Let me guess, if I believe in your invisible man in the sky, I'll gain all the fulfillment I've ever wanted and will live on forever and ever, and feel loved and all that, right?
Feel free to back up any of your believes with any actual proof.
Where did I mention an invisible man in the sky? Don't attempt strawman arguments.
Ab assertion has been made here and not by me. The onus is on those who make the assertions (and those that believe them) to either accept the logical conclusions of the assertion or reconsider the assertion.
Anyone who believes there are no morals is called a scoundrel/crook and is unworthy of trust. It is amazing that someone can actually declare himself/herself a crook and still expect to be believed/trusted. Are you fishing for absolute amazing persons who are incapable of logic and will believe anything that claims to be "atheistic"?
I think that anyone can find beauty in the argument that is existentialism. Take out all the stuff about their not being a God and really they are just telling you to take advantage of the life that you have and not get so caught up in the afterlife that you don't experience what God gave you.
It makes sense if you believe in God. However, if you don't one particular way of existence has no special significance over another. Why would anyone need someone else to tell them which way they should live, since there is no absolute reference anyway?
Examples of those who don't believe in morals are bandits, murderers, rapists etc. Yeah, sure, around where I live we call them scoundrels and crooks. It is possible, such are role models where you live.
"There are no morals" is an assertion made in the picture that we are all commenting on. If you don't agree with it, don't try to defend it.
I said bandits, murderers and rapists are examples of those without morals. But sure, if someone claimed a complete absense of any morals, as the picture asserts, I don't see any reason to trust them not to murder, plunder or rape if they had an opportunity and could get away with it.
Morality, whatever it is, is a code of conduct that is to be held above oneself. So when someone says it is morally wrong to do such and such, he/she means do not do it even if doing so benefits you or makes you happy. Morality automatically implies a purpose for one's existence that is above one's own happiness or interests. If you deny a purpose for your existence that is not of your own making, you deny a basis for any morality.
Having different moral standards is different from having none. If you are an atheist but do have moral standards, most likely you don't
have a logically consistent basis for the standards. You can be an atheist without being omniscient. It doesn't hurt to admit that one doesn't really know if life and universe have a purpose, but one rejects the claims and motivations of the religious people while accepting those aspects of religious morality like speaking the truth, not stealing, not murdering etc. that form the foundations of a stable and harmonious social existence.
But if you make claims like "there are no morals, the universe is not moving inexorably towards any higher purpose", you are on a very shaky ground trying to convince anyone that you are not a potential bandit, murderer or rapist if not already one.
You clearly misunderstand the statement "there are no morals." Literally that means no living person abides by morals. This is obviously not true so you must take it figuratively, ie. there are no absolute morals. How is this possibly difficult?
The thing doesn't claim that people have no morals. You have to do more than just read it literally man, you can't expect us to do all the work for you.
I suggest you read the text in the picture once again. Right under the title is the text "There is no God or gods, there are no morals, the universe is not moving inexorably towards any higher purpose".
Murderer and rapists have "different" morals? I am impressed with your concept of morals.
In the concept of morality that I know, it is a set of rules that one accepts as the right, regardless of whether they benefit one or make one happy in a given instance. Under my morality a murderer, bandit or a rapist is morally wrong. If the person also accepts that he/she committed something that is morally wrong, we call it a moral failing. However if the person claims to be right, we don't call it as "having a different set of morals", simply as one without morals.
When I talk about differences is moral standards I am referring to culture specific things like respecting one's elders etc. If you believe habitual lying, cheating, murdering, raping, plundering are right under some "moral" code, I
will have to assume you are either guilty of or potentially capable of any or all of them.
"Absolute morals," not "any morals at all." The idea that there are no morals that exist is so ludicrous that I find it hilarious that you even entertain it as a valid point to attack.
Normal concept of morality is that they are discovered, not made up. All morality flows from a supposed higher purpose, a purpose higher than the individual in question. Denying such a basis is denying a basis to judge inidvidual actions. Nothing can be declared wrong. Chew on that for a while, so you may understand it.
Yes, it is a ludicrous idea that he was actually claiming that there are no morals at all. Obviously people follow morals. To entertain that as an argument is hilariously childish.
