Happy Atheist Forum

I think logically killing is fine for both theists and atheists
Ridiculous   :brick:   (Maybe fear that they will do the same)

If Evolution is true, then all humans and animals are one species or if you choose to say different then all individuals are different, can we put N as the generation number to stop killing or not?

Quote from: "Messenger"If God exists, then what he says is good

What does god say?

Quote from: "Messenger"If Evolution is true, then all humans and animals are one species

Apart from the fact that species isn't defined as such I see your point.

If we are related to animals by common descent how is eating animals different from eating humans?

I'll immediately add that by that logic eating plants has the same problem.

So in order to survive we must eat some of our 'relatives', or find substitutes.

Lacking enough substitutes (afaik) where do we draw the line? Or do we draw a line at all?

I haven't ever pondered this before, so I guess I'll need some more time on this.

Quote from: "DennisK"

Quote from: "Messenger"If God exists, then what he says is good

What does god say?

It depends on which God!
but in general God says kill p1 and don't kill p2   (groups of people)

So the argument is to know which god is true, not use killing as an excuse to deny him  

I voted "eat anything apart from humans" but the only reason that is so is because it doesn't make sense to hunt, kill & eat our own species when there are others that we can ... in a survival situation I accept that cannibalism might occur.

In other words there is no particular reason we shouldn't eat human flesh (I believe there is comparative evidence that eating your own species isn't good for you but not sure) except that we are special, if only to us.

Kyu

My point, Messenger, is that god doesn't talk.  Assuming he did is illogical to me, therefore I am unable to go further and define what is logic when it is already outside this realm.

The majority of people have sociologically evolved and believe it is wrong kill or eat another human.  It is definitely socially unacceptable to eat another human or other primates, but it still occurs (although, not as it once was).  I believe the longer civilization moves forward, the stigma attached to killing and cannibalism will worsen.  Then again, we are evolving.

Didn't Jonathan Swift writea little something (http://www.gutenberg.org/catalog/world/readfile?fk_files=852817&pageno=1) about this?

 

Logically, it makes no sense to eat our own species (humans) when plenty of other alternatives exist.  I acknowledge that I'm at the top of the food chain (opposable thumbs, ability to rationalize and verbalize, etc.), but I cannot personally kill another creature for food.  If I had to, I guess I'd be a vegetarian.  

And it's not a morals or ethics or philosophical issue... it's a gross issue.  

I'm a meat eater and I'm okay with that.

Eat the rich.  The poor are tough and stringy.

God is good... with a nice Kiante and some fava beans,
JoeActor

p.s. I'm not a vegitarian, but I am a humanitarian...

If you kill it, you eat it ....

Quote from: "joeactor"with a nice Kiante and some fava beans,

.... so, yes joe, I would say Hannibal had the right idea...

I tend to think that a prohibition against killing allows society to not self-destruct. Even if there is no absolute law against killing, there are often prerequisite actions that must be taken/forbidden to reach the goals of whatever someone wants. And if man wants society, then by god, killing others is a detriment to that, and must be stopped.

Relative, yes. But still useful.  

I find it a bit disturbing that any human being would find cannibalism (of other human beings) acceptable socially or otherwise. Like it or not, the brains that millions of years of evolution created that all of us have are highly susceptible to social evolution that many animals don't experience. The rationalizing capability of our brains is what separates us from animals and eating one another would make us, in my opinion, inhumane. Views like this, in my opinion, encourage people to believe that atheists lack morality.

Let me just say, I'm an avid outdoorsman. There is nothing that I enjoy more than living off the land for days at a time with very few supplies. I will go out with no food which forces me to kill my own food, typically a rabbit or squirrel. I do feel bad when killing animals but I know that without animal sacrifice death is imminent. However, If I was stranded in the woods with another human being and he/she past away, I could be on the brink of death and would rather die then eat my fellow human being. This is what I believe makes me an intelligent and moral being that we as a species have come to be and that is how I intend to keep it.

Cannibalism only makes sense from an evolutionary standpoint if the species will be in danger of dying out without cannibalism. That situation does not exist and likely will not exist in any of our lifetimes. In fact, I'd say it's detrimental to the species to remove genes from the pool by ingesting them, ensuring they're unable to mate. What if you ate someone that would give birth to a child that had a mutation that would, over millions of years, make humans immune to gamma radiation? Or the vacuum of space? You could have just damned our species.

From an ethical/moral standpoint, it's very simple. The social contract in this case is as simple as the golden rule. Cannibalism is probably the most egregious breach of the golden rule imaginable.

No, I can't really see cannibalism as acceptable.

Chicken tastes like human, apparently..

Quote from: "Willravel"Cannibalism only makes sense from an evolutionary standpoint if the species will be in danger of dying out without cannibalism. That situation does not exist and likely will not exist in any of our lifetimes. In fact, I'd say it's detrimental to the species to remove genes from the pool by ingesting them, ensuring they're unable to mate. What if you ate someone that would give birth to a child that had a mutation that would, over millions of years, make humans immune to gamma radiation? Or the vacuum of space? You could have just damned our species.

I just wanted to point out that cannibalism, doesn't necessarily entail murder.
Those that died naturally won't procreate anyway, so eating them doesn't carry the problem you point out.

