Atheists: Why don't you steal, rape, pillage, etc?

[Chany]

Are you in agreement or trying to be tongue in cheek about me doing that stuff? I don't get why Atheists of all people seem to come up with these weird arguments to not act in their own self-interest. Like conquering a weaker country and taking it's rich oil reserves and enriching ourselves. Evolution is all about the strong crushing the weak and taking their stuff. How else are superior DNA genes to be propagated? (and not talking specific ethnic but actually individual-by-individual there are better genes from one person to another) If we prop up the weak at the expense of the strong we guarantee a backward decline in DNA.

Now, maybe you can change what you think is "strong", like maybe today we should focus on IQ and not physical strength, but the argument remains equally valid. Why let the mentally handicapped reproduce for example? Or other similar arguments...



Thanks, I try.

Define what the most fit (strongest) creature is. For example, who is more fit: an incredibly intelligent, strong, charismatic man who will live to at least 100 but who can never have children, or a sickly, dumb, unattractive man with a hereditary disease that will cause him to die by age 30?

We'll start with this to see if you are serious or not.

 

[Skavau]

If I was 100% sure He didn't exist. Yes. Of course. Why not?




No, I only don't do it because I have faith. Why resist taking what you want, if not for religion?

This thread says more about you than any Atheist. If you're genuine it suggests you're looking for a rational explanation for morality.

Why do you think Atheists are, on the whole, peaceful?

 

[Davian]

My point is Evolution. Animals kill other animals for territory, rape their females. The strong crush the weak, which helps the species improve.

The weird thing about Atheists is they always use religious arguments ("don't hurt the weak", "I'm a good person", etc.) instead of logical arguments like evolution, euthanizing the weak/burdens on society, etc.

Another thing is they say they are "good" people often, and isn't good a construct of religion? If you are Atheist then there is no "good" or "evil". i.e. Atheists saying Hitler is an "evil monster" make no sense. Or do you atheists not believe in Evolution? Are you against euthanizing the elderly or handicapped?

What logical arguments can you have for not stealing a car if you know you can get away with it? Or robbing a bank? Or kidnapping the women you want who rejects you?

I do not self-identify as an atheist, but I would say that I conduct myself in a manner that I would like to see from others in my society. The Silver Rule, if you like.

Is this more about science verses religion?

Does the theory of evolution, and all of the science that supports, or is consistent with it, have to be wrong for your religion to be true?

 

[quatona]

My point is Evolution. Animals kill other animals for territory, rape their females. The strong crush the weak, which helps the species improve.

Depends on the species and the environment.

The weird thing about Atheists is they always use religious arguments ("don't hurt the weak", "I'm a good person", etc.)

These aren´t arguments, to begin with. Even less are they religious. These are moral statements.

instead of logical arguments like evolution, euthanizing the weak/burdens on society, etc.

1. "Evolution" isn´t an argument, even less it is logical.
2. Evolution is not about societies.
3. As for humanity, it has been remarkably successful in terms of survival of the species.

Another thing is they say they are "good" people often,

I have never said this.

and isn't good a construct of religion?

No, it is a metaphysical construct.

If you are Atheist then there is no "good" or "evil".

Don´t tell me what my notions are. All the term atheist tells you is: The person doesn´t believe in gods.

i.e. Atheists saying Hitler is an "evil monster" make no sense. Or do you atheists not believe in Evolution?

You seem to be confused. Atheists can have their moral convictions just like anybody else.
Evolution theory isn´t prescriptive, it descriptive.

Are you against euthanizing the elderly or handicapped?

Yes.

What logical arguments can you have for not stealing a car if you know you can get away with it?

It´s simple. I have a desire for the world to be in a certain way. Stealing cars is not part of this world.

Or robbing a bank?

Dito.

Or kidnapping the women you want who rejects you?

Dito.
Btw you keep using the word "logical". I don´t think it means what you think it means.

 

[quatona]

If I was 100% sure He didn't exist. Yes. Of course. Why not?
No, I only don't do it because I have faith. Why resist taking what you want, if not for religion?

