[/b][/quote]
Feelings, emotions, compassion! That's where it comes from and which naturally tells all normal human beings not to harm one another.
Simply put, at a certain age, when somebody hits somebody else he feels pain, which is an uncomfortable feeling, thus they realise and learn that people shall not hit each other. The other because he feels pain and the other because he sees the other one crying and thus feels compassion and remorse. It's a natural reaction. Thus its naturally in all of us and we learn to realise it when we grow up through experience and education by others.
Well at least we're supposed to, but unfortunately due to these corrupted screwed up societies and parents who don't care often lead and guide us to another path, to a wrong path, which displaces/supersedes our emotions, and intelligence which should tell us to not cause harm, but to cause good to everybody and that's how we also learn to use others for our own personal advantage.
Selfisness, greed, constant pursuit of personal satisfaction, over-individualism, egoism etc. are things which will come into the picture then. And all those things go too often overboard and are the cause of all bad in this world. Economy/currency, capitalism, religions, governments, militaries etc. etc. are all consequences and results of those things, directly, or indirectly. And all of them are more bad than good in the very end. All of those are things which can not exist in a perfectly good world with a naturally perfect moral and ethics.
[quote][b]As far as morality and ethics go, they ARE artificial creations. Pretending they are not is simply ridiculous. What is moral for me is not the same as what is moral for someone on an island in the South Pacific. What is moral to me is not the same as what is moral for a Mormon. Morals, ethics, and laws are all inventions of society to allow people to live together without killing each other. Religion has been a source for this as well, but it has frequetnly been used as a means of control and greed satisfaction by its leaders.[/b][/quote]
Moral, ethics..... see my answer above. It all comes down to not cause harm to one another. That's where moral and ethics ultimately come from, where the basis of all natural healthy moral and ethics is. Do good, not bad. Don't hurt others, help them and love them.
In a complicated society where there are a whole lot of different kind of situations and problems moral and ethics only differ between different people, because of the different level of understanding of those situations and problems, which is due to different level of knowledge, intelligence, experience and so on.
Unfortunately a big part of the people on this planet don't understand many important things very well and/or they ignore them because of their own advantage due to screwed up sense of moral and egoes. Many understand the most basic simple things like not to kill one another, but when things get more complicated understanding alas varies hugely. Thus we unfortunately also have for example many really bad written and unwritten rules and laws in our societies, which are done selfisly by people who do not understand certain things or/and people who have made them for a certain group's advantage and then make the rest of us to follow their rules by force and even in some cases brainwash other people to believe they are actually right and good for them.
[quote][b]True maturity as a species will only be attained when people realize that personal greed and desires do not enhance the survival of mankind as a whole.[/b][/quote]
That requires the end of governments, the end of currency and economy, the end of religions, the radical change of societies and the way the general masses think and behave. It requires people to become truly intelligent and wise etc. and I can't see that happening in a foreseeable future. We are in a circle, which doesn't seem to be able to end. Who knows, maybe human species can evolve after time and maybe in a million, or a billion years a miracle can happen. If our species still is existing then that is.
Anyway, I'm really tired when writing this, so sorry if the post is a little messy badly written rambling. Hard to keep thoughts together. You should get the point anyway, hopefully....
- PJH
[b]Religion has actually convinced people that there's an invisible man -- living in the sky -- who watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a special list of ten things he does not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and ever 'til the end of time! But He loves you.
-- George Carlin Politically Incorrect, May 29, 1997[/b][/quote]
Nice quote. Simply, shortly and effectively presented the stupidity of the human kind, which also shows the huge power of the fear.
- PJH
[B]Psht? name one of these societies, if you dig deep enough you will find that there was an eliet that was fairly selfish, and its members were no where near as noble as you would be led to believe. [/B][/QUOTE]
I'm unfortunately in a very bad position to respond to this, as I can't for the life of me recall the name of the specific West African society I'm thinking of, and with school out, I can't ask my anthropology professor about it. It is essentially a society with no conception of ownership.
Still, that's an extreme example; the utopian communities of the 19th century, while small, are still good example of societies without this 'inevitable' element of human selfishness.
[edit]
PJH: it's a clever analysis of religion, but it's not (nor is it intended to be) a very deep one. Certainly touches on Steven J Gould territory.
It's a fight against the concept of Absolute Atheism...
It doesn't matter if God created the world in 6 actual days to confound the best minds of science, or if his creation days were 2 Billion of our Earth years, and he simply started the processes, laws of physics, and evolution and is now sitting back letting things run their course.