Quote from: "bowmore"

Quote from: "Willravel"Cannibalism only makes sense from an evolutionary standpoint if the species will be in danger of dying out without cannibalism. That situation does not exist and likely will not exist in any of our lifetimes. In fact, I'd say it's detrimental to the species to remove genes from the pool by ingesting them, ensuring they're unable to mate. What if you ate someone that would give birth to a child that had a mutation that would, over millions of years, make humans immune to gamma radiation? Or the vacuum of space? You could have just damned our species.

I just wanted to point out that cannibalism, doesn't necessarily entail murder.
Those that died naturally won't procreate anyway, so eating them doesn't carry the problem you point out.

Indeed. There is a tribe of Nuns in the Phillipines (i may be wrong here - the memory ain't what it used to be) who believe that they take on the spirit of their elders if they eat them. So, when one dies, they all commune and have a right good nun-feast. This, obvously, is based upon their religious ideas so in the eyes of their god, cannibalism is perfectly ok. That doesn't make it right, though. It is just another indication of how religiosity can pervert the course of normal thought processes.

Quote from: "Willravel"Cannibalism only makes sense from an evolutionary standpoint if the species will be in danger of dying out without cannibalism. That situation does not exist and likely will not exist in any of our lifetimes. In fact, I'd say it's detrimental to the species to remove genes from the pool by ingesting them, ensuring they're unable to mate. What if you ate someone that would give birth to a child that had a mutation that would, over millions of years, make humans immune to gamma radiation? Or the vacuum of space? You could have just damned our species.

It makes sense from a micro evolutionary perspective.  Killing a rival ensures their genes will not be passed an yours or your group's genes have a better chance of survival.  Eating them afterwards, kills two birds with one stone.  Why would you waste perfectly good meat?  Besides, it's supposedly low in saturated fat.

If the gene pool is very small and this occurs, then it could be detrimental to the survival of the species.  On the other hand, it could be beneficial if you eliminate a 'bad' gene.  What if that subject's genes were susceptible to a plague or whose offspring were prone to still birth?  If the gene pool were vast, the loss of a small percentage has little effect.

Society is based on order and it's difficult to have order if killing and cannibalism are morally acceptable.  In short term intervals, maybe.

Regarding cannibalism throughout evolutionary history, I suggest Carl Sagan's Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors (http://www.amazon.com/Shadows-Forgotten-Ancestors-Carl-Sagan/dp/0345384725/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1228405870&sr=8-1). It addresses just this topic in the chapters about our brethren: lower primates.

Since chickens and humans are not the same species, none the poll answers make sense.

Quote from: "laetusatheos"Since chickens and humans are not the same species, none the poll answers make sense.

If you believe in Evolution there is no such thing as species

Quote from: "karadan"Indeed. There is a tribe of Nuns in the Phillipines (i may be wrong here - the memory ain't what it used to be) who believe that they take on the spirit of their elders if they eat them. So, when one dies, they all commune and have a right good nun-feast. This, obvously, is based upon their religious ideas so in the eyes of their god, cannibalism is perfectly ok. That doesn't make it right, though. It is just another indication of how religiosity can pervert the course of normal thought processes.

For sure wrong believes lead to wrong actions
Atheism is also wrong and it has a contradicting position here, why atheists kill their cousins (chicken, fish, etc.) but don't kill their brothers?

Quote from: "karadan"Indeed. There is a tribe of Nuns in the Phillipines (i may be wrong here - the memory ain't what it used to be) who believe that they take on the spirit of their elders if they eat them. So, when one dies, they all commune and have a right good nun-feast. This, obvously, is based upon their religious ideas so in the eyes of their god, cannibalism is perfectly ok. That doesn't make it right, though. It is just another indication of how religiosity can pervert the course of normal thought processes.

Moral relativism... yum! Tastes like chicken!

Quote from: "Messenger"

Quote from: "laetusatheos"Since chickens and humans are not the same species, none the poll answers make sense.

If you believe in Evolution there is no such thing as species

Yes there is. You need to read more about evolution.

Quote from: "Messenger"For sure wrong believes lead to wrong actions
Atheism is also wrong and it has a contradicting position here, why atheists kill their cousins (chicken, fish, etc.) but don't kill their brothers?

Well, actually some atheists, i'm sure, don't eat chicken or fish. This is a moral thing, not because we are possibly distantly related to these organisms but because of the inethical treatment of animals on a wholesale scale. This, however, isn't strictly something atheists do, but whole swathes of the planet regardless of denomination.

Not eating them because they are distant 'cousins' is both irrational and completely incorrect due to the assumption that they are currently related to us as a brother is to his father... Last time i checked, my mother wasn't a chicken - even though she may taste like one.  

This strikes me as a silly debate. I don't think any of us are cannibals. I will say, however, that If I found out I was going to die by the end of the week, one of the things I would do is cut off my arm, have it cooked, and eat it.  

According to the cannibals in Papua New Guinea white people smell too strong and taste too salty. If you'd like to eat real good human meat you should eat Japanese.

http://www.bild.de/BILD/news/bild-engli ... salty.html (http://www.bild.de/BILD/news/bild-english/world-news/2008/12/12/cannibals-in-papua-new-guinea/japanese-taste-best-whites-are-too-salty.html)

Quote from: "Tom62"According to the cannibals in Papua New Guinea white people smell too strong and taste too salty. If you'd like to eat real good human meat you should eat Japanese.

http://www.bild.de/BILD/news/bild-engli ... salty.html (http://www.bild.de/BILD/news/bild-english/world-news/2008/12/12/cannibals-in-papua-new-guinea/japanese-taste-best-whites-are-too-salty.html)

There's always Hufu (http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=510180), the human-flavored tofu, if you're against eating meat but still want to savor the taste of human flesh.

