Is This Only A Blob Of Cells?...

[mortify]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1343814029' post='2461022']
Is it possible that with less children to support, the poor can get out of poverty, thus lessening the gap between rich and poor?
The elder kids can focus on school and education rather than looking after the younger kids or dropping school to earn money for the family. Maybe the kids can continue with school rather than becoming young parents themselves.
[/quote]

The gap between the rich and poor is increasing, not diminishing. The problem is with the system we live in, which reduces humans to units of labor and wage slaves.

[add]

[quote name='mortify' timestamp='1343809460' post='2461016']
The poor generally have more children than the wealthy despite having more abortions but that doesn't disprove my point. From a secular point of view, society still benefits from these abortions because the burden of supporting the poor is lessened.
[/quote]
Bah humbug
[url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dYHmQT_7a2c"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dYHmQT_7a2c[/url]

Edited August 1, 2012 by add

[Anomaly]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1343802144' post='2461006']
1. I don’t believe in absolute right or absolute wrong. Thus the statement “it was wrong” is meaningless to me.
2. I don’t believe in morality (if morality is an umbrella term for absolute right and wrong)
3. I think moral beliefs have no place in defining law governing a society, because of course, I don’t believe in morality.

Now to address this statement of yours.
If I belong to a society containing Nazis and Jews and the Nazis then seek to slaughter the Jews, the main issues for me are as follows:
1. Am I likely to be killed in this conflict?
2. Why did the Nazis choose to slaughter Jews, could this premise be applied to me in future? Thus is it foreseen that the Nazis could become a threat to me? If so, do I let them divide and conquer or do I stand united with the Jews and oppose them with a bigger opposition?
3. Do I have alliances with Jewish people? Am I motivated to risk my life to save them?

If we look at WWII:
Many European countries stayed out of the war until they were attacked or their alliances were attacked. Germany was largely given a reprieve, they were allowed to attack countries one at a time, picking them off rather than having to fight everyone all at once.
USA stayed out of it, despite being heavily influenced by Christian values (morality). They only got involved once they were attacked by the Japanese.
It was a war of survival rather than a defence of moral righteousness.
[/quote]
stevil,
Whether you want to be intellectually honest or not, it's up to you. You do have morals unless you want to weasel out with semantics. You just have different values, standards, or opinions on what or how you evaluate choice of behavior.

"1. Am I likely to be killed in this conflict?
2. Why did the Nazis choose to slaughter Jews, could this premise be applied to me in future? Thus is it foreseen that the Nazis could become a threat to me? If so, do I let them divide and conquer or do I stand united with the Jews and oppose them with a bigger opposition?
3. Do I have alliances with Jewish people? Am I motivated to risk my life to save them?"

Unless you are mentally defective human and is sociopath, you have some sort of morals (values). Morals are not entirely based on arbitrary values (though they can be). You've expressed the opinion that government interaction on other's behavior that may not directly affect you may be 'wrong' or undesireable to you.

mor·al (môr[img]http://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/prime.gif[/img][img]http://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/schwa.gif[/img]l, m[img]http://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/obreve.gif[/img]r[img]http://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/prime.gif[/img]-)
[i]adj.[/i]
[b]1. [/b][b]Of or concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character: [/b][b]moral scrutiny; a moral quandary[/b].
[b]2. [/b]Teaching or exhibiting goodness or correctness of character and behavior: a moral lesson.
[b]3. [/b]Conforming to standards of what is right or just in behavior; virtuous: a moral life.
[b]4. [/b]Arising from conscience or the sense of right and wrong: a moral obligation.
[b]5. [/b]Having psychological rather than physical or tangible effects: a moral victory; moral support.
[b]6. [/b]Based on strong likelihood or firm conviction, rather than on the actual evidence: a moral certainty.
[i]n.[/i]
[b]1. [/b]The lesson or principle contained in or taught by a fable, a story, or an event.
[b]2. [/b]A concisely expressed precept or general truth; a maxim.
[b]3. [/b][b]morals[/b] Rules or habits of conduct, especially of sexual conduct, with reference to standards of right and wrong: a person of loose morals; a decline in the public morals.


