paralysis

[robvalue]

What's Darwinian atheism?

Is this some sort of attempt to say atheists get their morals from evolution?

I just did a video about this. I'll put it below.

As a sceptic, I don't believe there's any life after this one. So killing someone is a big deal. You're robbing them of the only experiences they'll ever have.

http://youtu.be/qvPeaSezHsE

[robvalue]

When people talk of "objective morality", they are implying a missing word, there: best.

"Kill everyone" is an objective moral code.

So by what criteria do we decide which objective morality is the best? Who gets to set it, and why should I care if they do?

[Red_Wind]

What's Darwinian atheism?

Is this some sort of attempt to say atheists get their morals from evolution?

I just did a video about this. I'll put it below.

As a sceptic, I don't believe there's any life after this one. So killing someone is a big deal. You're robbing them of the only experiences they'll ever have.

http://youtu.be/qvPeaSezHsE

Not only that, you're throwing their knowledge and experience away.One reason i respect old people so much is because of how much life experience they have and how interesting their life stories are. (Especially homeless people, i think it would actually be a good idea to invite a few homeless people to a school assembly to talk about their life story so the children can learn from their mistakes)

[The Grand Nudger]

The only mistake the homeless in the US appear to have made, as a group, was being born in a country without adequate mental health services, lol.

[robvalue]

These things are always circular.

"Well that's not what morality is about."

So it turns out morality is about exactly what the person you're talking to thinks it should be about. It's just that you'll rarely get even two people to completely agree on what that is.

To make it objective is just to reject any other definition of morality than exactly the one which leads precisely to your own morality.

[Esquilax]

In an atheistic world view, morality is relative. What you consider empathy is only your concept of empathy. Some one else is not bound to your empathy.

Hey, so, you're doing that thing again, the thing you promised me you wouldn't, where you assume the shape of the person's beliefs in your questions and responses to them. It feels an awful lot like you're reading from a script and aren't actually interested in what we really think, more than you are in your preconceived notions, and that's not an honest way to go about this. Instead of telling us what we believe, how about you ask, let us respond, and then tailor your answers to what we've actually said, rather than what you want us to have said?

Because I'll give you a hint: I'm an atheist, and I don't believe that morality is relative. In fact, I believe in objective morality, to a certain extent. See what happens, when you listen rather than just go down your script?

Incidentally, can you tell me one way in which an objective morality can be formed or known without recourse to gods (who are subjects) or unevidenced supernatural nothings? Because if all you're doing is positing a "superior" moral framework that can't actually exist, then you're in no way helping your case.

[LostLocke]

Hello guys

I want your opinion on the following scenario.

Lets assume there was a completely disabled human being who needs major help through all daily activities.
This human being is under the following condition:

• He/she has no job whatsoever
  
• He/she has zero friends and zero family members
  

If you are an atheist, can you give me a reason (other than legal issues) of why this person should not be killed as to free more resources (money, time, hospital space, etc) for the rest of the community?

100s of millions of years of evolution + 100s of thousands of years of social structure. That's a good enough reason for me.
If humans, or their close ancestors, had adopted your attitude we would never have developed as far as we have. Something else would be the dominant species on Earth, not Homo Sapiens.

[robvalue]

Yeah, there is no "atheistic worldview". If you learn one thing from this forum, that should be it.

Even the staff don't agree

My wife is an atheist, and she believes in ghosts, aliens, and God knows what else.

[loganonekenobi]

The idea that society should terminate those who are not useful does, on the surface, seems logical.

IF resources where truly scarce.

In the days of competition before techknowledgey could make good use of the earth folks like the spartens got rid of the babies that didn't pass inspection.

Now we have enough food to feed 10 billion people.

This person who is described in the original post does have something to teach humanity; kindness, compassion, patience, humility, and unity.

Without these things an individual might not go into life fully involved. Example; an animal must consider their actions carefully due to the fact that they have no medical treatment of any sort from anywhere. So there are many risks that could prove beneficial to itself and its progeny that it won't take.

If all humans had to keep in the backs of their minds that they will terminated upon being determined obsolete, they would most assuredly make the choices in professions, mating, and travel that would present the safest possible route in life. In doing so the advancement of the human race would be considerable slowed. Without risk takers where would we be?

These people know that if the worst should happen they wont be left on the street to die. In this way they can freely take the risks that have the chance to advance our species.

So in the short sight, yes terminating this person would be logical. In the longer view with out him our people's advancement may be slowed or halted all together.

[paulpablo]

Hello guys

I want your opinion on the following scenario.

Lets assume there was a completely disabled human being who needs major help through all daily activities.
This human being is under the following condition:

• He/she has no job whatsoever
  
• He/she has zero friends and zero family members
  

If you are an atheist, can you give me a reason (other than legal issues) of why this person should not be killed as to free more resources (money, time, hospital space, etc) for the rest of the community?

I don't know about the situation well enough to give you an answer.  I could make some assumptions.  They're completely disabled so I assume they can't think properly, they're on breathing apparatus, they're given fluids through a drip and so on, if this is permanent then maybe it's wise to turn the machines off supporting that person and they die.
If the person is not that disabled then keeping them alive would be great for the community.  Communities thrive on empathy, good will, virtue.  There's no reason to put someone through the trauma of killing someone who they don't even know that well.