 

QuoteIf you believe in Evolution there is no such thing as species.

Evolution is not something one believes in or doesn't believe in. It is a scientific theory.

Also, that is not true; this grave misunderstanding of evolution is most likely the root of the moral problem you have. Evolution is not a moral guide or social plan. It is an observable reality that we have to deal with.

Quote from: "DennisK"It makes sense from a micro evolutionary perspective.  Killing a rival ensures their genes will not be passed an yours or your group's genes have a better chance of survival.  Eating them afterward, kills two birds with one stone.  Why would you waste perfectly good meat?

Killing a rival in a social species could have consequences for the rest of the tribe. It could be better to have two healthy, capable, virile males than just one. Killing rivals for things like land or mating rights makes more sense in less social species. Wolves often fight over dominance, but they don't kill one another very often.

Quote from: "DennisK"Besides, it's supposedly low in saturated fat.

That depends on the human. I would only eat someone like John Goodman for a holiday or special occasion. Otherwise it's better to have lean meat, like Lance Armstrong. You'd have to braise it to keep it from getting tough, but it'd have a very, very high concentration of healthy protein with a very low saturated fat content. My point? Armstrong is the other, other white meat.

Quote from: "DennisK"If the gene pool is very small and this occurs, then it could be detrimental to the survival of the species.  On the other hand, it could be beneficial if you eliminate a 'bad' gene.  What if that subject's genes were susceptible to a plague or whose offspring were prone to still birth?  If the gene pool were vast, the loss of a small percentage has little effect.

If a subject's genes were weak, then nature would select them to die off. That's the natural in natural selection. Killing someone due to bad genes is artificial selection. What if someone had weak genes insofar as they were more susceptible to the plague, but eventually a mutation in their line would lead to a better resistance to radiation or the ability to see ultraviolet? We can't see that far into the future, so it's up to nature to select who or what is fit.

Quote from: "DennisK"Society is based on order and it's difficult to have order if killing and cannibalism are morally acceptable.  In short term intervals, maybe.

In times of extreme need, yes.

As far as I know, only a scientific law can be rightly described as an "observable reality."

Part of the theory of evolution depends on the origin of life, which was not observable. It is subject to criticism for the same reasons Creationist theory is. We just didn't see it, and it hasn't been re-created. And no, the Miller experiment wasn't a recreation of what would have happened if we left it wide open, because he intervened with his "trap-door," etc.

I'm sure this has been talked about before and is better fit for other sub-forums, but I just wanted to make sure we don't close our minds when really what we have in evolution is still a theory that is up for disproving.

A theory, if it is mistaken for an impenetrable law, is something one believes in or doesn't. Again, as far as I know, there is as of yet no rationally sound proof of how time began and of what there was before time began (and of where it was, if it was...).

I greatly admire the posts I've read thus far on these boards. I'm so happy to know there are many others out there who recognize biblers' words as indoctrination. So for the sake of knowledge and its furtherance, don't allow yourselves to be marred by indoctrination of another kind.

I don't believe cannibalism is okay, except in the rare of survival necessity. And in that case, the one being eaten better have died from natural causes (freezing to death, lack of nutrition). People shouldn't eat other people because it is detrimental to our species.

Question: Why are we talking about this?

i'm pretty surprised no one has brought up the biological reasons to avoid cannibalism.  what about the likelihood of communicable diseases through eating human flesh?  i don't want my brain turned to a sponge like some kind of mad cow or like that tribe in papua new guinea.

for the record, i think i'd only eat a human being if i would otherwise starve, but i would never kill one.  i'd also never eat an animal unless i would otherwise starve, and i might kill one as humanely as possible, if in a survival situation.

this has nothing to do with my atheism or the degree of relatedness.  i also don't understand the poll options.

Quote from: "joy_landlocked"i'm pretty surprised no one has brought up the biological reasons to avoid cannibalism.  what about the likelihood of communicable diseases through eating human flesh?  i don't want my brain turned to a sponge like some kind of mad cow or like that tribe in papua new guinea.

Aren't we assuming that one cleans and cooks the meat? Like maybe going to Costco and getting a plate of human ribs with some KC Masterpiece and charcoal briquettes. I mean even it if were in a starvation situation, one would attempt to sterilize the meat first. Humans really can't digest raw meat the same way we once could.

Quote from: "Willravel"

Quote from: "joy_landlocked"i'm pretty surprised no one has brought up the biological reasons to avoid cannibalism.  what about the likelihood of communicable diseases through eating human flesh?  i don't want my brain turned to a sponge like some kind of mad cow or like that tribe in papua new guinea.

Aren't we assuming that one cleans and cooks the meat? Like maybe going to Costco and getting a plate of human ribs with some KC Masterpiece and charcoal briquettes. I mean even it if were in a starvation situation, one would attempt to sterilize the meat first. Humans really can't digest raw meat the same way we once could.

CJD is still communicable even after the tainted meat (or meat byproducts as it comes from the spine or brain stem) is cooked. As far as i can remember, it is incredibly resistent to heat. Put simply, it became rampant because cows were being fed, umm, cows...

Quote from: "dodgecity"

QuoteIf you believe in Evolution there is no such thing as species.

Evolution is not something one believes in or doesn't believe in. It is a scientific theory.