I take it that you would be upset if someone came and took your wife away from you. If your values were only of what is immediate cost/benefit to you, you would know you could find another person to fulfill the sexual and household duties that were being performed by your previous domestic partner.

[stevil]

[quote name='Anomaly' timestamp='1343829441' post='2461050']
stevil,
Whether you want to be intellectually honest or not, it's up to you. You do have morals unless you want to weasel out with semantics.
[/quote]
No I don't have morals.
I have personal opinions but they don't define what is right or wrong, I have values but again they don't define what is right or wrong.
There is no such thing as right or wrong in and of itself. Moral statements are nonsensical.
In order to come to a conclusion on whether the preference is to take one path or another, one must set a goal otherwise all paths are equally valid. Thus without a goal there is no right or wrong path. My goal is selfishly my own survival (granted a happy and free survival). Does having a personal selfish goal and working tirelessly towards that goal, foresaking others, does this sound like morality to you?
It would be intellectually dishonest for me ever to make a public claim "I don't agree with that, that is immoral" because I can only ever speak for myself with regards to my own goals. I cannot speak on behalf of another person and tell them what is right or wrong. I do not know what their goals are, I have not lived their life, I am not them. Thus I only desire laws that work towards my goal, that of my survival. I do not want laws to protect unborn babies this does not help me one bit.

[quote name='Anomaly' timestamp='1343829441' post='2461050']
Unless you are mentally defective human and is sociopath, you have some sort of morals (values).
[/quote]
Morals and values are different. I do have personal values, they help me make decisions quickly rather than having to delve into deep thought on every possible issue. For example the golden rule is a decent value that I subscribe to "treat others as you would like to be treated", why do I do this? because if I treat others as I would like to be treated then they won't see me as a threat, they might even form alliances with me, this benefits my survival prospects.
My values don't describe the difference between right and wrong, they are merely a quick guide towards my selfish goals.

You are confusing morality with empathy. Maybe you subscribe to moral emotivism?
I have emotions, I have empathy, I just don't define right and wrong based on my feelings.

[quote name='Anomaly' timestamp='1343829441' post='2461050']
Morals are not entirely based on arbitrary values (though they can be). You've expressed the opinion that government interaction on other's behavior that may not directly affect you may be 'wrong' or undesireable to you.
[/quote]
I've never said the term "wrong" and I have always attempted to justify how laws impact me. I try my darndest to mind my own business. This helps me focus on what is important rather than wanting to force my trivial opinions onto others.

As an atheist I think you would benefit from this approach too. Your stance on abortion worries me with regards to what other aspects of other people's life you wish to control due to your personally percieved "morality".

Morality is a tool for oppression. It is the cause or misery and war. We are much better off when people focus on themselves rather than desiring power and control over others.

[quote name='Anomaly' timestamp='1343829441' post='2461050']
I take it that you would be upset if someone came and took your wife away from you. If your values were only of what is immediate cost/benefit to you, you would know you could find another person to fulfill the sexual and household duties that were being performed by your previous domestic partner.
[/quote]
I have grown attached to my wife, we have a strong friendship and like for each other. In all my years I have not found anyone that I like as much as her, I think I'll fight to keep her thank you very much for the alternative suggestion. It seems that human nature is that we tend to form relationships and value those relationships. As humans we will use violence to defend those that we have favourable relationships with. Government needs to recognise this.

BTW: the household duties don't belong to my wife, I don't see roles for women and roles for men.

Edited August 1, 2012 by stevil

[Anomaly]

stevil,
Thanks for your concern for my atheism, but morals do not endanger them. Morals are the by-product of our advanced mental faculties. You may be unwilling to admit it, but you have morals that guide your behavior. Valuing subjective realities of human nature, "compasion, altruism, trust, integrity, honesty, independence, sympathy" are the foundations of accepted values and give you MORALS. They have no conflict with atheism though they are acknowledged and accepted by almost all theisms. They're a part of human nature and human behavior. You can argue about their existince with a theist who claims they are cosmically written by a deity, but you can't argue they are non-existent with the most secular sociologist or psychologist. What you claim to believe and accept, is merely a superficial version of nihilism that would deny all values, whether the value is divinely decreed, or recognized as accepted behavior by the majority of sane persons in a society. You really need to read Nietzsche if you think his philosphy proposes a nihilistic society can be established and exist for any period of time.