It´s a great thing that there´s religion for people like you.

 

[nonbeliever314]

Answer: It is not beneficial for the well being of our species and society. Civilization wouldn't get far if everyone tried to screw it each other over all the time. It's more beneficial to not do those things and cooperate and help one another. Life's main function is survival, and we as a whole can't if we don't function as such. Furthermore, I don't think there is some absolute moral foundation, but morals are constructed in such a way to benefit everyone as a whole, and to keep our species "running" smoothly. (I think I got that out right....)

 

[Paulos23]

Reading the OP, it is

My point is Evolution. Animals kill other animals for territory, rape their females. The strong crush the weak, which helps the species improve.

The weird thing about Atheists is they always use religious arguments ("don't hurt the weak", "I'm a good person", etc.) instead of logical arguments like evolution, euthanizing the weak/burdens on society, etc.

Another thing is they say they are "good" people often, and isn't good a construct of religion? If you are Atheist then there is no "good" or "evil". i.e. Atheists saying Hitler is an "evil monster" make no sense. Or do you atheists not believe in Evolution? Are you against euthanizing the elderly or handicapped?

What logical arguments can you have for not stealing a car if you know you can get away with it? Or robbing a bank? Or kidnapping the women you want who rejects you?

Reading the OP, it is like you are saying that we can't be moral because those are your religion's values. But the are good morals, and the do exist separate from religions. Religions do not have the lock on moral behavior. Empathy and logic about reducing harm to others can lead to good morals. No need to bring evolution into it.

 

[katerinah1947]

My point is Evolution. Animals kill other animals for territory, rape their females. The strong crush the weak, which helps the species improve.

The weird thing about Atheists is they always use religious arguments ("don't hurt the weak", "I'm a good person", etc.) instead of logical arguments like evolution, euthanizing the weak/burdens on society, etc.

Another thing is they say they are "good" people often, and isn't good a construct of religion? If you are Atheist then there is no "good" or "evil". i.e. Atheists saying Hitler is an "evil monster" make no sense. Or do you atheists not believe in Evolution? Are you against euthanizing the elderly or handicapped?

What logical arguments can you have for not stealing a car if you know you can get away with it? Or robbing a bank? Or kidnapping the women you want who rejects you?

Hi,
By the real defintion of Atheism, nobody fits.
Christianity is also a comparison of self to God's standards, everyone fares poorly there.

To miss the fact by being a Christian too long, that you were put in your place once by God, and Agnostics (there aren't any real atheists...) have not been, might give you the wrong impression about atheists.
Also temptation comes from things labeled Do Not, in one form or another. Christians have many of those, agnostics or Atheist want to be's do not have as many, thus they feel better about their goodness and it is apparent to them that they are, objectively compared to some religious pracices and some religious people.

No one can say honestly and correctly that: "I can truly say, for myself that there is No Possibility that a god exists out there who is responsible for all of this", who is an Atheist, in my 10 to 15 years of looking for one who could. I have done the work. I looked everywhere. I have never ever found a person who could say that, honestly.

Notice, that if that work holds up, then there is no such thing as an atheist, under the normal definition of that word. And, if that work holds up then your statement cannot be answered, because no one exists, who can answer that question for you. Also, the atheists who profess to be such, thinking that they are merely are so fed up with the lies, and the errors and the things done in the name of Religion that they have in fact Voted with their feet, making them vastly more involved with right and wrong and justice than almost any Chrisitan you can find. They leave, when things are going wrong. They fight when things are going wrong. They do not jump from one bad minister to another bad minister, or from one bad priest to another bad priest, nor do they stay in organizations that say things that are clearly and provably wrong. They cast themselves out, for justice and rightiousness.

Just a thought.

LOVE,
...Mary., .... .

 

[HitchSlap]

Hi,
By the real defintion of Atheism, nobody fits.
Christianity is also a comparison of self to God's standards, everyone fares poorly there.

