Then lets just say that it is obvious that you don't know what the hell you are talking about and leave it at that. Sound fair?
Libertarians! Weigh in on the death penalty here.
- Thread starter breakingcontact
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Texas
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
Then lets just say that it is obvious that you don't know what the hell you are talking about and leave it at that. Sound fair?
How so? Because your definition of 'atheist' only involves those who do not believe in natural rights?
A belief in natural rights is logical, even when not Biblically based. The thought line goes along the lines of:
Suppose I lived in a remote area. There is no government. I exist and I am alive, ergo I have a right to my life. The person who lives ten miles away has a right to his life. I am free and have liberty. I do not have a right to deprive my neighbor of his life, nor he mine. If said neighbor attempts to deprive me of my life, I have a right to defend myself (and there's your 2nd Amendment).
I'm sorry, too much to explain to you and too little time.
Google Peter Singer and Utilitarianism and you will see atheists who truly understand the implications of this worldview.
Also, based on history alone you are mistaken. It is not like atheistic regimes around the world have an astounding track record in defending life on the basis of natural rights.
The ones I know do. What makes you say this? If their own belief is there is no God, why is that inconsistent with a value for life?
Fify.
You make a statement with no supporting evidence based on nothing but your assumptions. Then when giving the most basic and understandable reasoning to show why you are I correct you stick your fingers in your ears and scream "LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA, I CAN'T HEAR YOU!"
And you try to say I don't know what I'm talking about? Yeah right.
Wasn't talking about 'regimes', I was discussing specific individuals. There are atheists who place no value on human life (see George Bernard Shaw "justify your existence"). I was pointing out how atheism and a value for life are not mutually exclusive. S.E. Cupp is an atheist, yet is also opposed to abortion. She came to her opposition to abortion absent biblical leadings. Just from logically thinking the matter through.
I do not know of a prominent atheistic philosopher who believes that life itself is valuable, or that life is a natural right.
Atheists do not believe in objective values, meaning something being valuable or good in itself a part from humans placing value on it subjectively. They may believe life is instrumentally valuable in obtaining subjective values such as happiness or pleasure, but once that life loses that capacity or lacks the consciousness to do so, it loses value.
I tried educating you all. Look it up on your own. Not that controversial, but as the Post Commander, I suspect you think it is your job to ignorantly contest everything.
The idea of natural rights fit perfectly in to a logical atheistic view. True, it would be quite hypocritical for an atheist to speak of god given rights, because if you don't believe in god how can he give anything. Natural rights however, are just that. They are natural.
The idea that an atheist should place no value on life is ridiculous. Life is not infinite. It is short and fleeting. You have but one opportunity to make the most if your time with friends an moved ones. The things that give a life value are the hopes, dreams, and aspirations a person has as well as their interactions and connections with others. That life is one of a kind and can not be replaced. If you were to look at that in an economic sense of value, nothing is worth more than something that is irreplaceable.
It is a belief based purely on logic, so it could not possibly be illogical.
Now, the fact that a guy writes a book saying otherwise is not surprising. People write many books about many things. Some claim abortion is a woman's right, despite the right of the child. Some write books supporting repeal of the second amendment, they even fill it with flawed arguments and completely dishonest statistics and maybe even a graph or two, all the while ignoring the obvious history of people who lost the ability to defend themselves and examples of cities in this nation with strict gun control and high murder rates. Just because a book was written, doesn't mean it's true or that the author speaks for anyone but him/herself.
As to the history and crimes commuted against people who various rights were violated: might wanna be careful, that's a double edges sword. Flipping through the history books you can find numerous examples of rights being violated, including the right to life, by leaders from pretty much every religious or non religious background for various reasons. Usually related to the pursuit of power. This is. Not something specific to atheism, but throughout history had been equally prevalent among all belief systems.
The idea that an atheist should place no value on life is ridiculous. Life is not infinite. It is short and fleeting. You have but one opportunity to make the most if your time with friends an moved ones. The things that give a life value are the hopes, dreams, and aspirations a person has as well as their interactions and connections with others. That life is one of a kind and can not be replaced. If you were to look at that in an economic sense of value, nothing is worth more than something that is irreplaceable.
