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

[LaLiLuLeLohan]

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

We don't follow the Ten Commandments as laws. Many of the ancient laws that we have adopted from society come from Hammurabi's code and from even before that.

Feudal Japan had thousands of laws. Many still survive. Communist China has thousands of laws, many or most have a commonality with American laws and even biblical laws. They're not related, but stemmed from the desire for order.

Order isn't a religious concept. It's secular.

 

[LaLiLuLeLohan]

what's laws of kings? and wouldn't some punishments have inevitably involved killing? for example, aboriginies in Australia have a rule that a certain animal has to be prepared to eat in a certain way to show respect, (I can't remember which one) If the person preparing the animal to be eaten does not do it properly, then he should be punished and therefore killed. all the ancient cultures that are just about surviving in our world, for example Papua New Guinea: the were eating each other less than 90 years ago.

Those examples are primitive laws based on some religious reasoning. The laws of kings are laws of people like Hammurabi or the Pharaohs or the Emperor and shoguns of Japan. We still follow those laws to a large degree because they are necessary to prevent constant chaos and war.

Again, order is the motive. Atheists have the freedom to believe as they see fit, but act as society allows.

 

[on]

We don't follow the Ten Commandments as laws. Many of the ancient laws that we have adopted from society come from Hammurabi's code and from even before that.

Feudal Japan had thousands of laws. Many still survive. Communist China has thousands of laws, many or most have a commonality with American laws and even biblical laws. They're not related, but stemmed from the desire for order.

Order isn't a religious concept. It's secular.

I don't know anything about Hammurabi's code, a bit of google magic however got me this quote.

Hammurabi (ruled ca. 1796 BC – 1750 BC) said he was chosen by the gods to deliver the law to his people.

 

[on]

Those examples are primitive laws based on some religious reasoning. The laws of kings are laws of people like Hammurabi or the Pharaohs or the Emperor and shoguns of Japan.

Again, order is the motive. Atheists have the freedom to believe as they see fit, but act as society allows.

an aetheist does not believe in religion. but if society is founded on religion, how can an aetheist be free within that society?

 

[LaLiLuLeLohan]

I don't know anything about Hammurabi's code, a bit of google magic got me this quote however

Yes and we all know that he wasn't chosen by Gods. I think you're just trying to be argumentative now. Those laws didn't come from any god or even from people who believed them to come from gods. They were written to ensure order and fluidity in society. Divinity has nothing to do with laws. It was only a means to "sell" them to the populace.

 

[DJCowboy]

Atheists, somewhat, are smart people and know that there are laws that not only must be adhered to but also are necessary. If anything they would want to follow them moreso because this is the only life we get to live so killing another human is definitely not fair because that was it for them. Making others' lives shitty in any sense of the word isn't fair either because, as I said, you only got this life and that's it.

Edit: not saying that religious people aren't smart. Just couldn't figure out any other way to word that sentence

 

[LaLiLuLeLohan]

an aetheist does not believe in religion. but if society is founded on religion, how can an aetheist be free within that society?

If they live in a religious society, like an Islamic state, they can't. Just as any objecting or subjugated groups can't. In the modern free Western world, society isn't founded on religion, but the order brought on by laws that predate religion.

 

[on]

Yes and we all know that he wasn't chosen by Gods. I think you're just trying to be argumentative now. Those laws didn't come from any god or even from people who believed them to come from gods. They were written to ensure order and fluidity in society. Divinity has nothing to do with laws. It was only a means to "sell" them to the populace.

I'm not being argumentative, it's what I found when I googled Hammurabi's code, I can only quote what I find. as I said before I know nothing of Hammurabi, so this is all I've got to go on at the moment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Hammurabi

 

[on]

Atheists, somewhat, are smart people and know that there are laws that not only must be adhered to but also are necessary. If anything they would want to follow them moreso because this is the only life we get to live so killing another human is definitely not fair because that was it for them. Making others' lives shitty in any sense of the word isn't fair either because, as I said, you only got this life and that's it.

Edit: not saying that religious people aren't smart. Just couldn't figure out any other way to word that sentence

In response to your point about having one life, is it not equally the case that an aetheist can think, I only got one life, why should some other cunt be driving a nice car while I have to walk everywhere?

