The question I get asked by religious people all the time is, without God, what’s to stop me from raping all I want? And my answer is: I do rape all I want. And the amount I want is zero. And I do murder all I want, and the amount I want is zero. The fact that these people think that if they didn’t have this person watching over them that they would go on killing, raping rampages is the most self-damning thing I can imagine. I don’t want to do that. Right now, without any god, I don’t want to jump across this table and strangle you. I have no desire to strangle you. I have no desire to flip you over and rape you. –Penn Jillette
Think of the man what you will, but this has to be the best answer for that dumb question.
I see your logic, atheists. Now apply that to “laws”, “money”, and “The State”.
Saying “Without laws I wouldn’t do right from wrong” is also just as much a sociopathic self report imo. Same with “money” and “The State”, i’m an atheist just like them except I go one or two gods further.
also, when has religion saying raping and killing children was wrong ever stopped a religious ‘person’ from raping and killing children? those are like their two favorite things to do.
I can’t remember who said it but: If you being a good person depends on the fear of eternal damnation, then you are not a good person.
I now see why she was stupid enough to get with elmo.
Stop being pious atheists
What do you mean?
There are plenty examples of religious leaders raping and killing children and other offenses. But I guess they are above it all then?
I think zealot answered that. It seems that people who can’t manage themselves and their worst impulse want to manage others.
Grimes and musk believe the AI is God. So there’s a good chance context is missing here on purpose because she’s aware enough to not go full crazy.
Bring back God = build the AI.
they don’t believe in god, so there’s no belief in AI.
let me sum it up for you in a few words imagine they are the thoughts of our oppressors.
I am a god.
The archetypes, best, worst and middling, are those parts of ourselves, so I can kind of see that. I’m fairly sure that’s not what they mean by it, but I could be wrong. People can agree on basic premise and have wildly varying ideas of the implications, such as regular people who hi to church, temple and mosque and basically try to be decent to everyone, and those who wield religion like a cudgel.
Eta, just saying I’m fairly sure i don’t agree their implications, maybe not the actual premise. I realize it was murky.
If we can kill God, then it wasn’t God that we killed…
This is the fact that is so often overlooked because its too goddamn inconvenient for them to acknowledge.
manic nazi dream girl
There was just a case where a woman gave birth to a baby in the woods, left it there and left for a vacation. If it weren’t for the family dog desperately trying to save the baby and getting noticed by a stranger, nobody would have ever known as even the rest of the family was defensive of the woman.
This shows morality is not only not an exclusively trait but not even an exclusively human trait.
I am not sure that I agree that the dog’s behavior necessarily demonstrates “morality.” You might be anthropomorphizing a bit. I am not a biologist or anything, so I could be way off base… But is it not possible that the dog was acting on instincts to protect newborn offspring? Similar to when animals “adopt” babies from other species as their own?
Morality implies that the dog did a thing because it’s “the right thing to do,” when in reality, it might have just been a self-preservation instinct kicking in. Dog sees newborn that’s clearly the offspring of the being that takes care of it, dog tries to preserve that newborn’s life in order to keep the gravy train going.
Just my (again, non-expert) thoughts.
Zealots judging by the news coming out of america do not care about such trivial details as “facts”, “medical science” and “behavioral science”. It is unnecessary for them to take that into consideration.
You can remove the argument from morality safely from your answer just by stating the dog acted upon instinct, based off the notion dogs are pack animals, that have a closely knit symbiotic relatioship with human, which can be used to in favour of the dog finding a newborn activated the instinct of preserving their pack.
The way you approached the subject can be easily side tracked through arguing you are atributting self interest to the animals actions, as in, it keeps the newborn alive, thus, their own preservation is assured.
If acting on true self interest, the dog should have allowed the newborn to die.
Side note: who discards a newborn in such calous way? How unbalanced is the person?
If acting on true self interest, the dog should have allowed the newborn to die.
That’s not necessarily true. No more human offspring means no more symbiotic relationship.
No offspring, closer symbiotic relationship, with more resources available.
Maybe… We’re probably overthinking it and it’s just a “protect baby” instinct.
And that is a very possible scenario.
deleted by creator
Do you have source?
I think her argument was that religion offered an easy way to make moral choices.
fuck that elon breeder
If fear of divine retribution is your only reason for being a good person, then you are not a good person.
deleted by creator
