What does atheism/skepticism have to offer?

Originally posted by no1marauder
Really??? I would say the "Christians" (remember those quotes) on this site are in almost total agreement that Man's nature is "vile" "evil" "degraded" etc etc etc etc; they've said it many times. Ask Coletti or KellyJay or Blindfaith or RBHILL etc. etc. etc. Do you disagree?? Of course, the reality that we are emphatic, social animals who seem pre-programmed to caring about our fellow man throws a crimp into that argument.

I believe Man has an inherently sinful nature -- meaning that while we are prone towards selfishness and conceit we also exhibit a lesser capacity for compassion, kindness and sensitivity.

P.S. my apologies for the tirade in the previous post.

Originally posted by dottewell
So the reason lying is wrong is because it endangers life?

And fraud? Stealing?

Even if your theory could be made to work, it does not address the question why life is worth preserving.

Is the answer not: "It just is!"

I could expand my description to include all the moral laws that I accept. It would just be a very, very long post. Suffice it to say, all the moral laws that I accept can be rooted in the desire to live and let live.

As to why life is worth preserving, it may not be. However, most people has the desire to live (for whatever reason), and we build our moral laws on that desire. But you're right. It could be that we're not supposed to live and therefore life wouldn't be worth preserving.

Now, you tell me. If I apply the answer: "It just is!", to any question you ask about anything I say, would you actually follow my commands?

Like if I say: "You should kill every muslim you meet, whenever you meet them.", and you ask: "Why is this a necessity?", and I answer: "It just is". Would you hopp around killing every muslim you meet?

I think to accept such an answer, is making it easy on yourself. I could never do that. Hell, I even question my own bosses orders if they don't make sense (and he pays me to follow orders).

(Come to think of it, I should probably finnish those lines of code I promised a week ago. uhum...)

Originally posted by stocken
I could expand my description to include all the moral laws that I accept. It would just be a very, very long post. Suffice it to say, all the moral laws that I accept can be rooted in the desire to live and let live.

As to why life is worth preserving, it may not be. However, most people has the desire to live (for whatever reason), and we build o of it, I should probably finnish those lines of code I promised a week ago. uhum...)

You miss the point.

I said we could argue about particular moral issues (e.g. invasion of Iraq, stealing from the rich to give to the poor).

However, at some point we will hit moral bedrock. There is nothing that can be logically proven and which justifies all basic moral facts, such as that all human life has value, etc.

Nor does their need to me.

So if you commanded me to kill Muslims, quite rightly I would say no. And assume you were evil, or mad.

Originally posted by dottewell
You miss the point.

I said we could argue about particular moral issues (e.g. invasion of Iraq, stealing from the rich to give to the poor).

However, at some point we will hit moral bedrock. There is nothing that can be logically proven and which justifies all basic moral facts, such as that all human life has value, etc.

Nor does their need to me ...[text shortened]... ou commanded me to kill Muslims, quite rightly I would say no. And assume you were evil, or mad.

Apparently, we're missing each other here. If there are moral laws, that I have to accept on the premise: "It just is", then those moral laws can say anything. If I grew up being taught that killing muslims is my duty, then I would consider that a good moral law (based on the premise: "It just is" ).

This is how you create crazy fanatics. You tell them (while they can still be influenced) to do crazy things because that's what they're supposed to do. Repeat it over and over again. Make sure they can't find time to think for themselves. And, ta-daaa... you have a fanatic. And when asking him/her why (s)he thinks killing muslims is a necessesity, (s)he'll say: "It just is".

---

Although, I'm starting to see what you're getting at here. My entire structure of moral laws, that I try to follow, are all built on an assumption that may not be correct. There is no reason to think, that just because I have a desire to live, it is a good thing to live and let live. In fact, I have lots of desires, and some of them I consider bad because they oppose the "let live" (in a very wide sense of the word) part of my moral laws.

I'd have to give that some thought. Seems I've based my entire structure of moral laws on a possible lie. Now, doesn't it?

Originally posted by stocken

This is how you create crazy fanatics. You tell them (while they can still be influenced) to do crazy things because that's what they're supposed to do. Repeat it over and over again. Make sure they can't find time to think for themselves. And, ta-daaa... you have a fanatic. And when asking him/her why (s)he thinks killing muslims is a necessesity, (s)he'll say: "It just is".

