The why can't aetheist do what the fuck they like thread

[on]

Easy, ask my parents, atheists who brought me up to have morality. & I know loads of people who are not only atheists but come from an atheist background & are not immoral. Quite frankly I find it tremendously insulting to suggest that you cannot have morality without religion.

Ok, can I ask how your parents and grandparents were brought up? were they brought up with religion?

Also you're free to feel insulted, but I've not suggested you canot have morality without religion. I've simply asked the question, where does morality come from, and how can it be instuled in someone growing up without some silly man in the sky.

 

[on]

And my whole point is that, no matter what people claim the origins of these laws to be, they are not divinely inspired. Jews kept kosher because pork and shellfish made people sick and caused death. So, Jewish leaders wrote it in as divine law and used ideas like "God's wrath" to keep people acting within the law. Killing rivals or taking a neighbor's goods caused chaos, so religious leaders outlawed those things and used the fear of God to enforce the outlawing of these actions.

SO, now that we no longer accept God or gods as our societal governing body, there's a transparency. We've evolved and advanced as a society and now understand the necessity of certain laws without any false religious context.

Now let's say there's an atheist named Thomas, OK? Telling Thomas that he cannot kill, steal or rape isn't imposing God's will on him, it's protecting the sovereign will of others fromThomas. Thomas is free to disrespect his parents, fuck his neighbor's wife (providing she's of legal age and willing) and tell women at bars that he's a billionaire all without legal consequence. At least in the States, and I assume, most of the "Western" world.

You're point is.

no matter what people claim the origins of these laws to be, they are not divinely inspired.

but isn't that just an equally as invalid an opinion to express, as one to the contrary? Couldn't a religious person equally just say: "no matter what people claim the origins of these laws to be, they are divinely inspired"?

Also you mentioned:

Jewish leaders wrote it in as divine law and used ideas like "God's wrath" to keep people acting within the law.

If people died from eating pork and shelfish, why didn't their comon sense allow them to catch on? Why would jewish leaders not just say: "Listen up everyone! lay off the pork and shelfish, it is likely to cause sickness and death, if not, a dodgy stomach and maybe the shits!" Surely they would have had enough common sense to listen to that? Why was it necessary to have it "as divine law"?

now that we no longer accept God or gods as our societal governing body, there's a transparency.

I still argue that the laws of a society for example, like here in England are undoubtedly directly influenced by religion. Whether someone is religious or not, Christianity is deeply engrained in the law system that England has developed for its society.

And a question fro anyone who knows! In the US of A, what do you have to do in court before having your say? (I've only seen this in films, so it may just be bullshit?). As I understand it is a legal requirement?

Now........ Thomas..........Thomas, Thomas, Thomas.................Thoooo-maaaas!.......... Right!

Telling Thomas that he cannot kill, steal or rape isn't imposing God's will on him, it's protecting the sovereign will of others fromThomas.

This is on the basis that law is not related in any way to religion. Which I clearly contest!

I did have alot more on Thomas, but I'll save it for now!

 

[on]

I think it because of this: Yes, I have only one life to live. So does that other person. When I kill a person, I am not putting them into a fantasy world - they cease to be. No more breaths, no more thoughts, no more dreams.
This is quite a bit to take from another person. In killing that other person, I am literally taking away everything from that person - in addition, I am denying all of that person's loved ones from being with that person ever again.
That is too heavy a burden.

That is obviously a good and quite normal point of view for any sain person to hold. However, at what point does that view stop being effective. I mean in relation to killing it's black and white, but what about stuff like LaLiLuLeLohan mentioned about Thomas: No killing, rape of theft, but no worries with disrespecting people, shagging married women, lying? Is there a cut off point of where the mentality you expressed is not effective? dispite the possibility of an action affecting people?

 

[on]

a quick disclaimer!

I Am NOT Advocating Atheists To Kill!!!

I'm asking whether laws based on religion, should apply to atheists?
(although this does obviously inevitably include murder by default) ​

 

[Member2019]

The thread linked below's newspaper articles about England, got me to think on some shee-it!
http://board.freeones.com/showthread.php?t=396889
If allowances can be made on religious grounds regarding what constitutes breaking the law, does the same not have to apply to people that hold no faith at all?
If an aetheist, that holds no belief, has to conform to laws that were founded on a religious basis. Do these laws not completely undermine an aetheists choice not to believe?
On that basis, should an aetheist be exempt from any law that derives from religion?