Also, that is not true; this grave misunderstanding of evolution is most likely the root of the moral problem you have. Evolution is not a moral guide or social plan. It is an observable reality that we have to deal with.

Evolution is a wrong scientific theory and it is a basis for atheism


I can refute evolution very easily!

Quote from: "Messenger"Evolution is a wrong scientific theory and it is a basis for atheism

I can refute evolution very easily!

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages115.fotki.com%2Fv685%2Fphotos%2F8%2F892548%2F6116196%2F1226360497918-vi.gif&hash=276b87d60a07a229797f4e840390d7288da5af1f)

Quote from: "Messenger"Evolution is a wrong scientific theory and it is a basis for atheism. I can refute evolution very easily!

The evidence supporting the theory of evolution is immense and the rationale behind it exceptionally well researched and considered; as such it quite rightly represents our best current explanation for the diversity of life on this planet ... oh, and no, you can't (I'd put money on it, lots and lots of money)!!!!

Only an idiot would say they could, "refute evolution very easily!"

Kyu

Quote from: "Messenger"

Quote from: "dodgecity"

QuoteIf you believe in Evolution there is no such thing as species.

Evolution is not something one believes in or doesn't believe in. It is a scientific theory.

Also, that is not true; this grave misunderstanding of evolution is most likely the root of the moral problem you have. Evolution is not a moral guide or social plan. It is an observable reality that we have to deal with.

Evolution is a wrong scientific theory and it is a basis for atheism


I can refute evolution very easily!

You were quite cryptic in the beginning but are now really showing your true colours.

If you have no basis for your ridiculous statements or indeed are unable to back them up, then please do not be disappointed when people start to treat you with disrespect, and maybe even throw a little bit of bemused anger your way.

Quote from: "karadan"If you have no basis for your ridiculous statements or indeed are unable to back them up, then please do not be disappointed when people start to treat you with disrespect, and maybe even throw a little bit of bemused anger your way.

That is very common among wrong believers
If they are faced with evidences against their believes, they through words with anger
wait and see  

Quote from: "Messenger"That is very common among wrong believers
If they are faced with evidences against their believes, they through words with anger
wait and see  

You haven't presented any validatable evidence yet, not a shred. I'm waiting but I'm not holding my breath.

Kyu

QuotePart of the theory of evolution depends on the origin of life.

No. (http://bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca/Evolution_by_Accident/Evolution_and_Abiogenesis.html)

Let's stay on topic, please.

Quote from: "Kyuuketsuki"Only an idiot would say...
Kyu

I'm sorry, I know we should stay on topic, but I mean come on. This is supposed to be a rational discussion board. Statements like the above should be left for the biblers to throw at each other. What you're using here, Kyu, is listed under Every schoolboy knows in this fabulous work (http://books.google.com/books?id=Gh5UjNNc0v4C&printsec=frontcover).

What a real idiot would say is that he won't listen to other arguments than the one he currently accepts. Surely that's not what we stand for here?

Quote from: "karadan"You were quite cryptic in the beginning but are now really showing your true colours.

This sounds an awful lot like someone who isn't very open to different ideas.. Please, guys, let's not be angry (and rightly so) at those who ignore all other ideas and cling to their own regardless of everything, then turn around and do the same thing in a different field of study (wrongly so).

BACK ON TOPIC:

When we talk about going to Costco and getting a rack of human ribs and things, I start to worry there. I guess my emotions flare in response to that because I'm eating a "person." Yes, I realize it no longer is a person, but I don't know whose body I'm eating and that would trouble me.

But then again if I knew the person, that might trouble me. Unless I hated them.

I guess my current position on cannibalism would be, it's not necessarily morally wrong, it would just weird me out.

Quote from: "chuff"But then again if I knew the person, that might trouble me. Unless I hated them.

if anything, i think i'd be LESS comfortable eating someone i hate.  i don't think i'd want part of that person's body to be a part of my body for the rest of my life.

Quote from: "joy_landlocked"

Quote from: "chuff"But then again if I knew the person, that might trouble me. Unless I hated them.

if anything, i think i'd be LESS comfortable eating someone i hate.  i don't think i'd want part of that person's body to be a part of my body for the rest of my life.

Well I think it would have a satisfying feel to it, you know, a closing-time, finality thing.
"There's no way he/she'll ever bother me again!" It's just got that kind of feel to it, to me.

I guess it would be horrible imagining on the molecular level, that person stays with you, at least a small part.

Hey, sorry this is a bit off topic, I don't mean to hijack thread or anything but this thread made me think of something.

All this talk about eating and nutrients has made me wonder if a virus could be injected into our bodies that would make our cells create non-carbon based materials, and if so, would we then need to eat those types of materials in order to get the material?

And, if we needed to get those types of materials, would it be ethical to put dead humans in "shredders" that remove said non-carbon based materials from the dead cadavers, which we then ingest? this strikes me as very disturbing...but interesting.  

Quote from: "chuff"

Quote from: "Kyuuketsuki"Only an idiot would say...

I'm sorry, I know we should stay on topic, but I mean come on. This is supposed to be a rational discussion board. Statements like the above should be left for the biblers to throw at each other. What you're using here, Kyu, is listed under Every schoolboy knows in this fabulous work (http://books.google.com/books?id=Gh5UjNNc0v4C&printsec=frontcover).

What a real idiot would say is that he won't listen to other arguments than the one he currently accepts. Surely that's not what we stand for here?