You enjoy and prosper living in a society with order and think that the order would continue to exist without any morality or societal values. That is your huge mistake. No ordered society would exist without values or morals because ultimately it would devolve into selfish short term intrests of those who obtain power and are willing and able to weild it. There would be no justification for a long term view of cooperation because long term cooperative goals are meaningless to immediate selfish goals and needs.

[stevil]

[quote name='Anomaly' timestamp='1343850785' post='2461214']
You enjoy and prosper living in a society with order and think that the order would continue to exist without any morality or societal values. That is your huge mistake. No ordered society would exist without values or morals because ultimately it would devolve into selfish short term intrests of those who obtain power and are willing and able to weild it. There would be no justification for a long term view of cooperation because long term cooperative goals are meaningless to immediate selfish goals and needs.
[/quote]
Since we are now delving into the silliness of you-isms and asserting our own opinions onto others, I'll feel free to do the same to you.

You are very short sighted in your attempt to justify your moral belief.
You assert with no evidence, no justification that morality applies to everyone (even me) just as some religious people assert their god applies to everyone (even me).
You are ignoring some very simple truths because of your own confirmation bias towards belief in morality.

Selfishness is not constrained to a short timeframe it is just as valid in the long term as well.
Lack of morality does not mean no law and order within society. A person that selfishly and amorality wants to survive, wants to live in a society that discourages (in most cases) killing of humans. Thus laws against murder are desired by a selfishly amoral person, not be cause murder is wrong, but because this person wants to live and not be murdered.

Belief in morality is what causes many in power to oppress others within society, to force their opinions onto others, to force people how to behave.
You list a bunch of emotive words and suggest these define morality. Thus you must be happy when a Christian based government suggests that gay sex is unnatural and disgusting thus they are justified morally to make it against the law. You must be happy when a Catholic based government suggests that contraceptives and sex education are immoral and thus must be made against the law. You must be happy when this group suggests that IVF treatment for couples struggling to get pregnant is immoral and thus must be against the law. In years gone by it was immoral for interracial marriage, for people to practice witchcraft or even believe in a different god to what the governing power believe in.
If you believe in morality and believe that morality is a valid basis for law then I don’t know how you justify opposing those that seek to enforce their moral beliefs on you. It seems to me, that you are no different, that if you were in power, you would enforce your own moral beliefs onto others (onto me). I thus see you as a threat to society, a threat to me.

[Tally Marx]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1343856906' post='2461259']
Belief in morality is what causes many in power to oppress others within society, to force their opinions onto others, to force people how to behave.
[/quote]

A lack of belief in morality accomplishes the same thing.

[stevil]

[quote name='Tally Marx' timestamp='1343857391' post='2461261']
A lack of belief in morality accomplishes the same thing.
[/quote]
This is a false assertion.
A lack of belief (in anything), causes nothing. It is simply a blank canvas and is not a driving motive for anything.

[mortify]

I dont know how someone can say morality doesn't exist when humans naturally have a concept of right and wrong

[Mark of the Cross]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1343778695' post='2460888']
I have no belief in morality.
I certainly don’t think that laws should be based on someone’s morality belief.
We ought to be able to behave immorally, if we want to. E.g. work on the Sabbath or commit adultery. We live with the consequences of our own actions, and presumably by your belief system we face consequences after death as well. Unless you are of the belief that JC paid the debt of your sin and you will thus face no consequences.
[/quote]
The majority of house cats walk down the street with their tail straight up in the air with their *** **** exposed in a very undignified way and don't think it immoral that we are aware of. Do you walk down the street with your tail straight up and ......?

