It's all of the above. Although, I don't think the interesting compounds have been used for quite a long time.
How Many Top Atheists Do You Recognize?
- Thread starter What Would Jesus Do?
- Start date
Based on the posts here, it appears that atheist crowd considers "Why is genocide wrong?" to be a no-brainer. Yet not one word of a rational argument defending the position has been proposed.
Oh well. If you don't want to think about it, I am not going to try and make you.
Uhhh because wiping out an entire group of our species because you don't like them is one of the most intellectually retarded things you could do? Do we not have enough data and experience at this point to realize this? People are people. The only difference between myself and a member of ISIS is a matter of circumstance. I was born white, in northwest Iowa (one of the safest places to grow up on the entire planet), and of a great family. I'm lucky as "F"(I hate censoring myself but I don't want to get banned) I was born where I was with very little to worry about.
Why is genocide wrong? Because it wipes out swaths of people who just want to live their lives but are forced into shit situations, or coerced into believing in false ideologies from people with more power than themselves.
During WW1 there was an impromptu cease fire during the Christmas season where Allied and German troops(outside of orders) were able to poke their heads up from the trenches, greet each other, trade whatever meager possessions they had and bury their dead. These were all men in their 20's who were tired of war and death, and then were thrust back into it because the powers that be decided they needed to die because of some arbitrary reason. Interesting in modern days how the shitheads who pound the war drum won't place themselves on the front line for their "beliefs."
So I guess there is your answer from me. The only difference between myself and another human being who potentially wants to kill me is merely a matter of circumstance. If we can ever, as a people, understand that we're all in this thing together - and eliminate the ***** from this world that want to create genocide, what a sweet planet this will be to live on for everybody. In the scope of the Universe we're all so very fragile. We can bicker, fight, piss and moan over resources and this or that, than a meteor comes along and wipes out half the planet. A meteor doesn't give two shits about our politics. It's happened before and will happen again. I find it very asinine we spend all this time fighting and murdering each other over silly ideologies when we could be enjoying the sentience we were given.
That's my drunken rambling for the night.
What sort of deep argument are you looking for to justify not taking lives on a mass scale? Do you hold that this is only wrong because some supernatural force told you so? You can't think of any non magical reason not to kill? And its atheists who are supposed to feel shame from lack of articulation when this is the alternative view? Holy smokes, get a mirror!
Genocide is certainly wrong. I have a reason that doesn't contradict my world view. Do you?
Genocides don't occur simply because one group of people doesn't like another. Your personal opinion is not a reason.
I am looking for any argument deep or otherwise that doesn't contradict your worldview.
Haha you're one of those obtuse dorks that say things like, "no one has ever given me a valid reason blah blah blah" simply because you will automatically reject any reason they give you because you're so stuck in your own ideology you cannot escape it.
Intellectual midget.
- You posted the list of top atheist and asked how many we knew
- I said a few and then commented on #1 Peter Singer's position on infanticide
- You responded that it was neither right or wrong
- I responded that of course it wasn't because consistent atheists don't believe in right and wrong
- uni responded that genocide is wrong
- I asked why
- There were some off-topic responses
So no we can't stipulate murder is wrong. If you would like to use a topic other than genocide, feel free. uni chose the genocide example.
Very simply, an atheist can call things right or wrong just like everybody else. He can make it up, he can cede his independent intellect to some authority, or anything in between.
As to your original question about infanticide, while the answer could be right, wrong, or even neither, depending on context, that's not the same as saying that there is no right or wrong or that atheists are necessarily ambivalent on such matters.
The reason I asked whether we were starting from agreement that murder is wrong is because that changes the question.
If murder is not wrong as our starting point, then my first step toward reasoning whether genocide is wrong is to decide whether murder is wrong. And that could be my last step - since genocide is a subset of murder, and if murder is wrong, genocide is, too.
But if we start with agreement that murder is wrong, the question now seems to ask if genocide is somehow exceptionally wrong - as it is treated under international law. It's already wrong, because it's murder, but why is is especially wrong?
In that second instance it's more like a question about hate crimes. Why should hate crimes be treated any different than the same crime sans hate?
Murder is theft of an irreplaceable life that doesn't belong to you. Murder is antithetical to the principle of reciprocity. Both lines of thinking would lead to the conclusion that mass murder is not a good. Supernatural judgment is not needed to arrive at the conclusion that genocide is wrong.
