Given the number of muslims killed by muslims as opposed to atheists killed by muslims, I’m pretty such religious rationalizations are a post hoc justification for doing whatever the hell the killer wants.
Heinz and the Druggist: An Updated Vignette for Examining Moral Decision Making
“A woman was near death from a special kind of cancer. There was one drug that the doctors thought might save her. It was a form of radium that a druggist in the same town had recently discovered. The drug was expensive to make, but the druggist was charging ten times what the drug cost him to produce. The sick woman’s husband, Heinz, couldn’t afford the price. He told the druggist that his wife was dying and asked him to sell it cheaper or let him pay later. But the druggist said: “No.”
So, Heinz asked the drug, “Drug, can you morally justify why I should not steal you?”. The drug was not able to articulate a clear axiological system that would support an answer. Thus, it was morally acceptable for Heinz to steal it."
I have mentioned the debates I enter with them are casual, friendly ones. No way can present my interlocutors actual syllogisms. I can express them differently though.
The question is whether an atheistic system is so alien to what a believer holds as true that any rational argument presented by the atheist will be considered invalid by the opposing party. Maybe yes, in that case I should simply give up.
It is easier to stand for Christian civilians, for example, because I can see my interlocutors regard other believers as some sort of equivalents, whereas atheists make a special group.
My observation as to atheists making an easier group to target due to their diverse moralities was not related to the rest of my discourse. It was just an incidental observation that referred to practical matters. My OP focuses on theoretical aspects.
Everyone uses a “relative axiology”. Just because a theist tacks on a god as a justification for their claims their beliefs & preferences don’t become any more absolute. If anything the secular, practical argument that “no one wants to be murdered, so let’s outlaw murder” is far closer to “absolute” than “my invisible sky daddy says so”.
Frankly, I think the drug did it on purpose.
So for your fiends, it’s easier to consider killing a person who thinks their god doesn’t exist than to kill a person that believes in the wrong god.
What happens to Shintoists? Not an Abrahamic religion, believes in multiple gods but nothing like an Allah type. Do they rank somewhat higher or lower than atheists?
Wait, what? I mean to say I need a rational argument against certain Muslims who condone terrorist attacks with atheists as victims. And I was thinking an atheist could be the best source of such arguments. I can be wrong, of course.
Apparently you missed the point of my Heinz and the druggist joke. No surprise; others have tried to directly make the point to you.
I have noticed that my Muslim interlocutors accept the fact that in many cases being part of a religious group other than the Islam is a matter of tradition. People who follow national/local traditions definitely rank higher. This is another knot I find hard to disentangle.
This had already been addressed here:
Here is my solution: Don’t boil down, translate or put into explainable terms anything we have said. In fact, the best thing you can do for us when talking to your Muslim acquaintances is to say that we refused to talk to you because, due to what you have posted in this thread concerning your beliefs about atheists, we would come out looking like a prime target for violence when you got done “translating” what has been said here.
What’s absolute about the moral justification for terrorism? It’s based on the idea that it’s OK to kill people under some circumstances, either to influence the behavior of third parties or because the targets are implicitly guilty of some crime. It’s based on excuse-making.
Of course they do. They usually won’t admit it, but that’s another story.
Yes, everything’s black and white. But they display great flexibility in deciding who’s black and who’s white and what their priorities are. Strangely, their decision always seems to suit their momentary needs.
You won’t get through to crazy people using words. It’s a waste of time.
Right. And I take it we’re supposed think it’s a bad sign for us that you don’t care if we’re murdered by terrorists? That’s not a problem for atheists.
Just as every economy is a mixture between free market economy and planned economy but certain economies regard themselves as characterized mainly by free market, every system shows a mixture of absolute and relative ideas, but some lean toward absolutism whereas others emphasize relativism.
Of course I would care. But I would certainly not show it if I risked to be killed as well.
You’re still not making sense. You can justify not killing Christians to Muslims, because Christians are somewhat the same as Muslims? But you can’t justify not killing atheists, because atheists are so alien to Muslims?
Seriously?
How about “Atheists are human beings just like you, created the same way as you, with the same place in the universe as you. It is just as wrong to kill an atheist as it is to kill any other human being.”
The fact that atheists and Muslims disagree about the creation process and man’s place in the universe doesn’t matter.
If Muslims think it’s OK to kill non-Muslims and reject that argument, then fuck em. You can’t convince them, not because atheists can’t provide rational arguments for not killing people, but because these particular Muslims are assholes who like killing. Oh wait, they don’t approve exactly but they understand. Just like there are plenty of American Christians who are totally fine with random Muslims getting blown up, because Muslims aren’t real people to them.
So if your supposed Muslim buddies can’t see a rational reason not to kill people based on Muslim moral arguments, then so much the worse for Islam. You can’t arguing rationally with irrational people. As this thread so aptly demonstrates.
No. That illustrates that you’re not getting it. The degree to which someone’s belief system is alien to a person is irrelevant to the moral justification for killing them.
You cannot address this question by exploring the morality of the atheist. They’re not the one killing anyone.
I will though distill some of what has been said here. I am a practical person.
I won’t mention my participation to this discussion to my interlocutors - that would be impractical or even counterproductive.
I’m not sure you know what my beliefs on atheists are. I have expressed them in four clear points but I don’t think you have referred to that post specifically.
And you might act differently if atheists produced an anti-murder argument that you personally found compelling? I’m just an atheist who thinks life is a meaningless accident, but I’m against murdering people regardless of their beliefs. They don’t have to think up a good reason they shouldn’t be murdered. But that’s me and my shades-of-gray moral relativism. Religious fanatics are so much more clear-cut about these things.
Yeah, in this post.
But clear doesn’t mean rational, nor does it mean correct.
Your four points are ludicrously false. Until/unless you actually understand what an atheist really is and not simply use your regrettable caricature of one, you do yourself and anyone with whom you discuss this topic a massive disservice.
If you imply that no conflict between people with opposing views can settled in the absence of an arbitrator, I believe you are wrong.