[quote name='Tally Marx' timestamp='1343857391' post='2461261']
A lack of belief in morality accomplishes the same thing.
[/quote]
Quite true! Without censorship on TV, movies etc. Immoral people would inflict their standards on the rest of us who are moral by default. In other words we would decend to a sodom/gomorah type society where the good would be oppressed the evil. Already happened/s. Mr Godwin and his Hitler Nazis.

[Mark of the Cross]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1343858797' post='2461275']
This is a false assertion.
A lack of belief (in anything), causes nothing. It is simply a blank canvas and is not a driving motive for anything.
[/quote]
Where have you been? Immorality (No belief/lack of morals) is driven by evil/evil people with considerable force.

Edited August 1, 2012 by Mark of the Cross

[stevil]

[quote name='Mark of the Cross' timestamp='1343861101' post='2461302']
Where have you been? Immorality (No belief/lack of morals) is driven by evil/evil people with considerable force.
[/quote]
No, firstly, I don’t believe in “Evil” or “Evil people”

Secondly
People whom may be considered “evil” for example Hitler, was not driven by a lack of belief in morality.

It is a non sequester to suggest lack of belief in morality means that a person must be driven to rule the world and kill people of certain ethnicity or sexual preference.

For example if a person lacks a belief in garden fairies, does this cause a person to want to take over the world and perform ethnic cleansing?

There are other causes with regards to why he wanted to do that. Don’t ask me what those causes where, I have no clue, but it certainly wasn’t a lack of belief.

I am an amoralist, I can see that if I attempt to rule the world by force then many people will see me as a threat and attempt to kill me, this is contrary to my desire to survive, so regardless of moral belief or lack there-of, I do not want to rule the world.

[Tally Marx]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1343858797' post='2461275']

This is a false assertion.
A lack of belief (in anything), causes nothing. It is simply a blank canvas and is not a driving motive for anything.
[/quote]

I said "accomplishes", not that it is a cause.
Morals are an intrinsic and inherent sense of what is appropriate (right) and what isn't (wrong).
A person without morals, who believes that everything is relative, will be inclined to believe in the relative or non-existent value of the human person. That idea--the idea that humans are objectively worthless--always leads to humans being treated as though they are worthless. Worthless people have opinions shoved on them, are told how to behave, oppressed, and even killed. Like the unborn, for example. This is what a lack of morals accomplishes. And on second thought, I think it would be wrong to say amorality does not cause this. Your only justification for such things like abortion *is* your lack of morals, and is the driving factor in your voting for these people to be treated as worthless.

Edited August 2, 2012 by Tally Marx

[stevil]

[quote name='Tally Marx' timestamp='1343873744' post='2461408']
Your only justification for such things like abortion *is* your lack of morals, and is the driving factor in your voting for these people to be treated as worthless.
[/quote]
I've never said they are worthless, I have not judged their worth. That is for the mother to decide, it is her business, not mine nor the government's.
My lack of morals is not a justification for anything.
My justification for not wanting a law against abortion is that it doesn't impact me, thus it is none of my business if a mother chooses to abort. None of my business and by extention, I will not give my vote towards a law against it, thus I believe it is none of the government's business.
Morality has nothing to do with it.
Now, if it were my unborn child which my wife was considering to abort, I would hope that she would ask me my opinion, I wouldn't simply say "I don't care" or "none of my business" in that circumstance. But when it is my neighbor, or a fellow NZer or a fellow Earther, it is none of my business. The mother is much better positioned to make the decision than me.

A lack of morals accomplishes nothing, it is the driving force of nothing. But being free of religious dogma, free of unfounded belief, I am free to put my own thoughts into matters, free to come to my own conclusions rather than look for excuses to support the position others are taught that they must hold. My conclusions are that if the actions of others do not impact me, then it is not my place to play god and try and stop them or tell them what they can and can't do. I am of the opinion that controlling other people is what causes conflict and war.

[mortify]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1343895162' post='2461503']
My justification for not wanting a law against abortion is that it doesn't impact me, thus it is none of my business if a mother chooses to abort. None of my business and by extention, I will not give my vote towards a law against it, thus I believe it is none of the government's business.
Morality has nothing to do with it.
[/quote]

So if a man beats his wife in the privacy of his home, it's ok right?