In fact, we could flip this. If good people go to heaven, there really is nothing wrong with sending people there early. Hence the religious mind really has a problem resisting the urge to send people to their death, you see this today with ISIS. Only those that actually value this existence as the end game can be trusted to act ethically.
While I think that's a terrific answer, I'm bothered by one thing. It's almost as if you are saying murder is wrong because it's theft. It's a particularly bad sort of theft. So it's wrong.
This conflicts with what I think most of us feel - which is not that murder is a particularly bad kind of theft but that it is something different from theft and fundamentally worse than theft.
It also presupposes that theft is wrong.
Some would argue that life is the fundamental right. If you take a life you have violated that fundamental right. You can agree with that or not, that's not my point. The next step is my point. In that next step they argue that theft is wrong because the logical consequence of theft is to deprive the individual of what he needs to maintain life. That strikes me as pretty reasonable. But it presupposes that life is the prime value.
So basically we have 2 arguments:
1) murder is bad because it is an extreme example of theft; vs
2) theft is bad because in the extreme it becomes murder.
I recognized five of them:
-Ayaan Hirsi Ali
-Woody Allen
-Martin Amis
-Philip Roth
-Christopher Hitchens (RIP)
I used to enjoy Hitchens's columns and articles during the Clinton presidency. Hitchens was an ardent liberal (Socialist?) and noted Libertine, but had absolutely zero respect for the carrying on, lying, and lack of respect for any standards of behavior demonstrated by those two. He seemed to be the only liberal in the country who was outraged.
-Ayaan Hirsi Ali
-Woody Allen
-Martin Amis
-Philip Roth
-Christopher Hitchens (RIP)
I used to enjoy Hitchens's columns and articles during the Clinton presidency. Hitchens was an ardent liberal (Socialist?) and noted Libertine, but had absolutely zero respect for the carrying on, lying, and lack of respect for any standards of behavior demonstrated by those two. He seemed to be the only liberal in the country who was outraged.
It's been a very long time but I believe CS Lewis argued that the real evil is not death but pain. We all die. And as a religious person he believed we all go to a better life.
Although Buddha didn't have the same view of afterlife, he had a somewhat similar view on pain and death. The ultimate evil isn't death but suffering.
None of my responses were off topic. You completely dismissed my fairly obvious observation (that atheists make judgments about right and wrong all the time which I then demonstrated for you by making the judgment that genocide is wrong). Are you saying I'm not an atheist if I don't persuade you that it's okay for atheists to recognize abstract constructs like right/wrong?
You're not owed any explanation from me about why I think genocide is wrong (even though I gave you one, which you ignored). The way you're acting here, it's as if you'd want us to believe that you've considered/exhausted inconsistencies and contradictions in all of your own views. You're making it tough on yourself here if you want anyone to take you seriously.
Why is it that atheists must reject right/wrong? That's one of the sillier things I've heard people insist about atheism. To not believe in God, you must reject your own experiences and your own feelings about them unless you can defend them to Professor KCTigerHawk?
Most of my family are of the fundamentalist/creationist evangelical breed of Christian (I was also of this mindset for quite awhile - not really of my own volition, but simply because that's the world I was raised in - there's a significant age gap between myself and my siblings.)
I've had this conversation numerous times and there is literally nothing you can say that will be valid in their eyes. In their worldview - morality comes from God and The Bible. I have heard the phrase, "there can be no morality without religion and God, if you don't believe in some form of an omnipresent creator what reason is there to not steal, murder, etc." So many times I've lost count. Their morality comes from certain lessons taught in The Bible, obedience to God, and potential judgement for disobeying. It's so deeply rooted they really can't fathom how a person can formulate an opinion that murder is wrong without it being tied into something like The Ten Commandments. It just is what it is. It's not a lot different than being a kid and behaving in a certain manner because if you don't, Mom or Dad is going to lay down the hammer.
For awhile those conversations benefited me greatly because it made go deeper into why I feel these things are deplorable outside of a religious mindset. I've hashed out those thought processes and have a firm rationale for myself on why I feel this way. So now when I see where the conversation is being directed I pretty much just shut it down. There's really no benefit to it, as it isn't an honest conversation. His mind is made up before he even asks the question, and there is nothing you can say to change it. It's quite honestly pointless once it ceases to benefit your understanding of yourself. It's literally the same conversation over and over again with no resolution.
