RE: Atheism, A Grim Position?
January 5, 2015 at 10:57 pm
(This post was last modified: January 5, 2015 at 10:59 pm by *steve*.)
(January 5, 2015 at 10:36 pm)Esquilax Wrote: Wrong: the ultimate basis is called "reality," of which we are individual components thereof, with objectively verifiable natures as biological beings. Due to this, some positions, like genocide and torture and all that, are not equally defensible, and are, in fact, indefensible. You just need to rationally reason through these things, keeping in mind the facts of our biology and the world we live in.
Ok, here's how this would go. I'd ask you why they are indefensible. You'd offer an answer, then I'd ask why that? Next answer. Then I'd ask why that again? On and on. There is no stopping point if there is no ultimate basis of value so any answer would eventually go nowhere or just be a personal (or group) preference. In that case any other position would be just as equally defensible.
(January 5, 2015 at 10:52 pm)Forsaken Wrote:(January 5, 2015 at 10:42 pm)*steve* Wrote: I get that. So then if "Maximizing my lifetime total of pleasure" entailed killing redheads because it was pleasurable, does that go against atheist ethics? If so, how?
There is nothing such "atheist ethics".
From your previous post "Atheist ethics fills in the blank with something in this world"