Normally I'd say that only someone with an agenda would take my remark out of context, it certainly is in context when considered with the paragraph before it, so I will simply ask you to look at Messenger's previous posts and perhaps gain some understanding of why just about everything he posts is biased or just plain stupid and also to consider the fact that (based on personal experience of people just like Messenger) I confidently predict he will not be able to "refute evolution very easily".

Kyu

Quote from: "Kyuuketsuki"

Quote from: "chuff"

Quote from: "Kyuuketsuki"Only an idiot would say...

I'm sorry, I know we should stay on topic, but I mean come on. This is supposed to be a rational discussion board. Statements like the above should be left for the biblers to throw at each other. What you're using here, Kyu, is listed under Every schoolboy knows in this fabulous work (http://books.google.com/books?id=Gh5UjNNc0v4C&printsec=frontcover).

What a real idiot would say is that he won't listen to other arguments than the one he currently accepts. Surely that's not what we stand for here?

Normally I'd say that only someone with an agenda would take my remark out of context, it certainly is in context when considered with the paragraph before it, so I will simply ask you to look at Messenger's previous posts and perhaps gain some understanding of why just about everything he posts is biased or just plain stupid and also to consider the fact that (based on personal experience of people just like Messenger) I confidently predict he will not be able to "refute evolution very easily".

Kyu

That sounds fair.

This poll is stupid. Is the question supposed to be "Is it ethical to eat humans?" or is it a biological "Can we gain nutrients from eating humans?"

What a stupid, missleading way to try to push your views.

Quote from: "BadPoison"This poll is stupid. Is the question supposed to be "Is it ethical to eat humans?" or is it a biological "Can we gain nutrients from eating humans?"

What a stupid, missleading way to try to push your views.

Agreed. I was very hesitant to answer due to the question being so blatantly retarded.

Quote from: "BadPoison"This poll is stupid. Is the question supposed to be "Is it ethical to eat humans?" or is it a biological "Can we gain nutrients from eating humans?"

What a stupid, missleading way to try to push your views.

I know others think more highly of Titan here than I do but Messenger is simply raising the same argument Titan did but in a more offensive (or in my terms, "Ewwwww!") fashion ... Titan basically claimed that the atheist had no need of moral restrictions and that, in essence, is what Messenger is doing.

It's a dumb question because it proceeds from the assumption that morality must stem from an ultimate arbiter unless it can be demonstrated otherwise when in fact, if that ultimate arbiter cannot be demonstrated and no other explanation requests or requires that ultimate arbiter the positing of the ultimate arbiter (and anything claimed to derive from it) is the extraordinary claim.

Kyu

Messenger should have taken more care with his question. Can we eat other species? Yes. Should we? That would now be a moral question.  "Including humans"? Well, relating to the original poll question, humans (Homo sapiens sapiens) would not fall under the category of "other species".  But ignoring this problem, "can we eat humans"? Yes, we can - people have demonstrated this in extreme survival situations and just because they wanted to.  Should we eat humans? Now, that's a moral question.  And here I thought Messenger was presenting himself as a master logician of sorts.  That one little word makes all the difference.

Quote from: "Kyuuketsuki"

Quote from: "BadPoison"This poll is stupid. Is the question supposed to be "Is it ethical to eat humans?" or is it a biological "Can we gain nutrients from eating humans?"

What a stupid, missleading way to try to push your views.

I know others think more highly of Titan here than I do but Messenger is simply raising the same argument Titan did but in a more offensive (or in my terms, "Ewwwww!") fashion ... Titan basically claimed that the atheist had no need of moral restrictions and that, in essence, is what Messenger is doing.

It's a dumb question because it proceeds from the assumption that morality must stem from an ultimate arbiter unless it can be demon started otherwise when in fact, if that ultimate arbiter cannot be demonstrated and no other explanation requests or requires that ultimate arbiter the positing of the ultimate arbiter (and anything claimed to derive from it) is the extraordinary claim.

Kyu

Because clearly religious philosophies are the only philosphies when it comes to morals, ethics, and how we should live our lifes...Right...That idea is so arrogant an assumption it gives me a headache. Thanks god for bayer

For what it's worth, I don't think anyone, atheist or otherwise, wants to eat their own kind. I'm a big fan of meat however, and I love me my hamburgers. lamb is pretty good, too.

I think however, that there is something about messenger's claim that atheists have no morals. It's obvious that atheists have morals. I'm an atheist, and I have morals. But even so, It seems to me that there is no real reason why we do have morals in the first place. I don't really think that there is a god dictating morals, and if you add to that fact that human societies have different morals and their morals often change, then you're stuck wondering if morals really do matter. I'm not saying that there are no consequences for our actions. If you kill someone, you'll go to jail, perhaps get the death penalty, if you live in texas. But even if you do kill someone, who is it that is supposed to care? The family members of that person will all die in their turn. The human race will eventually die out. I find that the fundamental need for morals, and what this universe fundamentally lacks, is a universal witness.

Such a being could be a god, though not in the christian sense. But, what's so disturbing is that even though we have the ability to bear witness, there doesn't seem to be a universal conciousness upon which everything matters. And the only question that concerns us, then, is if it is possible to eventually create one?

Quote from: "Wechtlein Uns"For what it's worth, I don't think anyone, atheist or otherwise, wants to eat their own kind. I'm a big fan of meat however, and I love me my hamburgers. lamb is pretty good, too.

