Can atheists provide rational arguments that terrorists should spare their lives?

[Human_Action]

@PlaceboTarget

But what about the innocent lives of the civilians killed in these attacks? I often ask. I have received various answers to this question, but one particular reply really baffled me: Many of them are just panting dogs. At first I thought I didn’t hear well, but the explanation came right away: Many of the non-Muslims killed in the attack are not even Christians (for whom a Muslim could nurture some limited respect) because a lot of westerners are atheists at the moment.

Okay maybe, I said. But they’re still people like you and me.

No, they’re not, the argument went on. Atheists insist that any system of value is relative and the society cannot impose any values on the individual. To an atheist, any value is purely subjective. From an atheist point of view, human life does not have an absolute meaning or value. There are even atheists who contest the superiority of human life over other forms of life, or the superiority of human intelligence over other forms of intelligence. Some even claim that people do no make conscious choices and there is no actual “I” in any person. Therefore, killing an atheist would not be worse than killing a bug, from the perspective of the atheist himself.

That’s pretty bizarre: when is one’s moral obligation to others ever dependent on the other guy’s morality, as opposed to your own? That neatly defeats the purpose and meaning of morality.

[Great_Antibob]

Looks like we should ask UY Scuti for a restatement of the question.

If A, then B.

Unfortunately, “A” is pretty ridiculous. The OPs characterization of atheists is stereotypically bad.

So how about it? A restatement that’s actually better than “Can a leprechaun provide rational arguments that unicorns should spare their lives?”.

[Shodan]

@Marley23

My view is that if you demand I come up with a rational reason you shouldn’t kill me - because you can’t think of one - you are some kind of psychopath or homicidal maniac.

IOW there is no rational reason, since you can’t think of one either.

[QUOTE=UY Scuti]
Can atheists provide any rational arguments that taking their lives is wrong?
[/QUOTE]
Not unless you consider “just because I feel like it” or even “just because” as a rational reason. Atheists have nothing else to offer, which is why they simply either dodge the question, or repeat their faith-based assertions in louder voices.

Or else simply repeat “Prove your morality!!!” over and over again, as if it addressed the question.

But to actually answer the question - no, no atheist morality can have any real validity, and all atheists, without any exception whatever, are in exactly the same position as Fred Phelps or Mother Theresa. All moral statements from all atheists, of any sort whatever, are exactly equivalent to “that’s how I feel”. There is no rational basis for it.

As we have seen from the thread.

Regards,
Shodan

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

You seem to be confusing yourself with your argument. Atheists’ desire not to be killed is firmly rooted in rationality; the net utility of indiscriminate killing is negative, and it’s bad for society. I’m not sure what to make of your unrelated screed about morality.

[Czarcasm]

@Shodan

IOW there is no rational reason, since you can’t think of one either.
Not unless you consider “just because I feel like it” or even “just because” as a rational reason. Atheists have nothing else to offer, which is why they simply either dodge the question, or repeat their faith-based assertions in louder voices.

Or else simply repeat “Prove your morality!!!” over and over again, as if it addressed the question.

But to actually answer the question - no, no atheist morality can have any real validity, and all atheists, without any exception whatever, are in exactly the same position as Fred Phelps or Mother Theresa. All moral statements from all atheists, of any sort whatever, are exactly equivalent to “that’s how I feel”. There is no rational basis for it.

As we have seen from the thread.

Regards,
Shodan

I’ll say this for you-at least you don’t pretend your attitude comes from imaginary Muslims.

[Marley23]

@Shodan

IOW there is no rational reason, since you can’t think of one either.

I didn’t say I can’t think of one. I’m saying the question is daft.

[Lemur866]

@Shodan

IOW there is no rational reason, since you can’t think of one either.
Not unless you consider “just because I feel like it” or even “just because” as a rational reason. Atheists have nothing else to offer, which is why they simply either dodge the question, or repeat their faith-based assertions in louder voices.

Or else simply repeat “Prove your morality!!!” over and over again, as if it addressed the question.

But to actually answer the question - no, no atheist morality can have any real validity, and all atheists, without any exception whatever, are in exactly the same position as Fred Phelps or Mother Theresa. All moral statements from all atheists, of any sort whatever, are exactly equivalent to “that’s how I feel”. There is no rational basis for it.

As we have seen from the thread.

Regards,
Shodan

So what is the basis of theistic morality? Because God said so? And that makes it true? If God told you to murder a baby, you’d do it gladly because if God told you it was good that’s what makes it good?

