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

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

@PlaceboTarget

Actually, I can if shown arguments.

I am waiting for specific ideas and examples, something more than “No, that’s not it.”
What is it that an atheist holds and I have failed to mention?
And more importantly, what is it based on? Rationally.

It is not what you’ve omitted that is problematic. It is that you have included a raft of illogical, erroneous and silly shit.

For instance, you assert that atheists are naturalists and therefore believe that society has no intrinsic value. Specifically, you said:

Yet, both I and my interlocutors are aware of the fact that an atheist’s view on the world is a naturalist one, in which life, intelligence, culture and civilization are mere accidents with no intrinsic value or meaning at all

What the fuck? That last bit does not at all follow from anything that preceded it. That assertion is just plain stupid.

You assert that atheists believe that their views on an afterlife are superior to the religious Muslim views on an afterlife, so therefore they believe that they are superior to that person. Do you really not catch the logical flaw in that chain when you read it back?

These are just basic and fundamental errors. Dramatic leaps of logic with no foundation.

I think the real problem is that your fictional Muslim friends are looking for a post hoc rationalization for killing people. I don’t think they care what a realistic understanding of atheism is.

Why you are so averse to actually understanding atheism, I cannot hazard a guess.

What is atheism based on? An absence of a belief in gods, as you’ve been repeatedly told. That’s all there is to it.

[randompattern]

@PlaceboTarget

Actually, I can if shown arguments.

I am waiting for specific ideas and examples, something more than “No, that’s not it.”
What is it that an atheist holds and I have failed to mention?
And more importantly, what is it based on? Rationally.

I am an atheist.

1. I do not believe in any gods/deities.
2. I do not believe in a heaven or hell.

It’s not so much what you’ve failed to mention but, that you repeatedly mention incorrect presumptions about atheists.

Rationally, there has never been shown any evidence of any god ever existing.

Now, tell me more about what ALL atheists (including myself) believe and how you and your non-atheist friends are correct and I am wrong.

[Human_Action]

@PlaceboTarget

Of course this argument doesn’t hold rationally, but people use a lot in day to day life. I remember a balloon debate. (The concept of a balloon debate is that a hot air balloon is coming down and in order to save any of the passengers, others will need to be thrown overboard. Different students represent the people in the balloon and argue in turn to the group why they should be saved. If they are thrown overboard their contribution to humanity goes with them. The audience evaluate the relative cases and vote the people off the balloon one by one.) A particular player regarded her life of little importance and she was the first one voted off.

That’s not quite analogous, though: Terror attacks aren’t some cruel twist of fate like a balloon crash, they are deliberate choices. No one must die in a terror attack to spare a greater number of others. Further, the notion that one’s life isn’t very important to them is, to put it mildly, a minority view. Such self-interest is hardwired into human beings. And thirdly, that’s not a case of using another person’s moral code in place of your own in order to make a moral judgment as to how to treat that person, since “My life hasn’t contributed much to humanity” isn’t a moral position.

ETA: The point about the afterlife is a good one, and one I don’t think you’ve responded to. If morality should be informed by the beliefs of other people, than someone going around killing virtuous Muslims, who believe they’re headed to a glorious afterlife, would be correct to do so, no?

@UY Scuti

I am waiting for specific ideas and examples, something more than “No, that’s not it.”
What is it that an atheist holds and I have failed to mention?
And more importantly, what is it based on? Rationally.

There’s no one answer. Atheism isn’t a a philosophy or moral framework, it’s simply the lack of belief in gods. Different atheists follow different moral codes and different philosophies.

[Lightnin]

@PlaceboTarget

Both I and my interlocutors know that atheists considers life valuable. Yet, both I and my interlocutors are aware of the fact that an atheist’s view on the world is a naturalist one, in which life, intelligence, culture and civilization are mere accidents with no intrinsic value or meaning at all.

I’m not sure whether I, as an atheist, should be amused or insulted by this statement.

If we don’t have a creator who gave us those things, then “life, intelligence, culture, and civilization” are even *more *valuable. Anything you have to earn on your own is intrinsically more valuable than unearned gifts.

@PlaceboTarget

Moreover, an atheist tends to be a moral relativist in the sense that, for example, he is likely to think what is good for society may not be good for the individual. For a moral absolutist, right and wrong or good and bad are universally applicable.