I think however, that there is something about messenger's claim that atheists have no morals. It's obvious that atheists have morals. I'm an atheist, and I have morals. But even so, It seems to me that there is no real reason why we do have morals in the first place. I don't really think that there is a god dictating morals, and if you add to that fact that human societies have different morals and their morals often change, then you're stuck wondering if morals really do matter. I'm not saying that there are no consequences for our actions. If you kill someone, you'll go to jail, perhaps get the death penalty, if you live in texas. But even if you do kill someone, who is it that is supposed to care? The family members of that person will all die in their turn. The human race will eventually die out. I find that the fundamental need for morals, and what this universe fundamentally lacks, is a universal witness.

Such a being could be a god, though not in the christian sense. But, what's so disturbing is that even though we have the ability to bear witness, there doesn't seem to be a universal conciousness upon which everything matters. And the only question that concerns us, then, is if it is possible to eventually create one?

Well "atheists have morals" isn't inherently true, but I see what you're saying.

You present a very interesting point, WE!
Do you mean an outside force that's always watching but not intervening, such as the Deists believed in? If so, what is the use/purpose of such a witness, if it isn't going to "get you" someday for all the immoral things you did or moral things you didn't do?

I'm not sure I understand where you're coming from.

I got a chance to read a book called Universally Preferable Behavior (http://www.box.net/shared/static/mb4n75g0s8.pdf) (link opens a pdf), which is free online, and it's written by Stefan Molyneux.. It was a "Rational Defense of Secular Ethics," as he calls it. See what you think of it, if you like. I might have read it too fast to understand it fully. I should re-read it.

So I guess the reason I mentioned that book is that Molyneux says (if I remember right) that there are objective moral values out there, and that they are able to be discovered and applied. Wow, my description is exciting me, I should definitely read it again, haha!

Quote from: "chuff"Well "atheists have morals" isn't inherently true, but I see what you're saying.

Morality is a social thing not individual so I think it would be more correct that no person has morality but an individual's behaviour can be judged as moral or immoral against a given social moral climate. Individuals (except I assume in rare medical circumstances) have consciences and it is these that they use to decide whether they act morally or otherwise.

Kyu

I suppose without anything to ultimately care about immoral actions, all immoral people get off scott free. If I were to kill somebody, and I recieved the death penalty, the same thing would happen to me that would happen to the dalai lama. Thing is, the consequence of death is what might repel me from killing someone. (hypothetically speaking, here) But it seems to me that the consequence of death is an individual thing. and that, in the large scheme of the universe, it doesn't matter.

In that sense, we could go around murdering people and raping and stealing, and the only consequence that would result from it would be the rapid eradication of the human race. But isn't it true that the universe still wouldn't care?

I'm not talking about punishment and just deserts. I'm just thinking that if there was a transcendent being which was a witness to everything, and was able to be offended or appalled or overjoyed by our actions, would that then mean something? It wouldn't have to punish us. Just the idea of knowing that your actions, you, will be remembered forever...

It's clear to me that there is no universal witness. But I'm not sure that we could never make one. It might be possible to create a type of cosmic computer that is self-perpetuating, and that has the sentience required to be a universal witness. It might be unethical to create on though. As it might resent us for doing so. I would be resentful too if all I could do was watch, but never interact.

it's not and it will never will be ?
why mmm let me see u see if u are agree that u make Action X to another person
if u accept the action X to b applied to u then it's comfortably to do it on ur own self .
that's the rule of morale  :D

Killing is not "Okay." It is neutral. So in some cases killing is acceptable, in others it is not (as far as the human moral perception goes). Precisely the reason why a commandment that says though shalt not kill is invalid.

Quote from: "Sophus"Killing is not "Okay." It is neutral. So in some cases killing is acceptable, in others it is not (as far as the human moral perception goes). Precisely the reason why a commandment that says though shalt not kill is invalid.

Indeed.

Kyu

Quote from: "wazzz"it's not and it will never will be ?
why mmm let me see u see if u are agree that u make Action X to another person
if u accept the action X to b applied to u then it's comfortably to do it on ur own self .
that's the rule of morale  :D

but you are violating this rule yourself
You eat chicken, cows and even trees
Some day (in dreams) some those can evolve into bumans (something intelligent like humans) and start eating us
Are you eating them because you are stronger and they are helpless?
I don't see why Hitler was wrong  

Quote from: "Messenger"

Quote from: "wazzz"it's not and it will never will be ?
why mmm let me see u see if u are agree that u make Action X to another person
if u accept the action X to b applied to u then it's comfortably to do it on ur own self .
that's the rule of morale  :D

but you are violating this rule yourself
You eat chicken, cows and even trees
Some day (in dreams) some those can evolve into bumans (something intelligent like humans) and start eating us
Are you eating them because you are stronger and they are helpless?
I don't see why Hitler was wrong  

If nothing else, due to the Non-Aggression Principle! Hooray!
It's the eating specifically that we're talking about now, I think we've well established the scenarios in which killing is permissible, and there aren't many.

I still don't quite understand what wazzz is talking about.

Quote from: "chuff"

Quote from: "Messenger"

Quote from: "wazzz"it's not and it will never will be ?
why mmm let me see u see if u are agree that u make Action X to another person
if u accept the action X to b applied to u then it's comfortably to do it on ur own self .
that's the rule of morale  :D

but you are violating this rule yourself
You eat chicken, cows and even trees
Some day (in dreams) some those can evolve into bumans (something intelligent like humans) and start eating us
Are you eating them because you are stronger and they are helpless?
I don't see why Hitler was wrong  

If nothing else, due to the Non-Aggression Principle! Hooray!
It's the eating specifically that we're talking about now, I think we've well established the scenarios in which killing is permissible, and there aren't many.