You, as a theist don’t have an absolute basis to your morality. You read a book about it, and decided to follow the book, or your parents told you what to do and you obeyed them, or you met some guys and they seemed cool and so you decided to do what they did.

You don’t have an absolute basis for your morality. You have a subjective belief that God told you to do stuff. Your belief in what God told you is just as relative as anyone else’s. Why do you think God is good and you should do what God told you? “If you don’t do what God says you’re going to Hell.” Why is going to Hell bad? Because it is eternal suffering? Why is eternal suffering bad? Because it feels bad? Why is going to Heaven to be united with God good? Because it feels good?

You’re just doing what feels good and avoiding what feels bad same as everyone else, you just also have a belief in some supernatural things that will feel good or feel bad that most atheists don’t have. But of course plenty of atheists also believe all kinds of nonsensical supernatural crap, atheists are no more immune to making mistakes than anyone else, the only thing about atheists that makes them different than other people is that atheists don’t believe in God.

You obey what you think is God’s will because you believe that by doing so you will please God. Why is pleasing God good? You just feel it is good. And if a terrorist asks you to justify why he shouldn’t kill you, and you tell him that God told you it was wrong for him to kill you, do you think he’s going to be convinced by that?

[Czarcasm]

@Shodan

All moral statements from all atheists, of any sort whatever, are exactly equivalent to “that’s how I feel”. There is no rational basis for it.

Are you a moral person? If so, what is the rational basis for your morality?

[Human_Action]

@Shodan

Not unless you consider “just because I feel like it” or even “just because” as a rational reason. Atheists have nothing else to offer, which is why they simply either dodge the question, or repeat their faith-based assertions in louder voices.

Or else simply repeat “Prove your morality!!!” over and over again, as if it addressed the question.

But to actually answer the question - no, no atheist morality can have any real validity, and all atheists, without any exception whatever, are in exactly the same position as Fred Phelps or Mother Theresa. All moral statements from all atheists, of any sort whatever, are exactly equivalent to “that’s how I feel”. There is no rational basis for it.

As we have seen from the thread.

Regards,
Shodan

Correct, all morality - religious or otherwise - is subjective. You seem to be using “rational” as though it meant “objective”, though. There are rational bases to oppose murder.

[YogSothoth]

@PlaceboTarget

No, they’re not, the argument went on. Atheists insist that any system of value is relative and the society cannot impose any values on the individual. To an atheist, any value is purely subjective. From an atheist point of view, human life does not have an absolute meaning or value. There are even atheists who contest the superiority of human life over other forms of life, or the superiority of human intelligence over other forms of intelligence. Some even claim that people do no make conscious choices and there is no actual “I” in any person. Therefore, killing an atheist would not be worse than killing a bug, from the perspective of the atheist himself.

The mistake here is that these Muslims you spoke to are substituting their own relativity. Its not about how they think about the atheist, its about how the atheist thinks of himself. In other words, its fine if the atheist is a relativist who doesn’t consider himself more than a bug. But they didn’t ask. To the atheist, maybe his life has a lot of worth, more than Muslims or other religious people. That’s their mistake

[Sailboat]

Well, I often encounter religious people whose argument boils down to “only fear of punishment by God deters us from killing each other,” which seems to imply they find the idea of killing attractive enough that they are barely held in check by some outside authority.

Those people make me pretty nervous.

[Lobohan]

@PlaceboTarget

I’ll start by stating clearly that I deeply dislike war (of any sort) and I find terrorism a major contemporary threat.

It so happens that I sometimes come into contact for long periods of time with people from the Middle East, and they seem to believe (although they avoid expressing this belief) that terrorist attacks perpetrated by Muslim extremists are somewhat justifiable.

Once in a while I come across with open minded, educated people originating from the Middle East, and they too show the same attitude. The general feeling is that the West has caused and is causing the Muslims a lot of injustice and suffering, and a guerrilla war initiated by the most active representatives of a large population against the West oppressor should not be dismissed as an insane act equivalent to what Ted Kaczynski or Timothy McVeigh are notorious for.

But what about the innocent lives of the civilians killed in these attacks? I often ask. I have received various answers to this question, but one particular reply really baffled me: Many of them are just panting dogs. At first I thought I didn’t hear well, but the explanation came right away: Many of the non-Muslims killed in the attack are not even Christians (for whom a Muslim could nurture some limited respect) because a lot of westerners are atheists at the moment.

Okay maybe, I said. But they’re still people like you and me.