This is how you create crazy fanatics.

Or you could create a society of over-altruistic moral-slaves who can be manipulated to serve you in all your needs.

Originally posted by LordOfTheChessboard
[b]This is how you create crazy fanatics.

Or you could create a society of over-altruistic moral-slaves who can be manipulated to serve you in all your needs.[/b]

You would like that, uh? Mindless slaves following your every command?

Originally posted by stocken
Although, I'm starting to see what you're getting at here. My entire structure of moral laws, that I try to follow, are all built on an assumption that may not be correct. There is no reason to think, that just because I have a desire to live, it is a good thing to live and let live. In fact, I have lots of desires, and some of them I consider bad because th ...[text shortened]... t. Seems I've based my entire structure of moral laws on a possible lie. Now, doesn't it?

I would say they are built on assumptions that simply cannot be challenged.

Most moral assumptions can be challenged because they are perversions or simple contradictions of more basic moral laws.

But "bottom line" moral facts cannot be questioned. I would say the moral fact that all human life has value should be put in this category.

We can use this to argue with those fanatics who cause death and pain.

The fact they cannot be challenged, or "justified", does not mean they are not true.

Moral systems like utilitarianism may be useful tools but essentially moral philosophy is a DESCRIPTIVE exercise; it is describing, exploring and casting light on values that we already have.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
2.a. It is incorrect to authoritatively state that we have never met a God - plenty of people have claimed to do so throughout history. Unless every single claim has been comprehensively debunked, such a statement is, at best, ignorance and, at worst, arrogance.

Quite a few people claim to have met aliens and seen inside their space ships. I trust you take their testimony as seriously as you do the words of mystics.

Originally posted by dottewell
I would say they are built on assumptions that simply cannot be challenged.

Most moral assumptions can be challenged because they are perversions or simple contradictions of more basic moral laws.

But "bottom line" moral facts cannot be questioned. I would say the moral fact that all human life has value should be put in this category.

We can use ...[text shortened]... TIVE exercise; it is describing, exploring and casting light on values that we already have.

You do have a point, dottewell. 🙂

I'm still not prepared to just accept it the way it is. I'll come up with a good answer to even the most basic of human instincts. Someday. You'll see. Oh. Yea!? I will! I will too!

Well, enjoy life. 🙂

Originally posted by Halitose
I believe Man has an inherently sinful nature -- meaning that while we are prone towards selfishness and conceit we also exhibit a lesser capacity for compassion, kindness and sensitivity.

I also believe that human beings are inherently sinful--in the basic sense of sin, which is to make a mistake. We all make mistakes. Being sinful means being imperfect--no grounds for gnashing teeth.

Originally posted by stocken
Well, enjoy life. 🙂

You too!

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
I also believe that human beings are inherently sinful--in the basic sense of sin, which is to make a mistake. We all make mistakes. Being sinful means being imperfect--no grounds for gnashing teeth.

This presents a problem for the Christian.

Most people make some moral mistakes, but most people do more good than harm overall.

Are those people to be condemned?

Originally posted by dottewell
This presents a problem for the Christian.

Most people make some moral mistakes, but most people do more good than harm overall.

Are those people to be condemned?

You don't understand; all people are total scum but Jesus gives this undeserving trash the "gift of grace". We all suck and are dirtbags, but those few who sufficiently grovel before God's greatness will be rewarded and the rest will get what their evil nature has earned.

Does that help?

Originally posted by no1marauder
You don't understand; all people are total scum but Jesus gives this undeserving trash the "gift of grace". We all suck and are dirtbags, but those few who sufficiently grovel before God's greatness will be rewarded and the rest will get what their evil nature has earned.

Does that help?

I know that, for the fundy Christian, they are to be condemned (to Hell or whatever); but are they to be condemned (described as bad people)?

Originally posted by no1marauder
You don't understand; all people are total scum but Jesus gives this undeserving trash the "gift of grace". We all suck and are dirtbags, but those few who sufficiently grovel before God's greatness will be rewarded and the rest will get what their evil nature has earned.

I guess the real Christian problem would be to persuade people that this perception (a very common one) is untrue.