To a moral absolutist, theft is morally wrong, correct?

But what if you’re stealing bread to feed a starving child? Is it still wrong?

If you answered “yes, but…” then you’re a moral relativist, just like us poor unenlightened atheists.

@PlaceboTarget

Therefore, an atheist seems to state: “I am an accidental superior form of life that needs to and should continue to live because I want to.” I find it hard to use this argument in the occasional debates I have with the people I’ve mentioned.

I have never said that I’m an accidental superior form of life. I’m well aware that we, as a species, clawed our way up the evolutionary ladder. I’m well aware that I live a good life now because my multitudes of ancestors worked hard for it.

And that’s the thing- what’s worth more, to you- a gift, or something you have to work for?

Let’s say your parents leave you a sizable inheritance, and when you hit 21 years old you can access your bank account with a million dollars in it.

Now let’s say that, instead of winning the lottery, you worked your entire life, scrimping and saving every last penny until finally you got one million dollars in the bank.

Which million is worth more to you?

[Grey]

UY Scuti go read this threadand then you can get back to us.

You might as well ask “When religious extremest threaten those that don’t believe in unicorns and their mission of innocence and goodness, what kind of argument could those disbelievers use to save themselves.”

[Czarcasm]

@PlaceboTarget

I’m not sure this logic could be used in the debates I’ve mentioned. Here is the logic presented above, assuming the “I” in the text is an atheist.

1. This atheist wants to live because he believes there is no afterlife.

2. This atheist will respond to attacks our of self-preservation.

3. This atheist empathizes with his fellow humans out of congenericity.

The first point makes sense but it is subjective.
The second one is rational in the sense that it describes things logically but ultimately the atheist’s reaction is an irrational one (i.e. based on emotions, instincts and the like).
The third point seems to ignore the fact that humans are social beings whose humanity results from participation and absorption of elements of culture and civilization. Elements of culture and civilization makes a human baby become a human - otherwise he will be a feral child, whose humanity is not accomplished. Invoking congenerity as a fundamental ground for empathy among human beings does not seem rational of a being whose very distinct place in existence resides on the fact that he is able to assign meanings, and to create cultures and civilizations that are passed on to his offspring (and in the absence of which these offspring may fall out of their human condition).

Are we still pretending these are points your anonymous Muslims might make(which means that you are capable of giving their counterpoints without even consulting them), or are you admitting that these are your opinions? This “But what you’ve said wouldn’t convince them!” bullshit is getting very tiresome, and not at all believable.

[tomndebb]

@PlaceboTarget

The Muslims I have talked to are not terrorists.

The Muslims I have engaged in these conversations are regular citizens with ordinary lives. Many of them claim to be and to a great extent are rational people. Yet I have noticed they tend to amplify the guilt of the western people as whole and overlook the deaths of civilians. If I point that innocent people are killed in these attacks, they point out the innocent lives taken by American or Israeli troops in the Middle East. Some of them even claim that there is a hierarchy, that not all lives have the same value, especially when the individual himself (as is the case with atheists) only places a subjective value on his own life.

Let’s look at the adherents of the position you wish to address:

First, it is a subset of Muslims whom you have personally encountered, so it is probably in the hundreds (out of a population of about one and a half billion).
Then you say that this group of people “seem to believe (although they avoid expressing this belief)” a particular thought. So you are already imputing beliefs and motives that you actually admit you don’t really know.
When you have challenged one of those beliefs, you have received “various answers,” so we need to limit the actual number of people who you think hold a particular belief, further, to ones who have actually expressed the thought that concerns you.

We are now down to a rather small number of people, based on your testimony. So the question that arises is, given that every group in the world has xenophobic members with wholly irrational beliefs about outsiders, why would you bother looking for a rational answer to an irrational belief that is held by some minority of people?

Will you next post a thread asking for a rational answer to people in the West who suggest that we simply kill all the people in the M.E.N.A. region and “let God sort them out”?
How about asking for a rational response to those Christians who have actually encouraged the killing of homosexuals?

There is nothing rational about such foolish ideas and there is no rational response to them other than to point out that they are silly.

[Marley23]

@PlaceboTarget

The Muslims I sometimes debate with are educated, informed people. They have Facebook accounts, are active on the Internet and have studied and/or traveled abroad.