No the "normal" concept is that morals are human constructs. Only religion claims that there are absolutes. The hell do you eman bby "normal" anyway? You are just throwing out vague words now in an attempt to profound. The consensus in philosophy is that humans construct their own morals. This is based on the vast difference in morals from culture to culture. Simple really....
You judge individual actions based on your own reasoning and emotions, not on this "higher power" you speak of. Sure some people try to base it all on a god, and that is exactly what this is saying not to do. You are free of constructs like that
Obviously most people believe in a God or gods, but that doesn't stop you from denying Him/them, right? So even if it is obvious that most people believe in morals, whether they follow them or violate them, why should that stop you from denying anything called morals actually exist.
By normal, I meant popularly understood. Yes, religious people do believe that morals are handed down by super-human entities and many of them believe their morals are universally applicable across all places and times and the morals of different sets of people differ.
Length of day and night vary from place to place and around the year. I don't see anybody denying the existence of "absolute" day and night or saying they are "human" constructs. Day and night exist and they are recognitions of a phenomenon that is not man made.
I don't partcularly care what the "consensus in philosophy" is, I am not trying to get a degree in philosophy nor do I believe the "consensus in philosophy" somehow is a commandment f
or me.
If you say each individual is the basis for his own morality, you are saying that no one can be morally wrong and you can be expected to feel morally right whatever you do including murder, plunder and rape exactly as I have been saying all along.
What exactly are you differing with me on, that your morality derived exclusively from yourself somehow prevents you from being a murderer, plunderer or rapist? If so, do let me know how.
Let me guess, if I believe in your invisible man in the sky, I'll gain all the fulfillment I've ever wanted and will live on forever and ever, and feel loved and all that, right?
Feel free to back up any of your believes with any actual proof.
you heard that on zeitgeist, talk for yourself
What the hell is zeitgeist?
Where did I mention an invisible man in the sky? Don't attempt strawman arguments.
Ab assertion has been made here and not by me. The onus is on those who make the assertions (and those that believe them) to either accept the logical conclusions of the assertion or reconsider the assertion.
Anyone who believes there are no morals is called a scoundrel/crook and is unworthy of trust. It is amazing that someone can actually declare himself/herself a crook and still expect to be believed/trusted. Are you fishing for absolute amazing persons who are incapable of logic and will believe anything that claims to be "atheistic"?
I think that anyone can find beauty in the argument that is existentialism. Take out all the stuff about their not being a God and really they are just telling you to take advantage of the life that you have and not get so caught up in the afterlife that you don't experience what God gave you.
It makes sense if you believe in God. However, if you don't one particular way of existence has no special significance over another. Why would anyone need someone else to tell them which way they should live, since there is no absolute reference anyway?
"Anyone who believes there are no morals is called a scoundrel/crook and is unworthy of trust."
Care to substantiate or are you just talking out of your ass? Haha.
Define your own morals you lazy ass. Quite following and start leading.
Examples of those who don't believe in morals are bandits, murderers, rapists etc. Yeah, sure, around where I live we call them scoundrels and crooks. It is possible, such are role models where you live.
You accuse me of making strawman arguments, then you go and state that people without morals are bandits, murderers and rapists? That a hypocrite.
Have you ever heard of a person without morals? There's no such things. There are simply people with *different* morals than you.
"There are no morals" is an assertion made in the picture that we are all commenting on. If you don't agree with it, don't try to defend it.
I said bandits, murderers and rapists are examples of those without morals. But sure, if someone claimed a complete absense of any morals, as the picture asserts, I don't see any reason to trust them not to murder, plunder or rape if they had an opportunity and could get away with it.
Morality, whatever it is, is a code of conduct that is to be held above oneself. So when someone says it is morally wrong to do such and such, he/she means do not do it even if doing so benefits you or makes you happy. Morality automatically implies a purpose for one's existence that is above one's own happiness or interests. If you deny a purpose for your existence that is not of your own making, you deny a basis for any morality.