To miss the fact by being a Christian too long, that you were put in your place once by God, and Agnostics (there aren't any real atheists...) have not been, might give you the wrong impression about atheists.
Also temptation comes from things labeled Do Not, in one form or another. Christians have many of those, agnostics or Atheist want to be's do not have as many, thus they feel better about their goodness and it is apparent to them that they are, objectively compared to some religious pracices and some religious people.

No one can say honestly and correctly that: "I can truly say, for myself that there is No Possibility that a god exists out there who is responsible for all of this", who is an Atheist, in my 10 to 15 years of looking for one who could. I have done the work. I looked everywhere. I have never ever found a person who could say that, honestly.

Notice, that if that work holds up, then there is no such thing as an atheist, under the normal definition of that word. And, if that work holds up then your statement cannot be answered, because no one exists, who can answer that question for you. Also, the atheists who profess to be such, thinking that they are merely are so fed up with the lies, and the errors and the things done in the name of Religion that they have in fact Voted with their feet, making them vastly more involved with right and wrong and justice than almost any Chrisitan you can find. They leave, when things are going wrong. They fight when things are going wrong. They do not jump from one bad minister to another bad minister, or from one bad priest to another bad priest, nor do they stay in organizations that say things that are clearly and provably wrong. They cast themselves out, for justice and rightiousness.

Just a thought.

LOVE,
...Mary., .... .

I'm an atheist. I don't believe in god/s.

 

[derGroßmütige]

I'm trying to determine if you're being genuine or not. Tough to tell sometimes on the webz. You're new around here, so I'll give you benefit of the doubt. Also, if you haven't taken your meds today, might be a good time.

You really love your Ad Hominem. It's like your third pointless post that only had Ad Hominem in it and added nothing to the discussion. I see finally an Atheist who embraces my point, you just like to pillage the internet (derive pleasure from insulting others?) instead of causing harm in the real world.

I couldn't rule out stealing a million dollars when the situation was grave enough. Pillage, plunder and things like that I definitely wouldn't.

You're Deist so it doesn't quite apply to you because you haven't 100% ruled out the existence of an Afterlife. But basically you do admit you'll do wrong/evil things, just not "too" evil, and you justify theft in circumstances you deem fit. Perhaps a fear of consequences, etc.

Define what the most fit (strongest) creature is. For example, who is more fit: an incredibly intelligent, strong, charismatic man who will live to at least 100 but who can never have children, or a sickly, dumb, unattractive man with a hereditary disease that will cause him to die by age 30?

We'll start with this to see if you are serious or not.

You needed to read my post. I said the definition can change based on the circumstances of our species. At our current point of overpopulation, obviously the first one wins in every category. But if we were down to two males on earth and one female, then obviously the second one or else the species would end. Species need to adapt to their circumstances obviously. If we need more intelligent DNA, then we go with that, if we need stronger, we go with that, if we need humans resistance to diseases, go with that, etc.

I do not self-identify as an atheist, but I would say that I conduct myself in a manner that I would like to see from others in my society. The Silver Rule, if you like.

You mean the Golden Rule from religion? But again you're not an atheist so the question isn't relevant to you as you may have a shred of belief in an after life or possible punishment in the other world which could be molding your beliefs.

I understand humans are creatures of emotion, I am pointing out that it is illogical. So far no one here can logically refute doing things in self-interest that you can get away with, because there is NO LOGICAL ARGUMENT they can make. Instead they all make emotional arguments (I don't rape your wife because not doing it magically protects mine from not being raped by some sort of magical invisible societal pact that apparently every criminal never saw and which doesn't actually protect anyone).

Is this more about science verses religion?

Does the theory of evolution, and all of the science that supports, or is consistent with it, have to be wrong for your religion to be true?

No, I'm a Christian believer in Evolution. As such I am profoundly shocked at how many socialist Atheists there are, because it goes against Evolution. They are basically Evolution deniers. If you are atheist and believe in evolution, the logical belief system is Social Darwinism. They believe this with animals and don't seem to have a problem with euthanizing animals that overpopulate and promoting good DNA in animals, but for some reason they flip-flop and embrace Judeo-Christian values that are opposed to Social Darwinism in human situations.