You either believe that everything just happened by chance, or that there is a creative force that put it forth. There are way too many lucky events piled up for me to accept the former.
;)
So, if you take as a given then, that there is a creative force who started all this, your next thought is what kind of relationship you as part of this creation would be to this creative force.
I would hope for a loving, personal relationship, rather than a cruel, logical, indifferent being in charge.
Your analysis is flawed sleepy because you over generalize from your own curious world view what all athiests will believe.[/quote]
Since they don't believe in spiritual ideologies... I doubt the main difference (of considering life impossible to replace) can be refuted. I think it holds.
Atheists may disagree about all other things... but by definition, theoretically... one thing they should agree about: that nobody is going to heaven or hell, and nobody is getting a second chance.
There may exist grey areas... zones of transition... but for purposes of analysis, I think the distiction is clear enough.
[quote] The crux of your argument is that all atheiests would believe absensce of the supernatural that life itself is its only reward.[/quote]
What else could a reasonably selfish individual (one who wishes to live)... in normal conditions (which permit life to be somewhat enjoyed) think on the matter?
Sure, exceptions exist. A desperate but sane person involved in conflict... might live to invite the enemy along to nothingness. A madman could live for fame, monuments or memory.
But a sane person in conditions which leave some hope... would most likely live to enjoy rewards offered by life. At least for me... this seems a non-question.
(A far more poignant question for me appears -- how they would secure those rewards? Would they figure out a way of securing those without help from others... would they cooperate with others... or would they try taking without permission from others? That is the difficult question of human society.)
-----------
Regarding superstition, however... discussing this point would require establishing a smooth scale of "believing in the supernatural" extending from religion to atheism.
Superstition would probably be somewhere in the middle -- resemblant of religion, but without aspirations of completeness.
[quote] This argument implies that thusly atheists will be MORE respective of others, which does not logicly follow.[/quote]
My argument cannot imply that.
It could only imply so... if something automatically guaranteed that atheists care about other peoples' lives -- which does not logically follow. Not from atheism, but something else.
Instead I think... that ability to recognize where cooperation maximizes profit... comes from subjective experience and understanding of game theory (ability to consider the consequences of different behaviours).
[quote] Your respect for life is based entirely on your emotive response to the idea of killing someone just to further your goals.[/quote]
Emotions are fine reminders.
But I also observe: having to kill someone to further my goals (having to eat plants/animals to sustain myself)... is an indicator of my inefficiency.
Inability to develop without consuming resources pre-processed by others... indicates my dependence. It embarrasses me, reminds me of my vulnerability... and propels me to wish for better modes of existence.
[quote]Although you are cloaking it in logic, at the base of it, it desturbs you at a deep level so you decide it is wrong.[/quote]
The question of choosing optimal behaviour has multiple facets -- and multiple infulences at work with us.
Instinct is certainly one... experience and prejudice are strong influences. However, when we have time to consider... reason can sometimes become the foremost.
[quote] Many people will not have that emotive response to the situation though, and will take that opportunity and in a truly athestic world, how can we say that is wrong?[/quote]
When the long-term projection of a behaviour predictably harms me (or my vital interest)... then who needs "right" or "wrong"? Nobody.
If threatening behaviour occurs, I will first try dissuading the individual from behaving so... but should explanation not suffice... I will oppose them with means suitable to diminish projected harm.
[quote] And I would argue, from personal experiences moving around the edge of what is called "decent" society, that the number out there that would discard innocent lives is much higher then you would ever feel comfortable thinking of.[/QUOTE]
I have had my little encounters with less-than-decent individuals. Some such encounters harmed me, some harmed them.
I know fairly well -- given suitable opportunity, human nature gets ugly.
I also know -- ways exist to prevent this, avoid this, influence how people perceive the relation of their own benefit to other peoples' benefit.
[quote]
"This is like being nibbled to death by... What are those earth creatures called? Feathers, long bill, webbed feet... go quack?"
"Cats"
"Cats! Like being nibbled to death by cats"
--Londo and Vir
[/quote]
[B]Cats are evil. If you don't believe it, just look at this second picture and tell me it doesn't look like a satanic killing machine:
[url]http://forums.firstones.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=8138[/url] [/B][/QUOTE]
Now that my gallery is alive again, I can post the picture I wanted to post in response to this.
[url]http://www.ece.auckland.ac.nz/~gbig005/gallery/cats/IMG_0040[/url]