Supreme and Historical Law founded on Judaic-Christian values are no longer religious, but merely Law. At least this has been the repeat ruling in US Federal and the US Supreme Court. The only time they are religious is if they are displayed without displaying additional, non-religious history that have built up the same laws.

In all honesty, I don't think assault should be excused, regardless of religious belief. Throwing shoes could constitute assault. But I am in no position to tell British citizens what they should think. I'm only saying if the US adopted the same, I would have a serious problem with it.

 

[on]

Supreme and Historical Law founded on Judaic-Christian values are no longer religious, but merely Law.

But they originate from religion, regardless of how they are now applied.

Dispite England does not enforce belief, and is tolerant towards other faiths, I still consider England to be a Christian country as it's history and it's society's foundation is so. I would probably have the same opinion about the US.

 

[gotham123]

read Nietzsche, Beyond Good & Evil, or The Will to Power
he was asking this same question 100 and some odd years ago

 

[larss]

The atheist CAN do what the fuck he wants, but will be made to pay for what society sees as wrongdoings by other members of that society, regardless of the law and regardless of religion. We all have free will, but it is only the psychopath that has no conscience, due to the fact that a psychopath has no empathy for fellow humans and is amoral. It is this empathy for others that stops us stealing from others (be it stealing life, goods or people), and ultimately shapes the laws of our society.

 

[on]

The atheist CAN do what the fuck he wants, but will be made to pay for what society sees as wrongdoings by other members of that society, regardless of the law and regardless of religion. We all have free will, but it is only the psychopath that has no conscience, due to the fact that a psychopath has no empathy for fellow humans and is amoral. It is this empathy for others that stops us stealing from others (be it stealing life, goods or people), and ultimately shapes the laws of our society.

But if society's laws are drawn from religion, why should an atheist have to conform to them?

Where does this empathy for others come from?

 

[larss]

But if society's laws are drawn from religion, why should an atheist have to conform to them?

Where does this empathy for others come from?

Society's laws come from empathy, as I said, not from religion directly. Where does empathy come from? We are born with it. Only the psychopath is not born with it and this is a recognised medical condition.

A psychopath will do what he/she wants as they have no empathic feelings for anybody else, so will have no reason not to do what he/she wants.

Religion in your arguments is a red herring. An atheist cannot do what they want within the laws of a country any more than a religious person. No matter what your religion, in the UK you cannot (by law), force an arranged marriage (for example). This is not to say that it does not happen, but it is forbidden by law.

 

[on]

Society's laws come from empathy, as I said, not from religion directly. Where does empathy come from? We are born with it. Only the psychopath is not born with it and this is a recognised medical condition.

In response to this part: If empathy was natural, and we are all born. Why do different cultures across the world vary so greatly in what you might call morality or empathy for each other?

Why do some tribes in one part of the world eat each other (until someone told them a few years ago it wasn't such a good idea), and some tribes carry out human sacrifices, plus all sorts of other shee-it?

If empathy was a natural thing that we all posess when we are born (minus the odd psychopath), why is it that some people from one culture seemingly have more empathy for human life than another culture?

 

[Mics444]

I am an Atheist ... The abortion thing bothers me... And The in god we trust on the money sometimes bother me a little but otherwise.. cant have people stealing etc etc

 

[larss]

In response to this part: If empathy was natural, and we are all born. Why do different cultures across the world vary so greatly in what you might call morality or empathy for each other?

Why do some tribes in one part of the world eat each other (until someone told them a few years ago it wasn't such a good idea), and some tribes carry out human sacrifices, plus all sorts of other shee-it?

If empathy was a natural thing that we all posess when we are born (minus the odd psychopath), why is it that some people from one culture seemingly have more empathy for human life than another culture?

Why are some people black, why are some people tall, why do some people have straight hair, brown eyes, small noses, etc, etc?

In small tribes, traits will become more pronounced.

 

[on]

Why are some people black, why are some people tall, why do some people have straight hair, brown eyes, small noses, etc, etc?

In small tribes, traits will become more pronounced.

we're not talking about small tribes! Were the mayan's just a small tribe? what about the romans who used to pitch people against lions for sport? today only remnants of cultures/tribes survive, that doesn't mean that any practices are anything to do with existing in small groups. Also, what traits? psychopathic?

 

[larss]

we're not talking about small tribes! Were the mayan's just a small tribe? what about the romans who used to pitch people against lions for sport? today only remnants of cultures/tribes survive, that doesn't mean that any practices are anything to do with existing in small groups. Also, what traits? psychopathic?

