I said: "rationality is associated with "Murder, rape, theft..."."
You said: It is, if as you say; "There are no "oughts" implied in evolution, and Nature certainly shows herself to be amoral.'
What nonsense! Evolution has NOTHING to do with morality. Why can't you get that through your cement skull? The only entity that can choose right or wrong is an entity that can evaluate and judge. Evolution is NOT a person. Evolution is a theory which explains how biological life adapted to environment and evolved. The fact that evolution cannot find the area of a circle or play a symphony does not mean that people cannot choose whether to commit suicide or to cooperate with others. You are being ridiculous Greg. Please, stop impaling yourself.
"I am not advocating such things only pointing out that they are not morally wrong in an amoral "natural" system"
They are not morally wrong in creatures that are incapable of evaluating right from wrong. And they are not morally wrong in people who are incompetent to know right from wrong.
"Might is right is natures own reality. Atheist are by default only left with naturalism. Therefore might is right should be the logical choice for Atheists."
I thought we had agreed that nature was immoral! Now you attempt (once again) to claim it has an "ethic" of MIGHT is "right"! DUH!
"Might is right" is NOT the logical choice for anyone who values other creatures. Unless you are the mightiest to withstand all other creatures--that philosophy is bound to get you killed in a hurry! It would be the most ignorant and suicidal choice imaginable--the furthest remove from "logical" one can imagine! You are gurgling enough babble to dry up a brook!
"Stalin was not in the throws of passion"
That is debatable as well as irrelevant. Stalin did not live in a free society where right and wrong is based on cooperating with others who share resources and power. As a cruel tyrant, Stalin was IMMORAL. PERIOD.
Rational self interest is the moral and intelligent way for people to live. It begins with the rational axiom that all people have value and should (for the purpose of preserving life and being safe and happy) have equal rights and freedom. But nothing compels anyone to value another or to be rational to that degree. Nothing compels one to be civilized. Anyone can act like a savage and take the consequences. Read your bible. After his wife’s suicide in 1932 Stalin became progressively more insane and removed all the checks and balances which inform a moral society. Stalin acted like a sub-human savage and he died like the rat he was--murdered by rat poison.
___________________________
So, if people without a belief in the Christian God have no basis for knowing right from wrong (as you have repeatedly said), then what reason would anyone have for cooperating with others and respecting rights and freedoms? You made it clear that you would see nothing "wrong" with being a murderer if you did not believe in the Christian God. Because only those who believe in the Christian God have a requisite "basis for morality"--so you say.
So would you "know" that murder was wrong? Do all the rest of us (the great majority of the world who are not Christians) KNOW what is WRONG? Do we have a basis for being moral? You have repeatedly said we did not. Is the only thing which allows you to be kindly and loving to family, friends, and society...the fact that you are a Christian...and not a Hindu, humanist, or Sikh? |