It's fun for me to read on a message board, but engaging in it is just mind numbing to me at this point.
I don't see a conflict here. I think you just put forward additional reasons why murder is wrong that also don't require a supernatural enforcer.
Which makes the Christian reverence for suffering interesting to contrast.
When you get rolling you can turn out a sea of words.
I am quoting this one but I will attempt to cover the points you directed at me from your other posts as well.
I will answer your question, but if it is an attempt to change the subject, I won't follow any rabbit trails. You can note it and bring it up at some point later but for the time being I think there is enough on our plate.
I am a Christian (Catholic). I believe that we are created in the image and likeness of God. God endows all of us with an immortal soul and he loves us. All life has dignity and value. Therefore, it is wrong to murder and therefore genocide is also wrong. My worldview includes God and the dignity and value of human life. The idea that genocide is wrong is consistent with that world view.
I mentioned this in posts to others in this thread, but I failed to specifically mention it in my last post to you. If you want to consider it moving the goalposts, that is your call, but it was not my intention. What I am trying to understand is how an atheist can say something is right or wrong and be consistent with their worldview. Another way to put it is what rational explanation can an atheist give for calling something right or wrong.
I don't think you can call anything wrong (or right) so you are free to start from anywhere you would like.
I haven't read all of your interchange with What Would Jesus Do?, but he touched on the issue here. Before this argument can be considered it must first be established that "theft is wrong" and "the principle of reciprocity is binding" are consistent with the atheist world view.
I don't think they are, but you are welcome to make that argument.
Although, I think removing the principle of reciprocity line would not take anything away from your argument.
I never claimed that atheists don't make judgments about right and wrong. I agree atheists make these judgments everyday. I also believe there are good and moral atheists out there that would put most theists to shame.
I also would never suggest to anyone that they reject making judgments about what is right and wrong. That would be a serious mistake.
I also never claimed that you owed me anything. You can stop reading and replying anytime you like. I won't chase you.
What I am saying is, that if you have a consistent atheistic worldview, you will acknowledge that there is no rational basis for calling anything right or wrong. If you don't, you can still call yourself an atheist because simply having a inconsistent worldview doesn't automatically make you a theist.
I just don't think there is a rational explanation. I have been looking for one for awhile now and haven't seen it. This isn't some stealth attack here. This is pretty common claim in the Christian apologetics arena, I would have thought by now I would have been able to find a sound defense of this from an atheists point of view. If you are aware of one, point me in that direction and I will go read it.
Everything I have seen so far has either attempted to change the subject or try to discredit the question "atheists make moral judgments all the time therefore what you are saying can't be true". Those are debating tricks not arguments.
The principle of reciprocity is basically the Golden Rule.
These are pragmatic, logical choices. Your religion tells you they are good values. Our reason tells us they are good values.
Our reason also tells us (as it tells you) that there are circumstances when people choose not to live by these values. People kill, exploit and torture each other. Which is to say that the values we derive with reason and that you think are God-given are abandoned by some despite their professed belief and the power of your God.
It's easy for us to explain deviations. Non-believers can simply recalculate their best interests. But how do you explain those who kill, torture or cheat in God's name? Perhaps you will throw out free will. But all you are really saying is the same thing non-believers say.
I assume, from what you said that you must vote for liberals who oppose war and favor helping those in need. Because voting for Republicans would be a total violation of those values you expressed. If that assumption is wrong, I'd be interested to know how you rationalize supporting those who oppose God-given values.
I think they are consistent with my world view. Where are you seeing a conflict with a lack of belief in the supernatural? I express my personal morality via reciprocity which is why I included it. Both the golden rule and the more involved Rawls theory of Justice involve reciprocity at their core. Its the foundation for determining right and wrong in my view and is employed by the secular and religious alike. Reciprocity effectively eliminates the need for an outside judge of behavior and forces each person to live up to their own ideals for proper treatment.
Why do you hold this view? It seems to me there is a rational reason to claim some things are good and others bad based simply on their ramifications in society. Murder and theft upend society and make it unpalatable. Isn't that reason enough to deem them unsavory and thus wrong?
I am going to respond to both of you in one post because I think for the moment your points have converged.
I am going to decline What Would Jesus Do?'s offer to change the subject. I think a discussion of how my religious views effect how I vote would be enjoyable, but it is off topic at the moment.