What would give an aetheist the morality to think, I won't kill someone? That's their life, and we've all only got one, so it wouldn't be fair!

also, in no way am I saying that aetheists should be killing people, (unless they have tendancies towards psychopathic behaviour, in which case they should maybe take up religion).

 

[LaLiLuLeLohan]

I'm not being argumentative, it's what I found when I googled Hammurabi's code, I can only quote what I find. as I said before I know nothing of Hammurabi, so this is all I've got to go on at the moment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Hammurabi

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.

 

[StanScratch]

In response to your point about having one life, is it not equally the case that an aetheist can think, I only got one life, why should some other cunt be driving a nice car while I have to walk everywhere?

What would give an aetheist the morality to think, I won't kill someone? That's their life, and we've all only got one, so it wouldn't be fair!

also, in no way am I saying that aetheists should be killing people, (unless they have tendancies towards psychopathic behaviour, in which case they should maybe take up religion).

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.

 

[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.

I will get back to you about Thomas, but not right now, I'll need to be fully sober first

 

[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.

yeah, killing is not good, (not that you've just convinced me of that, I'm just agreeing because I'm not really firing on all cylinders to do much else)

 

[mrtrebus]

they may be a good Idea, but would an aetheists choice not to believe in anything not be compromised by adhering to "Thou shalt not kill"?

No not at all. Why would it be compromised? Although much of morality & religious commandments share common ground it does not follow that they cannot be & indeed are mutually exclusive. The idea that its not ok to kill people is not a simple religious teaching. Religion does not have a monopoly on morality.

You may as well ask if those of religious faith that have killed, in the armed forces for example are compromised in their belief.

In response to your point about having one life, is it not equally the case that an aetheist can think, I only got one life, why should some other cunt be driving a nice car while I have to walk everywhere?

What would give an aetheist the morality to think, I won't kill someone? That's their life, and we've all only got one, so it wouldn't be fair!

also, in no way am I saying that aetheists should be killing people, (unless they have tendancies towards psychopathic behaviour, in which case they should maybe take up religion).

Because they have been brought up to know right from wrong. As I said, its a question of morality which is separate from religion. Maybe the silly example above says more about your morality than anything else.

an aetheist does not believe in religion. but if society is founded on religion, how can an aetheist be free within that society?

With great ease thank you very much.

 

[on]

No not at all. Why would it be compromised? Although much of morality & religious commandments share common ground it does not follow that they cannot be & indeed are mutually exclusive. The idea that its not ok to kill people is not a simple religious teaching. Religion does not have a monopoly on morality.

You may as well ask if those of religious faith that have killed, in the armed forces for example are compromised in their belief.


Because they have been brought up to know right from wrong. As I said, its a question of morality which is separate from religion. Maybe the silly example above says more about your morality than anything else.


With great ease thank you very much.

Concerning the top bit, where does morality come from, if not from religion?

also soldiers are more complicated than I can go into right now.

the last bit, how do you bring someone up to have morality without religion?

Also, killing is the extreme end of things, I did choose to take that line as it was offered up early in the thread, but I did not intend this discussion to be exclusive to killing, and out of interest, what does the silly bit say about my morality?

 

[JayJohn85]

If you cant be good be lawful and somewhat decent lulz.

 

[roronoa3000]

No cause atheist suck.

Should they not follow the ten commandments? They should be allowed to steal and kill?

 

[mrtrebus]

the last bit, how do you bring someone up to have morality without religion?

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.

 

[mrtrebus]

No cause atheist suck.

Should they not follow the ten commandments? They should be allowed to steal and kill?

Who is saying they should be allowed to steal and kill?!? Again, not doing it is a question of morality separate from some silly man in the sky invented to keep people in line because they are so ghastly & uncivilised!

 

[Doc Scurlock]

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.

Exactly, most functioning people have common sense and can empathize with the fact that killing someone will probably destroy several people's lives; hence, why we don't do it just for the hell of it. Same goes for stealing etc. Basically, if you don't want that stuff done to you then don't do it to someone else. Common sense.

The only reason why stuff like this gets linked to religion is because religion has been around a long time and in certain periods of time wielded some serious power when it comes to shaping society.