No, they’re not, the argument went on. Atheists insist that any system of value is relative and the society cannot impose any values on the individual. To an atheist, any value is purely subjective. From an atheist point of view, human life does not have an absolute meaning or value. There are even atheists who contest the superiority of human life over other forms of life, or the superiority of human intelligence over other forms of intelligence. Some even claim that people do no make conscious choices and there is no actual “I” in any person. Therefore, killing an atheist would not be worse than killing a bug, from the perspective of the atheist himself.

What about the law? I objected. It is still illegal to murder those people.

I usually hear a snort - sometimes a laughter. They say: In the West, the law is a matter of negotiation and compromise. The Muslim law is clear and uncompromising.

And thus we get back to the essential question: Can atheists provide any rational arguments that taking their lives is wrong?

My life is, in general, more important than any theists. Because theists believe they will go to magic happy land when they croak. So killing theists is less of a big deal.

Honestly though, my morality is based on the idea of reducing the amount of suffering that sentient beings endure. As such, needlessly killing me would create significant suffering among my friends and family. And me, depending on how fast it’s done.

[iiandyiiii]

@Shodan

But to actually answer the question - no, no atheist morality can have any real validity, and all atheists, without any exception whatever, are in exactly the same position as Fred Phelps or Mother Theresa. All moral statements from all atheists, of any sort whatever, are exactly equivalent to “that’s how I feel”. There is no rational basis for it.

This is no more true for atheists than it is for non-atheists… there’s no more validity or logic from any faith-based moral system than for any non faith-based moral system.

[Czarcasm]

Here’s logic for you: I would like to live as long as I possibly can, because this is the only life I’ve got(as far as available evidence suggests, of course). If I am in the habit of hurting others, it might occur to others that hurting me first would be a logical step in their attempts at self preservation. Also, not being told that I am “special” by any god makes it more likely that I will empathize with my fellow human creature.

[shiftless]

@Sailboat

Well, I often encounter religious people whose argument boils down to “only fear of punishment by God deters us from killing each other,” which seems to imply they find the idea of killing attractive enough that they are barely held in check by some outside authority.

Those people make me pretty nervous.

Me too! I have to assume these otherwise normal people, much like the OP, just haven’t thought through what they are saying. Otherwise, as you point out, the only thing keeping them from killing me, stealing my wallet and screwing my wife is their belief that an all seeing God will catch them at it. Since I don’t think that all-seeing God exists, I back away from these morally barren folks very carefully.

[The_Hamster_King]

Here’s how I, as an atheist, construct my morality:

The rules that we collectively choose to live by determine the sort of world we live in. I would prefer not to live in a world where I am subject to the random predations of others, so I would prefer if everyone around me would adopt a set of moral rules that forbid that sort of behavior. I encourage the adoption of such rules by adopting them myself. This creates a system of reciprocity – I’m nice to you so that you’ll be nice to me. However, contained within this system of reciprocity is an implicit threat – If you’re NOT nice to me, I’ll STOP being nice to you. It’s simple tit-for-tat.

Basically, the long-term benefit I get from living in a civil society greatly outweighs any short-term benefit I might get from stealing or killing. So I refrain from stealing and killing to retain my place in civil society.

[GreenHell]

Pizza addressed this, but my blog addresses atheist values in far more detail. Specifically it was created as a thought experiment to envision what a Humanist religious organization would look like, but it elucidates the distinction between “religion” and “atheism” in some posts.

http://laht.blogspot.com/

TL;DR Atheism makes NO CLAIMS about values, morals, ethics or any other philosophical matter except the existence of the gods. It claims that they do not exist or declines to claim that they do exist.

[PlaceboTarget]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

It was fairly clear from the OP that those acquaintances were fictional.

I have had numerous discussions with these people. In the OP, I did my best to summarize certain views through a fictional dialogue based on these past conversations.

[Marley23]

So you’ve met lots of educated, open-minded Muslims who think it’s alright to murder Westerners because maybe a tenth of them are atheists?

[PlaceboTarget]

@Czarcasm

I’ll say this for you-at least you don’t pretend your attitude comes from imaginary Muslims.

This post is not explicitly directed at my OP, but if the allusion is that the attitude of my interlocutors I refer to is in fact mine I must state clearly that you are wrong.

There is something vague about my point of view, though, but I want this issue not be affected by my own beliefs. I may be a Muslim myself, or a Christian, or an atheist, or anything else. This matter is not of importance. I am simply interested in finding out a more rational and more effective argument in my future conversation with the people I have mentioned in the OP if the occasion arises.