They are denying evolution even though evolution is the basis of their belief system... it would be confusing were it not for my understanding that they are operating on emotion and not logic.

Depends on the species and the environment.
These aren´t arguments, to begin with. Even less are they religious. These are moral statements.

It´s simple. I have a desire for the world to be in a certain way. Stealing cars is not part of this world.

Dito.

Dito.
Btw you keep using the word "logical". I don´t think it means what you think it means.

What is morality? Don't push your cult religion on me! There is no such thing as "moral" actions and "immoral" actions if you are Atheist. There are only actions. Actions which you in your subjective view like or dislike. Only a religion can declare something so absolute as "moral".


As for the stealing cars part, I was giving random examples. Imagine instead the thing you desire most to do, but which would harm others. Maybe you really want a girl who rejects you. Maybe you have kids who you dislike and are a burden on you and so you want to give them up to adoption or abort them, etc. Maybe you want revenge on a cheating ex.... maybe you want money and imagine a wallet full of cash is on the ground with the ID inside would you return it? why?

 

[katerinah1947]

I'm an atheist. I don't believe in god/s.

Hi,
That was never the question. The question is can you say that there is no possibility that a god exists out there, that is responsible for all of this?
LOVE,
...Mary., .... .

 

[PastorFreud]

The language in the OP is loaded. The question asked if you could steal a million dollars and get away with it. By framing the question as theft, a moral judgment is already being made. Is the lion on the savannah stealing prey from another animal or are they in competition for it? And what of the poor gazelle that does not wish to be murdered and eaten? Tangent. Anyway, the second problem is that getting away with it already defines that it is an act with a consequence. If the lion steals prey, what does "getting away with it" mean in this context? The question is loaded and so it must be asked better if a better answer is wanted.

If there were a million dollars laying on the ground and anyone could have it who took the initiative to pick it up, and there would be no negative consequences for anyone else, then I would take it. However, if my actions harm another, and they always do (more below), then I have to choose to weigh the actions and try to choose well. This morality does not come from religion or fear. I worry about the idea that only fear of God restrains people from doing evil, that without God people would only better themselves.

Of course, evolution is distorted in the OP as well. Evolution does not favor the fittest, but the fit enough. Success is defined as passing on one's genes. Animals don't behave and choose actions with rational thought. We have big brains. We do.

All my actions offend or harm someone or something. If I give a dollar to person A in need, I no longer have a dollar to give person B. If I eat meat, something had to die. If I eat veggies, a plant had to die. If I drive my car safely to work, there are still unknowns and I could wind up in a wreck. Had I chosen to stay home, there would have been consequences there. I choose to respect the rights of others within reasonable parameters (can't yell "Fire" in a crowded theater unless there is a fire.) So if I am stealing the million dollars, violations of another's rights are already implied in the question, whether or not I will be punished.

Would you steal a million dollars from an abortion doctor, causing him to have to close his clinic, if you knew you could get away with it? Is that a fair question? I'm not asking, just comparing forms of the question.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

If I was 100% sure He didn't exist. Yes. Of course. Why not?

Wow. You're a pretty terrible person.

 

[Rationalt]

You're Deist so it doesn't quite apply to you because you haven't 100% ruled out the existence of an Afterlife. But basically you do admit you'll do wrong/evil things, just not "too" evil, and you justify theft in circumstances you deem fit. Perhaps a fear of consequences, etc.
...

Let us say I am deist who worries about morals.My morals tell me it is evil to kill people and loot their belongings because some prophet told me do so.

I also think it is kind of dumb to proclaim forgiveness while you are weak but threaten to comeback and sort things out.

I also think it is stupid to believe everything is evil because some confused man said so.

 

[Rationalt]

Wow. You're a pretty terrible person.

But, he is saved .

 

[Chany]

You needed to read my post. I said the definition can change based on the circumstances of our species. At our current point of overpopulation, obviously the first one wins in every category. But if we were down to two males on earth and one female, then obviously the second one or else the species would end. Species need to adapt to their circumstances obviously. If we need more intelligent DNA, then we go with that, if we need stronger, we go with that, if we need humans resistance to diseases, go with that, etc.