Good point, but as far as the Roman were concerned, we are talking about people that the Romans considered either not people at all (slaves), or criminals that they felt deserved punishment. Death by lion gives the person more chance than death by lethal injection or gas or electric chair or hanging or decapitation.

Empathy is more one on one. A whole culture will tell you that something is right or wrong (and this changes as the culture develops), but your own empathy will kick in on a one to one basis.

 

[Asianlov69]

yes obey the law...no matter what you think.... having respect for people is the goal...

 

[on]

Good point, but as far as the Roman were concerned, we are talking about people that the Romans considered either not people at all (slaves), or criminals that they felt deserved punishment. Death by lion gives the person more chance than death by lethal injection or gas or electric chair or hanging or decapitation.

Empathy is more one on one. A whole culture will tell you that something is right or wrong (and this changes as the culture develops), but your own empathy will kick in on a one to one basis.

Either way, tribes or civilisations like pagans or the mayan's, that held beliefs, based on ritual, worshipping the sun, the stars, the earth, or whatever developed naturally over time, were into human sacrifices and all sorts of mad shee-it. They didn't seem to respect human life as most civilisations attempt to do so now. Although still in the US of A and many other countries they have the death penalty, at least in England we've long abolished it.

And for arguments sake, you might have a very slim chance at beating a lion, but you might only be guilty of being a christian or part of a defeated army imprisoned and then given the chance to kill or be killed before you can be free.

 

[StanScratch]

I've long believed that the ten commandments actually evolved.
Ages ago, a few tribal communities had what I like to call the "No Shit, Sherlock" decree. The decree would have had quite a few local little rules like: Stop killing each other, don't take other people's stuff, and things such as that. There were probably even a few extra rules like: Don't fuck animals that are bigger than you are, don't drink standing water, and so on.
Of course, these rules varied through time and tribe, but some remained as good, basic rules.
Then some asshole came along and said "Hey, if we say a god said all of this stuff, it will scare people shitless, and they will be SURE to follow them," and again, the rules remained, but did change a bit through time and religion. Of course it only took a short time after that for some other asshole to realize that, if we assign a couple of other BS rules to that list, we can scare people into acting like we think they should AND it might scare some other people into believing what they believed. So, it suddenly became a sin to worship Billy Idol or say things like "God fucking cocksucking damn it to fuck!".
Of course, we realized that we couldn't just make those lists. No, it would be a lot better if a god told us all this shit! But, we can't have this god tell just anyone - I mean, why in the fuck would this god tell Herb down the street - the fucker doesn't even have matching sandals!
But, that Moses guy, he's OK. But, damn it, we can't have that god just give Moses this list. Kinda makes our god sound like a whore - so we'll tell it that this Moses guy had to climb a really tall mountain and talked to this shrubbery that was on fire, because it makes for GREAT print and makes a whole hell of a lot of sense. But, hell, we are still making Moses sound like a bit of a pussy, so let's have him cross a desert with a bunch of people for a really long time after he opens his arms and makes water move...because, again, that makes a fucking GREAT story!


Meanwhile, we are not the only creatures that feel empathy nor follow little rules such as this. Why don't dogs rip out our throats all the time - seems like it would be natural for them. How come our cat doesn't eat our nose.
Sure, we might teach our pets some of this, but these animals still have a sense of right and wrong instilled in them, through ages of evolution, natural selection and the natural want to be nice to each other.
Recently, I found a study that had been done about dogs. Let us say you have three dogs. You make the first one do a trick, then give him a treat. You make the other two do the same trick...but don't give them a treat.
You go back to the first do and have him do the trick again...heck, might even have treat in hand. That first dog will not do the trick because, scientist thing, the first dog does not feel the others were being treated fairly. (another clue to canine empathy is that, if a human yawns, the dog will also yawn, as if it is contagious.).
If dogs are able to follow such simplistic and studyable empathy traits, then surely humans can do the same thing for the simple rules of life.

 

[GregCentauro]

As an atheist I don't gather sticks on a Sabbath. Just to play it safe.

 

[Crazy4theBrat]

I'm not saying it's not wrong, but as it is religious, should an aetheist have to conform to it?

It may have come from a religious source, but our society has chosen to make it one of the laws we live by. Even if there are laws we don't like, we still have to follow them. If you don't want to live with a law, just vote for someone who will get it changed.