I found this..intersting, an athiest plz respond

[Unrelenting Steve]

Id just like a response from an atheist.
http://www.globaldialog.com/~jstueber/dadtalk.htm



This is the site it comes from:
http://www.globaldialog.com/~jstueber/jeff.htm

[apathy maybe]

That was very funny :D But I am afraid that I can't help you with it. There is a thread about morality etc somewhere, maybe you should look at it.

[deathdust]

w00t... yeah... that was entertaining.

[Som]

Theyre both terribly weak arguments.

The sons just a jerk with annoying circular arguments, and the fathers not much better.

The first basically states that somehow morality based on 'god' is any more valid than morality based on common respect for others. The fact is that they are both social constructs based around perception and agreement.

Making it a bit more clear with responding to this:

What our society has decided is not important. What right does society have to tell me what I should or should not do? I live my own life. Furthermore, what right do you have to tell me what I should or should not do?

Right here, he's got the right idea, but comes to the wrong conclusions from it.
What right do you have to tell me what to do becomes equivalent in the whole situation to what right did he have to deprive someone else of their candy.
Its a simple balance of interaction, One instance being that to maximize the most freedom for everyone, the most happiness and best pursuit of it, there are certain ideas of 'right' and 'wrong'. Yes, morality is most certainly a variable, as are all human interactions.
God and his rapture don't enter the picture.

It would almost imply that an atheist would be by definition ammoral, because his common sense of do unto others is not made righteous by a quest for some arrogant tyrant in the sky waving his finger at you.
As its not the case, the arguments moot.

The second is even more shallow an argument, that somehow because of evolution and the vague notion of survival of the fittest in the animal kingdom, that somehow that defines us.
Also quite an illogical approach to a vague concept, that automatically because its part of the world, that we should apply to it all facets of life, and of course, the very nature of humanity means that a civilization working together, in a moral way, is even more fit than one at war with eachother on all levels. So even with his utilitarian logic he's trying to use with the natural kingdom replacing god as master instead of recognizing human beings as rational creatures, killing for the hell of it still isn't a good idea.

[apathy maybe]

That was quite a good reply to those Som. Even if I disagree with you on whether there is a god or not.

[187]

"Well, then do I have a right to kill others to survive and evolve further? Anything you tell me about it not being right to kill is just some moral chemical reaction in the brain which we can do without. It's not a moral imperative at all. Right father?"

He's absolutley right! But for today's society to survive, he can't be allowed to do that.

His article doesn't disprove anything.

[UnionofSovietSocialistRepublics]

hahaha, sillyness ... (long pause)

[Xvall]

I will respond. First of all, no; I do not believe there is a right or wrong. As a Marxist, I do not believe in any sorts of eternal truths. Good and Bad are based soley on the principles of the ruling class in a society. In capitalistic societies, capitalism is good, and socialism is seen as bad. In socialistic societies, it is the exact opposite. However, I do believe that there are codes of conduct that people should follow. His argument is a little odd, and can be applied straight back to people of religion. I could just as easilly ask a religious person why certain things are good and bad; they would likely tell me that their god laid out those foundations for them. But then I could ask them why we are to follow this 'god', and what makes him such a great canidate for ruling over us. On a secondary note, I can not think of any child who is that interrogative and nosey. His article is a little odd. I don't think it is really pro-religious or anti-athiestic. I believe that such logic can be used against any 'spiritual' belief system.

[honest intellectual]

That's not an argument against atheism. The first part is an argument for moral absolutism and the second part is an argument against social Darwinism.

"What our society has decided is not important. What right does society have to tell me what I should or should not do?"
Here the 'son' is dismissing (without justification) a non-religious basis for morality. The writer is trying to leave religion as the only basis for morality.

"Well, then do I have a right to kill others to survive?"
Yes. it's called self-defense

[New Tolerance]

It's not right? Dad, didn't you tell me that there is no such thing as absolute right and wrong, like the Christians say? So how can you tell me that it is wrong to steal candy.

Son, you see, when I said it is wrong this time, I meant it is STRATEGTICALLY wrong. Not morally. If the person you stole from finds out about this, then you will be punished. You don't want that do you?


Well, then do I have a right to kill others to survive and evolve further? Anything you tell me about it not being right to kill is just some moral chemical reaction in the brain which we can do without. It's not a moral imperative at all. Right father?

That's right, but if you kill someone, the others who know about this might become paranoid, and think that you might kill them, and for that they might kill you. It's not aways the most strategic move to kill someone.

[Unrelenting Steve]

thank you Som. you put everything in order very well.