Having different moral standards is different from having none. If you are an atheist but do have moral standards, most likely you don't
have a logically consistent basis for the standards. You can be an atheist without being omniscient. It doesn't hurt to admit that one doesn't really know if life and universe have a purpose, but one rejects the claims and motivations of the religious people while accepting those aspects of religious morality like speaking the truth, not stealing, not murdering etc. that form the foundations of a stable and harmonious social existence.
But if you make claims like "there are no morals, the universe is not moving inexorably towards any higher purpose", you are on a very shaky ground trying to convince anyone that you are not a potential bandit, murderer or rapist if not already one.
You clearly misunderstand the statement "there are no morals." Literally that means no living person abides by morals. This is obviously not true so you must take it figuratively, ie. there are no absolute morals. How is this possibly difficult?
The thing doesn't claim that people have no morals. You have to do more than just read it literally man, you can't expect us to do all the work for you.
That would have been an explanation worthy of a religious scholar referring to their texts :-)
I completely disagree with you Ganapati.
The picture does not assert that there are no morals.
There is no such thing as a being with no morals. There are beings with different morals than yours.
"murderers and rapists" are not examples of those without morals, they are examples of those with different morals.
Or examples of those with the same morals as you who know it is wrong to murder but have an urge to do so that is stronger than them.
There are too many shades of gray for you to generalize this
I suggest you read the text in the picture once again. Right under the title is the text "There is no God or gods, there are no morals, the universe is not moving inexorably towards any higher purpose".
Murderer and rapists have "different" morals? I am impressed with your concept of morals.
In the concept of morality that I know, it is a set of rules that one accepts as the right, regardless of whether they benefit one or make one happy in a given instance. Under my morality a murderer, bandit or a rapist is morally wrong. If the person also accepts that he/she committed something that is morally wrong, we call it a moral failing. However if the person claims to be right, we don't call it as "having a different set of morals", simply as one without morals.
When I talk about differences is moral standards I am referring to culture specific things like respecting one's elders etc. If you believe habitual lying, cheating, murdering, raping, plundering are right under some "moral" code, I
will have to assume you are either guilty of or potentially capable of any or all of them.
"Absolute morals," not "any morals at all." The idea that there are no morals that exist is so ludicrous that I find it hilarious that you even entertain it as a valid point to attack.
It is not such a ludicrous idea.
Normal concept of morality is that they are discovered, not made up. All morality flows from a supposed higher purpose, a purpose higher than the individual in question. Denying such a basis is denying a basis to judge inidvidual actions. Nothing can be declared wrong. Chew on that for a while, so you may understand it.
Yes, it is a ludicrous idea that he was actually claiming that there are no morals at all. Obviously people follow morals. To entertain that as an argument is hilariously childish.
No the "normal" concept is that morals are human constructs. Only religion claims that there are absolutes. The hell do you eman bby "normal" anyway? You are just throwing out vague words now in an attempt to profound. The consensus in philosophy is that humans construct their own morals. This is based on the vast difference in morals from culture to culture. Simple really....
You judge individual actions based on your own reasoning and emotions, not on this "higher power" you speak of. Sure some people try to base it all on a god, and that is exactly what this is saying not to do. You are free of constructs like that
Obviously most people believe in a God or gods, but that doesn't stop you from denying Him/them, right? So even if it is obvious that most people believe in morals, whether they follow them or violate them, why should that stop you from denying anything called morals actually exist.
By normal, I meant popularly understood. Yes, religious people do believe that morals are handed down by super-human entities and many of them believe their morals are universally applicable across all places and times and the morals of different sets of people differ.
Length of day and night vary from place to place and around the year. I don't see anybody denying the existence of "absolute" day and night or saying they are "human" constructs. Day and night exist and they are recognitions of a phenomenon that is not man made.
I don't partcularly care what the "consensus in philosophy" is, I am not trying to get a degree in philosophy nor do I believe the "consensus in philosophy" somehow is a commandment f
or me.
If you say each individual is the basis for his own morality, you are saying that no one can be morally wrong and you can be expected to feel morally right whatever you do including murder, plunder and rape exactly as I have been saying all along.
What exactly are you differing with me on, that your morality derived exclusively from yourself somehow prevents you from being a murderer, plunderer or rapist? If so, do let me know how.