It is a belief based purely on logic, so it could not possibly be illogical.
Now, the fact that a guy writes a book saying otherwise is not surprising. People write many books about many things. Some claim abortion is a woman's right, despite the right of the child. Some write books supporting repeal of the second amendment, they even fill it with flawed arguments and completely dishonest statistics and maybe even a graph or two, all the while ignoring the obvious history of people who lost the ability to defend themselves and examples of cities in this nation with strict gun control and high murder rates. Just because a book was written, doesn't mean it's true or that the author speaks for anyone but him/herself.
As to the history and crimes commuted against people who various rights were violated: might wanna be careful, that's a double edges sword. Flipping through the history books you can find numerous examples of rights being violated, including the right to life, by leaders from pretty much every religious or non religious background for various reasons. Usually related to the pursuit of power. This is. Not something specific to atheism, but throughout history had been equally prevalent among all belief systems.
This may make perfect sense to you or the random well meaning atheist, but it is not sufficient grounds to build an entire political and moral system that protects individual freedom.
There are always qualifications to the value of life and personal freedoms in atheistic moral and political philosophies.
And I do not know of one prominent atheistic philosopher.
You are applying religious conformity to something that is not religious. There is no head atheist to direct what the people must believe. Maybe an atheist organization with a leader, but he would not be directing the beliefs because it would t work like that.
It seems you have had a very narrow view and only sought out evidence that supports your preconceived notions, unwilling to accept anything that conflicts or widens that view.
Life, in and of itself is a right. The value of that life is based on it's singularity. It's special because there is no other like it. It is the only one that exists or that ever will, there will never be a duplicate.
Everything that happens between conception and death add to that life, and the lives that are touched by it.
Atheism is not cold or dark, it is not without love, or pain. True, god does not give the life value, the life itself is the value.
It seems to be something you can not, or refuse, to comprehend. That doesn't make it untrue.
As for trying to devalue life by saying the value is created only by humans. That is somewhat if a strange argument. To some, a life holds little value. But that can be said of people from many religions. That does not mean the majority, or even a large portion feel that way. That mind set could only be applied to a small fraction of the population spread among many beliefs.
The extreme majority put a very high value on life, for reasons already stated. Just because there is no book to tell us, or the threat of hellfire and brimstone as punishment, does not remove the moral belief that doing certain things is wrong or that it is Ok to do something that is wrong.
We are trying to educate and help you understand, but you must be willing to leave the biases at the door and hear the true nature of the beliefs before you could possibly make an informed decision. Reading books will never trump life experiences from those that live by, or have interacted with people who live by that set of beliefs.
It seems that you have just hinted at the root flaw in your belief, that atheists in general do not mean well.
Logic is universal. And this is simply a matter of logic. Some logic can be flawed, but those flaws are easily seen. The flaws in your logic are glaring.
Atheist political philosophers usually fall in these classes:
Social Contract theory (Hobbes)
Utilitarianism (J.S. Mill, Peter Singer)
Marxism (Marx, Sartre)
Egoism (Ayn Rand)
Anarchism (Levinas)
Others don't fit in any real category, such as Nietzsche, but he denied natural rights.
Robert Nozick is an exception. He argued for libertarianism on the basis of an obscure natural right based on Kant's Categorical Imperative. But Kant was a Christian who believed in a very complex objective/transcendental system that Nietzsche was all too quick to ridicule.
If you were to push me into a corner, I would have to say that Nietzsche was the most honest in his atheism, though Peter Singer is the more consistent.
I haven't said one thing religious.
All I have said is that philosophically, atheism is inconsistent with the belief in inalienable, natural rights. When you read the philosophers I just mentioned, you see very quickly that they understand this fact, which is why they try to construct their moral and political system by other means.
I never said that the ordinary person who claims to be an atheist does not place value on human life. This is a natural thing to do. I would question their reasoning and ask them where that value comes from.
Why do I bother with trolls
I've gotten tired of having to constantly correct the Post Commander.
breakingcontact
TGT Addict
The term "post commander" is a nice play on words.
Nature ≠ supernatural.
breakingcontact
TGT Addict
I need to study the logic on this.