I still don't quite understand what wazzz is talking about.

It makes more sense when you drop acid.

wazz's grammar is proving difficult for me to comprehend as well.

And in a sense, if hitler had been strong enough to complete his "master race project", then it wouldn't have been "immoral", because the people who would think so would be dead, and the universe wouldn't give a rat's bum.

Aaa!

Quote from: "BadPoison"It makes more sense when you drop acid.

Everything makes more sense when you drop acid.

Oh, wow, look at all those pretty colors...

Quote from: "Wechtlein Uns"wazz's grammar is proving difficult for me to comprehend as well.

And in a sense, if hitler had been strong enough to complete his "master race project", then it wouldn't have been "immoral", because the people who would think so would be dead, and the universe wouldn't give a rat's bum.

Aaa!

If he had completed his project the way he wanted, then all the silly "ethical" "problems" surrounding so much as a mention of the topic of race would not be problems at all.

Quote from: "Messenger"You eat chicken, cows and even trees

After some thinking about this, I've come to a fairly simple conclusion.

We are forced to eat living things to survive. Any judgement on which beings to eat and which not is subjective.
I eat what I was taught to eat. That doesn't include humans.

Being omnivores, it is ok for us to eat other life forms. Personally, I don't like the idea of chewing on someone's @ss, BUT in extreme condition and under the right circumstances, I would probably do it. Would it be OK? That's a question of perspective. But would it be justified? In my eyes - absolutely.

I guess Messenger would rather be eaten than to eat. If my life depended upon it I would probably resort to cannibalism. But I wouldn't indulge in human flesh for the taste of it like this guy:

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmetropolitician.blogs.com%2Fscribblings_of_the_metrop%2F_arquivo_hannibal_lecter-copy.jpg&hash=9bb349ab6ebca95e19ce99181a4a1a2e13e212c5)

Quote from: "bowmore"After some thinking about this, I've come to a fairly simple conclusion.

We are forced to eat living things to survive. Any judgement on which beings to eat and which not is subjective.
I eat what I was taught to eat. That doesn't include humans.

Survival of the fittest
So let's assume that after some years, the earth dried out and Chinese (As they eat almost everything) decided to make human farms to eat from them
or attack you for food
Would you start eating Chinese instead of starvation  :crazy:

Quote from: "Messenger"Would you start eating Chinese instead of starvation  :crazy:

And what would we feed the "cattle"? This thought experiment is flawed. (not to mention racist)

Quote from: "bowmore"

Quote from: "Messenger"Would you start eating Chinese instead of starvation  :crazy:

And what would we feed the "cattle"? This thought experiment is flawed. (not to mention racist)

We will feed them things that we don't like to eat (including our dead people)  
Criminals, Very ill people (We should not spend tax money on them), disabled people (they are not beneficial for the society), Very old (non working people), very stupid people (like George bush), etc.

Quote from: "Messenger"...(like George bush)...

This I agree with.

Quote from: "Messenger"We will feed them things that we don't like to eat (including our dead people)  
Criminals, Very ill people (We should not spend tax money on them), disabled people (they are not beneficial for the society), Very old (non working people), very stupid people (like George bush), etc.

If you're feeding people people you're just moving the problem along, the criminals, very ill, etc, also had to eat before they make a meal.
The problem is you can't raise a person to adulthood on just one person to eat. You're expending resources more rapidly than you can produce them.
There is a reason predators are fewer in number than their prey.

Quote from: "bowmore"If you're feeding people people you're just moving the problem along, the criminals, very ill, etc, also had to eat before they make a meal.
The problem is you can't raise a person to adulthood on just one person to eat. You're expending resources more rapidly than you can produce them.
There is a reason predators are fewer in number than their prey.

Yes, I wan to (un-naturally) select better people
Hi Hitler  

Quote from: "Messenger"

Quote from: "bowmore"If you're feeding people people you're just moving the problem along, the criminals, very ill, etc, also had to eat before they make a meal.
The problem is you can't raise a person to adulthood on just one person to eat. You're expending resources more rapidly than you can produce them.
There is a reason predators are fewer in number than their prey.

Yes, I wan to (un-naturally) select better people
Hi Hitler  

You'd fail miserably (no matter what your selection criteria), as your resource management would result in total annihilation within weeks. If there's anything your thought experiment shows it is why we are not cannibals.

Quote from: "Messenger"Would you start eating Chinese instead of starvation  roflol I think I'd eat you first.  :unsure:

Quote from: "Asmodean"

Quote from: "Messenger"Would you start eating Chinese instead of starvation  roflol I think I'd eat you first.  :unsure:

ROFLMAO! Just don't eat his brain ... something that illogical has to be bad for you  

Kyu

Quote from: "Kyuuketsuki"ROFLMAO! Just don't eat his brain ... something that illogical has to be bad for you  :D

Quote from: "Asmodean"

Quote from: "Kyuuketsuki"ROFLMAO! Just don't eat his brain ... something that illogical has to be bad for you  :D

MMMMMM ... BURGERKING

Kyu

Quote from: "Kyuuketsuki"

Quote from: "Asmodean"

Quote from: "Kyuuketsuki"ROFLMAO! Just don't eat his brain ... something that illogical has to be bad for you  :D

MMMMMM ... BURGERKING

Kyu

Shut up, I'm on a diet! (You see I want to cross a few bridges in the near future   )

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages45.fotki.com%2Fv1424%2Fphotos%2F8%2F892548%2F6145789%2F_md_2002_BurgerKing-vi.gif&hash=d264225fd77cf82b4058b3da91ae508aeed462cf)

Quote from: "curiosityandthecat"(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages45.fotki.com%2Fv1424%2Fphotos%2F8%2F892548%2F6145789%2F_md_2002_BurgerKing-vi.gif&hash=d264225fd77cf82b4058b3da91ae508aeed462cf)

Aw man that's creepier than my Hannibal Lecter post.

