Quote:It is morally wrong to rape somebody, even if they raped you first and you are reciprocating."

That kind of reciprocity/payback is a common part of Judeo-Christian morality ;'"an eye for an eye,"taken from Hammurabi. The reciprocity of violent ,even fatal reciprocity of revenge is still common in many 'developed' societies.

Quote:It's not appealing, but it's true and we as atheists need to find a solution to this problem

No,'we' do not need to find a solution to anything. 'As an atheist" I have no position on an any issue whatsoever apart from the existence of god(s).


0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

Exodus 21:24 (KJV)

Quote:eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,

(September 1, 2012 at 1:30 am)padraic Wrote:

Quote:It is morally wrong to rape somebody, even if they raped you first and you are reciprocating."

That kind of reciprocity/payback is a common part of Judeo-Christian morality ;'"an eye for an eye,"taken from Hammurabi. The reciprocity of violent ,even fatal reciprocity of revenge is still common in many 'developed' societies.

Quote:It's not appealing, but it's true and we as atheists need to find a solution to this problem

No,'we' do not need to find a solution to anything. 'As an atheist" I have no position on an any issue whatsoever apart from the existence of god(s).


0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

Exodus 21:24 (KJV)

Quote:eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,

I don't care what Christians believe. I'm more concerned about atheists and the problem of subjective morality becoming equivalent to rape apologetics.

Every atheists should be concerned about this.

(August 31, 2012 at 10:23 am)whateverist Wrote:

(August 31, 2012 at 5:33 am)apophenia Wrote: First, our wills are not radically free. What we as an evolved biological organism are capable of willing, what we find hard to will and what is easy, is defined as an artifact of our evolutionary history. Our wills have been refined over time to serve the needs of our selfish genes. And something peculiar about that will, is that it deviates significantly from rational models. ... Moreover, a large chunk of our will involves cooperative ventures like families, tribes, and societies, ventures in which our evolved psychology allows us to leverage language, culture and reason into assemblages which include things like agreeing to be punished if we break rules, and so forth, which result in a sophisticated will which takes many things beyond visceral desire into account.

Second is that our wills are what I call "cognitively opaque". We can inspect the results, for example by apprehending a feeling of wrongness when we contemplate some act, but the reasons for that judgement aren't accessible to our introspection — the reason we came to that apprehension is computed somewhere below consciousness.

I completely agree with all of this and I like the way you put it together. Morality is best understood biologically/psychologically/culturally. It isn't as though, in the absence of consciously deciding on a moral code we will be without one. Unless we're raised in a closet with minimal contact we will most likely already have a moral sense -unchosen- to be discovered, not decided upon.

There is something about consciously assenting to what we deem moral which is necessary to convey the sense of what we want the word to mean. But it may be that sense of the word carries a naive, mistaken view of human nature.

There is a growing body of literature on the mental life of babies, and in particular, recent studies seem to indicate that babies as young as six months old already have a developed moral sense, even before language acquisition. While as with any other trait, phylogeny must take account of predisposition and modification in response to the environment, I would suggest such studies indicate that while learning may shape our social, moral responses, they do not create them. (And studies have shown that for some moral judgements, the part of the brain activated is the same involved in physical revulsion at the taste of rotten meat or the sight of mangled animals. You can't 'train' that type of revulsion. Though there are important results in moral psychology that indicate that what we once thought were moral invariants are also more culturally dependent than previously assumed. [Haidt, 2012])



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anCaGBsBOxM

---

(August 31, 2012 at 11:54 am)genkaus Wrote: As for the second point - basing one's values on an authority is the most demeaning thing one can do to oneself. A rational person would try to understand his own nature and that of his environment and base his values on that. An irrational person may choose to act on range of the moment whims and desires, but atleast he is basing his values on himself. What you ask here is for a person to subvert his own nature and desires - without so much as a reason given, but on authority - and to substitute one's own rationality and judgment for someone else's. What could be more demeaning?

Weren't you the one who was telling me that we learn our morality from authority figures, our parents and elders? Or did I hallucinate that?

(August 31, 2012 at 11:43 pm)greneknight Wrote:

(August 31, 2012 at 11:38 pm)Strongbad Wrote: We atheists "get" our morality from the exact same place you "got" your morality when you were an atheist for 25 years (as you stated in post #365 of the "Where did the Jesus myth come from?" thread), you disingenuous prick.

Ho Ho Ho! That's a good one. I'm amazed how shameless my fellow Christians can be. I always cringe when I read what they post and I feel so embarrassed for them. It's like they have gone absolutely nuts and need to be thrown into the padded cell or they're really incredibly stupid or they're all 3 year olds.

The old "I was an atheist until jesus pissed in my ear" dodge is an ancient one. The moment one of them trots it out I immediately assume they are full of shit.

Quote:Every atheists should be concerned about this.

Bollocks; there are no 'shoulds' in atheism.

What is it about an 'atheist is a only a person person who does not believe in god(s)' you have so much trouble grasping?

Atheism is NOT: an ideology,world view,moral code,philosophy, political movement, club or association. There is no' we'.

Nor do I allow others decide I should think,say or do about anything,in any moral sense.

(September 1, 2012 at 2:26 am)padraic Wrote:

Quote:Every atheists should be concerned about this.

Bollocks; there are no 'shoulds' in atheism.

What is it about an 'atheist is a only a person person who does not believe in god(s)' you have so much trouble grasping?

Atheism is NOT: an ideology,world view,moral code,philosophy, political movement, club or association. There is no' we'.

Nor do I allow others decide I should think,say or do about anything,in any moral sense.

Yours is not a rational position, it is a semantic one. A rational position is one where one considers the proposition "A God doesn't exist", and accordingly all the rational consequences of the position, be they epistemic, ethical, skeptical, whatever.

Your position is not rational, it's strictly semantic. Or definitional. "Atheism means no belief in God and that's that!" It's a convenient position to hold, burden-of-proof-wise. But flip the situation and consider the theist: "I'm a Christian theist. All I believe is that Jesus is God. Don't tell me about any problems in my worldview. I don't care nor am I interested. I'm a Christian and that's that." If a Christian said that, you wouldn't smile and nod and neither would I.

So when you say something of the sort, I bring my paddle out to give you a right spanking too.

A rational consideration of atheism takes into account not only the propositional truth of atheism, but also the outcomes that such a belief has on other, related beliefs. There is no other way to go about it. We're not debating dictionary definitions, we are debating worldviews. And atheism, being a position on the existence of God, is a worldview. And rational atheism, taking into consideration the worldview that is derived from it, has a serious moral problem.

And if you don't like rape, murder and child abuse, you should be concerned that atheism allows for the legitimization of these crimes. Sam Harris was concerned enough. Dawkins himself now feels the same way. So why are you trying to escape the problem by playing word-games?

You talk of semantics, but your whole view is just semantics, it holds no actual truth in reality.

(September 1, 2012 at 2:48 am)ib.me.ub Wrote: You talk of semantics, but your whole view is just semantics, it holds no actual truth in reality.

Don't be an idiot.

If you're not rational you don't belong in the atheist fold.

. Whatever you say, oh and kiss my ass.

Vinny old sock, I think we may need to agree to differ.

By all means continue your with recalitrant attitude and ignorant drivel.

I will say nothing furthers as I bask in the warm glow of superiority which comes from being right and the realistation that one's opponent is a stuffwit.

Quote:If you're not rational you don't belong in the atheist fold.

Oh for fuck sake.No true Scotsman? Yup, complete stuffwit.