This whole thing has been worth it in my opinion to learn the respect the two of you have for the golden rule. I really don't know the atheist crowd that well. Is that fairly common among atheists?
I have some questions about the rational basis of using the principle of reciprocity as your guiding principle (I am avoiding the phrase "that is your opinion" because it appears to make at least some atheists lose their mind), but I am curious to know what you think of an alternative used by other atheists.
I am going to bring up Nietzsche not to suggest that atheists should adopt his philosophy or that his is the only consistent option out there (I haven't read enough to make that claim).
I bring him up because he is a famous atheist philosopher and his worldview appears to align with evolution.
(I assume that it is your position is that the human race got here through an evolutionary process of natural selection/survival of the fittest with no divine intervention at any point in the process?)
https://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/n/nietzsche/friedrich/antichrist/chapter1.html
He thinks the weak should perish. Doesn't appear to be a fan of the the golden rule.
Is his view valid/invalid? Can an atheist go with either? What criteria would an atheist use to choose between the two?
Not asking for specific answers to those questions. Those are just the kind of questions that come to mind when I think of your answers that 'good' and 'bad' is based on the principle of reciprocity vs. Nietzsche's 'morality'.
Thoughts on any of that?
I am going to decline What Would Jesus Do?'s offer to change the subject. I think a discussion of how my religious views effect how I vote would be enjoyable, but it is off topic at the moment.
This whole thing has been worth it in my opinion to learn the respect the two of you have for the golden rule. I really don't know the atheist crowd that well. Is that fairly common among atheists?
I have some questions about the rational basis of using the principle of reciprocity as your guiding principle (I am avoiding the phrase "that is your opinion" because it appears to make at least some atheists lose their mind), but I am curious to know what you think of an alternative used by other atheists.
I am going to bring up Nietzsche not to suggest that atheists should adopt his philosophy or that his is the only consistent option out there (I haven't read enough to make that claim).
I bring him up because he is a famous atheist philosopher and his worldview appears to align with evolution.
(I assume that it is your position is that the human race got here through an evolutionary process of natural selection/survival of the fittest with no divine intervention at any point in the process?)
https://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/n/nietzsche/friedrich/antichrist/chapter1.html
He thinks the weak should perish. Doesn't appear to be a fan of the the golden rule.
Is his view valid/invalid? Can an atheist go with either? What criteria would an atheist use to choose between the two?
Not asking for specific answers to those questions. Those are just the kind of questions that come to mind when I think of your answers that 'good' and 'bad' is based on the principle of reciprocity vs. Nietzsche's 'morality'.
Thoughts on any of that?
My first thought is don't think of atheists as a congregation or a unified philosophy or ideology. There is no pantheon of ideas we all hold. We don't have meetings. We simply looked at theories of God and found them lacking and unnecessary.
For that reason I can't say how other atheists process morality. My own experience comes from studying philosophy and I'm particularly fond of John Rawls and his veil of ignorance test for justice. Whenever I tried to read Nietzsche, I always found him too prickish to bother. He rejects utilitarianism, I'm rather fond of Jeremy Bentham.
I do hold to evolution as the basis for biology. I don't hold it as a moral foundation however. Given my own proclivities that would be sort of self defeating and I can assure you one can achieve pleasure by giving up power. I don't think Nietzsche is a good fit for me at all. I would guess that would be how anyone might find a philosophy valid, by its ability to explain and be useful. One need not be an atheist to find reciprocity useful.
Last edited:
I still don't see the rational basis, but I am going to stop harping on it (in this thread anyway).
I want to thank you, What Would Jesus Do? and uniFIGHT*2, for your time. I will check out Rawls and Bentham.
Rational basis as in legal theory? As in is it legitimately related to an atheist interest? And is the "it" here reciprocity or another concept like morality or evolution? Thanks for bring up an interesting topic.
I was very rude as well, I apologize for that. I jumped to conclusions far too quickly, and you (KCTigerHawk) actually had some well thought out things to say.
I rescind my mental midget comment. I apologize for that because I presumptively assumed you were going down the path of many conversations I have had with numerous people who have been so close minded it's impossible to have a discussion with. I shouldn't do that, it's dishonest and I took a cop out. Due to my experiences I jump to conclusions far too quickly on this subject sometimes.