You mean the Golden Rule from religion?

The first one is the least fit individual in the world, regardless of the circumstance. Worms and other insects are more fit than him. Fitness solely comes down to the passing of one's genotype (DNA) to another generation. It has nothing to do with survival or thriving the most in society; those are just situational bonuses that often increase reproductive success. The first individual can never pass on his genes to the next generation, as he is sterile; he is entirely unfit compared to the second person. Circumstances do matter, depending on one's environment and one's specific niche in the current ecosystem. However, reproductive success is the ultimate barometer of fitness. So long as you can pass down your genes better than the competition, you are more fit than them. So, a group of sickly people who only live to 20 years old but have a very high reproductive rate in that short span are much more fit than a group of incredibly intelligent and strong people who live much longer but have an incredibly low reproductive rate and are practically barren.

You're treating evolution as if it were oriented at some goal, as if it aims to produce better and better models. It doesn't. It simply selects against individuals who are not as good at passing on their genes as others. Actually, in the grand scheme of things, humans are probably not going to be that well off. Past evolutionary knowledge indicates that more simple forms with a higher chance for adaption to one's environment and survival, while highly specialized species (like us) tend to only do well for a relatively (geologically speaking) time.

The traits that lead to empathy and caring (the groundwork for morality) are selected for in social species like ours. They make us, as a species, more fit than those like our species without this trait. Generally speaking, having a community that cares deeply about one another and strive to protect each other, even through sacrificing one's own advantages, produces more fitness than not. It actually is more important than having intelligence or physical fitness in most cases. A group of 100 incredibly smart and strong people who do not have empathy and constantly undermine each other have a much less fit than a group of 100 average people who care about one another and can easily cooperate with each other towards the mutual goal of survival. This is why your argument fails. You want to say that natural selection would favor a group of humans who are incredibly smart and strong who act as lone wolfs, trying to gain advantage over one another. However, evolutionary biology illustrates that, for social species like ours, an average group of empathetic individuals who form stable societies built upon cooperation are much more fit. Thus, if evolution is true, humans with higher empathy are much more fit than those without.

Also, I suggest you read about the naturalistic fallacy. You are committing it so blatantly it's not funny. I just wanted to show how even if I ignored the fallacy, your argument still fails.

Also, could you please define "good" and why believing in a deity changes the fundamental nature of "good" and our subjective, personal connection towards "good"?

 

[Chany]

But, he is saved .

Actually, from a Christian perspective, a person who follows God solely out of fear and personal self-interest is not really saved, as he does not understand the message of the Gospel, nor can he have the Holy Spirit within him.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

But, he is saved .

From what? No one gets out alive.

 

[katerinah1947]

From what? No one gets out alive.

Hi,
Hoping you responded seriously, the answer to from what is: Life without God after this earthly life.
The comment on 'No one gets our alive' to a Christian is the opposite of your meaning. To them, life is continous after death. What is not known to them is wether life as defined by The Bible of being with God after death, is similar to death as defined by The Bible of being not with God but still alive, eventually resuslts in those who are dead, actually ceasing to exist or not.
LOVE,
...Mary., .... .

 

[bhsmte]

My point is Evolution. Animals kill other animals for territory, rape their females. The strong crush the weak, which helps the species improve.

The weird thing about Atheists is they always use religious arguments ("don't hurt the weak", "I'm a good person", etc.) instead of logical arguments like evolution, euthanizing the weak/burdens on society, etc.

Another thing is they say they are "good" people often, and isn't good a construct of religion? If you are Atheist then there is no "good" or "evil". i.e. Atheists saying Hitler is an "evil monster" make no sense. Or do you atheists not believe in Evolution? Are you against euthanizing the elderly or handicapped?

What logical arguments can you have for not stealing a car if you know you can get away with it? Or robbing a bank? Or kidnapping the women you want who rejects you?

Wow!!!