Quote from: "Sophus"Aw man that's creepier than my Hannibal Lecter post.

Not quite. This is, though.

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages47.fotki.com%2Fv1400%2Fphotos%2F8%2F892548%2F6116196%2FRubberJohnny-vi.gif&hash=b008ad47c47ca934a724900ddf5c52f9d7eb9baf)

Quote from: "curiosityandthecat"

Quote from: "Sophus"Aw man that's creepier than my Hannibal Lecter post.

Not quite. This is, though.

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages47.fotki.com%2Fv1400%2Fphotos%2F8%2F892548%2F6116196%2FRubberJohnny-vi.gif&hash=b008ad47c47ca934a724900ddf5c52f9d7eb9baf)

I dunno. Nothing gives me the heebie jeebies quite like the Burger King guy...

Quote from: "Asmodean"

Quote from: "Messenger"Would you start eating Chinese instead of starvation  roflol I think I'd eat you first.  :unsure:

Athiests can justify any thing  

Quote from: "Messenger"

Quote from: "Asmodean"

Quote from: "Messenger"Would you start eating Chinese instead of starvation  roflol I think I'd eat you first.  :unsure:

Athiests can justify any thing  

ON the contrary ... it seems that you lack so little logic or reason that YOU can justify anything. It must be nice to live in a world where anything you believe is true.

Go and learn some science!

Kyu

Messenger is back! YAY!

Quote from: "SSY"Messenger is back! YAY!

I hate it when people won't respond to logic or well formed arguments and Messenger doesn't much of the time :eek:

Kyu

Quote from: "Messenger"

Quote from: "Asmodean"

Quote from: "Messenger"Would you start eating Chinese instead of starvation  roflol I think I'd eat you first.  :unsure:

Athiests can justify any thing  

People can justify anything.  They can even justify it poorly.  I felt like stealing.  I felt like Odin was right there with me, so I know he's real.  I felt like getting together with every scientist and reaching an agreement that reality is now whatever we want it to be, and since we didn't want to be told otherwise, we banded together with the rest of humanity and abolished the whole of science, everywhere.

Some of these are ridiculous beyond belief, but all of them could be done if we actually wanted to do them.  How's God gonna stop you from eating people right now, Messenger, if you want to?  Other people will stop you long before something that either doesn't exist or that has a policy of non-intervention.  Don't forget, you can always pray for forgiveness afterward.  The only thing that's preventing you from doing anything you want short of circumventing physics is your own desires.

Quote from: "PipeBox"I felt like stealing.  I felt like Odin was right there with me, so I know he's real.  I felt like getting together with every scientist and reaching an agreement that reality is now whatever we want it to be, and since we didn't want to be told otherwise, we banded together with the rest of humanity and abolished the whole of science, everywhere.

You can not prove Odin but I can prove God  

QuoteSome of these are ridiculous beyond belief, but all of them could be done if we actually wanted to do them.  How's God gonna stop you from eating people right now, Messenger, if you want to?  

He wont, because he created life as such
Life is a test, you will face your result in the hereafter not here

Quote from: "Asmodean"Please do. And try to come up with something at least resembling a scientific theory. not a hypothesis, since you claim to be able to prove your god.

This is another thread's subject
What is this got to do with eating humans  

Quote from: "Messenger"

Quote from: "Asmodean"Please do. And try to come up with something at least resembling a scientific theory. not a hypothesis, since you claim to be able to prove your god.

This is another thread's subject
What is this got to do with eating humans  

No problem. The first mod to see this thread can split off the posts that are not relevant and move them to an appropriate section, so go right ahead. I'm looking forward to seeing what you can come up with.

...Nothing..? Thought so...

I have split this topic to reflect the changing subject matter. The discussion of proving god vs. proving odin can be continued at the following link, in the Religion section.  viewtopic.php?f=2&t=2542 (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=2542)

I don't have much interest in disproving Odin, but it will be by default after the proof
So I'll prefer to make a new thread about it

Quote from: "Messenger"I don't have much interest in disproving Odin, but it will be by default after the proof
So I'll prefer to make a new thread about it

I did not challenge you to disprove Odin. I challenged you to prove the existence of whatever deity you choose to worship. McQ has provided a link to the thread in which you can very well do that. And try to follow the text I quoted while you are about it, otherwise you'll probably end up spewing that generic "Bookâ,,¢saidit" nonsense.

Quote from: "Asmodean"I did not challenge you to disprove Odin. I challenged you to prove the existence of whatever deity you choose to worship. McQ has provided a link to the thread in which you can very well do that. And try to follow the text I quoted while you are about it, otherwise you'll probably end up spewing that generic "Bookâ,,¢saidit" nonsense.

First step is to prove a creator
Proving that the observed Universe is not all (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=2585)