I appreciate that. Apology accept. I have been in plenty of 'conversations' on message boards that get ugly quick. Usually when I am trying to convince/convert/etc. A couple of those were on this board years ago and many others elsewhere.
I find these much more enjoyable when I am just trying to understand something. Now, if I happen to ask a question or make a point that makes someone reconsider things, cool, but that isn't the goal.
Anyway, I realized afterwards what "that is your opinion" sounded like and it wasn't what I meant. So, I apologize for that.
naturalmwa, I don't think continuing right now would be productive.
I am not able to convey what I am trying to get at. I don't mean that to say that you just aren't getting it. I mean that I am not 100% sure what I mean, but I am not satisfied with the explanations so far. I did look briefly into Rawls and I think he could be helpful in figuring out what I am getting at.
Anyway, again, thanks everyone for your time.
I'd like to admit that I hadn't heard of Rawls or Bantham before this thread and, after reading their wiki bios, I felt the ego-deflating pang of unintentional plagiarism. Probably passed down through the pop culture. I also mistook you for someone playing nihilist. Turns out you're Catholic, I used to be. I think I was even still Catholic in Kansas City once as a kid.
Edit: Meaning I'm comfortable with Catholics and Catholicism. Even appreciative. Not resentful.
Last edited:
so you are consumed with wackjob professors? honestly after viewing their pics i laughed...rather loudly.
[1] Basically you seem to be arguing that murder is wrong and genocide is merely a category of murder and therefore also wrong. Which is one of the alternatives I suggested. But then why do we single out genocide for special horror or response? For example we generally don't consider going to war and possibly killing many innocent people because of "ordinary" murder; but people will make that argument over genocide.
[2] Since you derive your idea that murder is wrong from your religion, I'm curious if your religion has anything specific to say about genocide. Is it discussed at all? I know plenty of religious people and organizations who get very worked up about genocide, but is there some specific scriptural basis for being especially opposed to genocide? Off the top of my head, the only thing that comes to mind is Joshua and Jericho. Except that God seemed to be OK with might be termed genocidal action in that story.
If you are interested in in what the Catholic Church teaches on a particular subject, you are likely to find a pretty good explanation in The Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC). FYI, some of it can be a little hard to understand if you are unfamiliar with Catcholic vocabulary, but much of it can be understood without much 'translation' if it is read in a spirit of trying to understand what is really being said.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM
[1][a] It can't be reduced to simple math as every human life is precious and of infinite value, but murdering two people is worse than murdering one. By extension, genocide is much worse.
[1] There are distinctions to be made between just and unjust wars. Also, there are just actions and unjust actions in war. http://www.catholic.com/documents/just-war-doctrine. CCC 2307-2317
[2][a] Yes, CCC 2313 states clearly that genocide is wrong.
[2] Re: Joshua and Jericho. There are several flaws in your thinking, if you are going where I think you are going:
- God isn't just a bigger more powerful version of us. He is being itself. He is all-knowing, all-powerful and all-good. He is outside of time and space. He knows everything that has ever happened and ever will happen. And, he knows it all now. His knowledge of us is perfect. There are no flaws in his understanding of us. He knows exactly what we believe, why we believe it, how we are going to live the rests of our lives, and how we will spend eternity. And, btw, he loves all of us anyway whether we like it or not.
- God is the author of life. All of the people on all sides of any conflict, all received their lives as a gift from God. No one has done anything to earn their life, and it is God's decision and God's alone how much of that gift each one of us receives.
- We all have immortal souls. Our lives here on earth whether they be a couple of hours or 100+ years are a drop in the ocean from the perspective of eternity.
- The world in that era of human history was a very different place than it is today. Judging Old Testament events by 21st century standards is not reasonable. God is the same God, but over time he has changed through a series of covenants how he deals with us.
The Jericho story (and the several others) has virtually nothing in common with The Holocaust, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Ruwanda, etc.
Now I realize you don't believe any of that, but that is how 'genocide is wrong', but 'Jericho is ok'.
I am guessing that opens up so many lines of questioning (attack?) you don't know for sure what to do with yourself. May I suggest that you pick one, table the rest and come back to them later?
FWIW, if you don't and you choose to respond to all of it now, I will have to pick one to continue because I don't really have the time to discuss it all at once. I responded to it all this time out of gratitude to your previous responses to me and your allowing me to keep that conversation on topic. So, if you want to choose where we go from here, I give you the floor.
