@mastermercenary: yes, we are things, "stuff", but we're well aware of that.
There is no disagreement on this point. The disagreement lies in the value of "us" in "stuff".
While we're not important to the universe as whole, we're important to each other, we're important to our selfish selves(not that it's a bad thing).
What scale did you use to reach that conclusion? Did you reach it empirically? If so what is your evidence?
I didn't use any, really. Just my personal experience.
I think I knew where is the misconception. What kind of atheist are you? are you the weak or the strong, are you the "science" based atheist or philosophy based? are you pro-evolution?? Because Atheists only believe in what they can test and see, on what you can reach empirically (materialistic). You didn't give any empirical evidence on your experience, so your conclusion contradicts your view.
I really wish you didn't use the SiZe as your scale because:-
1- Theoretically, everywhere in the space considered the middle of universe due to the expansion. (Middle=importance)
2- Atoms and cells are tiny, so let's get rid of them!!!
3- According to Big Bang, our universe was as tiny as the top of the needle or even smaller.
4- If everything in the universe grew x1000000 times, could we even notice that? According to Relativity, we couldn't, unless Planck constant some how -not by chance of course- grew billion billion billion times, then and only then we maybe could notice that.
Bottom line is, how small you are doesn't mean you are worthless.
Agreed
I am an atheist and i know that murder is wrong because i'm well aware of the joy it is to think, to be alive. To feel pain and love. To interact with another human being. To read, to drink, to sleep, etc..
Interesting.. You are one of those rare Atheists who admit how joyful the existence is, with its sweet and sore life. This shows how silly the argument of evil and the argument of "Why didn't God ask whether I want exist or not", which are already fallen. Never heard that before.
You never heard of these argument before? WOW!! Every time I debate with an atheist these kind of arguments pop up suddenly!!!
Yet, you can't define these emotions/morals empirically in the physical frame. So you need metaphysics to define them, but you don't believe in them. In other word you have just ended your Atheism. Not really. I just use logic.
Can you define logic and mind from materialistic point of view? Define emotions in the pure physical frame?
You can't just take all of that away from a person.
Tell that to the lion and the gazelle. We -according to your view- are evolved animals, animals kill each other, so we can kill each other. What about the survival of the fittest? Plus, you believe in subjectivity of morals, so what if murders believe that murdering is right? What if Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao and so on believed in that? You simply can't tell them they are wrong because right and wrong will be relative.
You can't criticize murdering or you will be declaring a rebellion against nature, survival of the fittest and subjectivity of morals, which ends your atheism. I can, because:
you can't because
- Our societey is artificial, unnatural if you will. Rules of nature don't apply
Every kind of living things lives in societies. society is A colony or community of organisms, usually of the same species.
How could you say that our society is artificial? Does modernity means unnatural status? Aren't we an EVOLVED beings? So we use EVOLVED/MODERN tools? Aren't the so-called artificial society was made from NATURAL resources? Do nests considered artificial?
"Rules of nature don't apply" This sentence destroys the whole evolution process!!! According to evolution, natural selection can "select" you RANDOMLY anytime anywhere.
- We are rational. We know what we need.
So rationality disapprove evolution.. Nice. But what is rationality from materialistic view?
- Every villain is a hero in their minds. While morale is subjective, ethic isn't. Just use this logic: would you like to be killed? No? Then don't do it.
How so? Morals are objective, it doesn't depend on desires. The bad is bad in the eyes of the villain and the hero, so is the good. THere is no nation considers lying is better than honesty, or oppression is better than fairness. What prevent you from stealing the wallet of your friend if you can be sure he wont find out> NOTHING except your CONSCIENCE which is the main resource of your moral codes. Moral judgement on the other hand differs from society to another, which I agree with you. There are different definitions to ethics, which one you meant?
What if anemone said yes? Would it be moral to kill someone?
Life has a meaning my friend, but you have create it.
Life has meanings my friend. One of them is the main, others aren't. One is permanent others are temporary.
With all of my respect, your reply was emotional than anything else. You even didn't answer my first questions.
Log in to comment