You keep saying these kinds of things as if they’re remarkable or impressive. They aren’t, so you can stop.

They know atheists as well as you and I.

I was going to say “no, they don’t,” but you don’t seem to know atheists very well either. So perhaps you’re right - they know as much about atheists as you do. The problem is that’s very little.

@PlaceboTarget

First of all, if had any suspicion that I may talking to an actual terrorist I would end the conversation as smoothly as I could and simply get out of there.

I didn’t say anything about talking to an actual terrorist. I’m saying anyone who wanted to put those views into practice is a bloodthirsty loon, and you’re not going to get very far arguing against a position held by a bloodthirsty loon.

I find it really shocking that certain otherwise decent people may think it’s no big deal that some humans died as long as (inaccurate quote): “there were many casualties on our side too and your victims were likely to be atheists anyway.”

People have been saying crap like that for thousands of years. It’s aggravating but not all that shocking.

[tomndebb]

@PlaceboTarget

Both I and my interlocutors know that atheists considers life valuable. Yet, both I and my interlocutors are aware of the fact that an atheist’s view on the world is a naturalist one, in which life, intelligence, culture and civilization are mere accidents with no intrinsic value or meaning at all. Moreover, an atheist tends to be a moral relativist in the sense that, for example, he is likely to think what is good for society may not be good for the individual. For a moral absolutist, right and wrong or good and bad are universally applicable. Therefore, an atheist seems to state: “I am an accidental superior form of life that needs to and should continue to live because I want to.” I find it hard to use this argument in the occasional debates I have with the people I’ve mentioned.

I am not sure that you should bother looking at arguments for other people’s ideas when your own are fraught with error. You leap from “just accidents” to “no intrinsic value” without providing any reason for that leap. Value is not determined by whether there is purpose. And the phrase “just accidents” would indicate that you are pushing your own erroneous beliefs onto people whose views you also do not understand. Employing those illogical beliefs suggests that you will probably not be able to engage in a logical discussion with your target group, in any event.

[The_Other_Waldo_Pepper]

@PlaceboTarget

However, I do believe people can make rational moral choices too. For example, I may be afraid of what a WWIII may look like, but that doesn’t mean I can’t rationally opt to militate for peace.

Maybe I missed something: why couldn’t an atheist say those exact same words? So long as you’re claiming it would be a ‘rational moral choice’ for you, why wouldn’t it likewise be a ‘rational moral choice’ for them?

[Czarcasm]

UY Scuti-What is your definition of, and beliefs about, atheism?

[Great_Antibob]

@PlaceboTarget

Actually, I can if shown arguments.

I am waiting for specific ideas and examples, something more than “No, that’s not it.”

Really? We have atheists here. They contradict your claims about atheists. And that’s not enough?

As I stated before, you can’t rationally argue most people out of a position they did not rationally argue themselves into. Your posts in this thread are a textbook example of this principle.

Try substituting “Scotsman” for “atheist” in your arguments.

UY Scuti: My Irish friends tell me all Scotsmen waltz under the moonlight. And that’s why the IRA hates Scotsmen.
Random Scotsman: I’m a Scotsman, and I don’t waltz. At all.
UY Scuti: Well, clearly all Scotsman are wonderful dancers. So, I’d like an argument showing that you don’t waltz. Some examples and ideas about Scottish dancing would help.

Huh? This line of reasoning is incomprehensible, but somehow you’ve been using it for a few days.

[PlaceboTarget]

@Lightnin

I have never said that I’m an accidental superior form of life. I’m well aware that we, as a species, clawed our way up the evolutionary ladder.

Scientifically speaking, this idea is wrong. Darwinism has been refined in the past decades. There have been too many mass extinctions since life appeared on Earth to believe that the human species is around solely thanks to the mechanisms of evolution. There have been great catastrophes so far, that is accidents, thanks to which mammals themselves had the chance to evolve the way we know them today.

[Marley23]

I’m not sure if that’s an invented distinction or merely an irrelevant one, but it’s at least one of the two.

[PlaceboTarget]

@Czarcasm

Are we still pretending these are points your anonymous Muslims might make(which means that you are capable of giving their counterpoints without even consulting them), or are you admitting that these are your opinions? This “But what you’ve said wouldn’t convince them!” bullshit is getting very tiresome, and not at all believable.

The stuff I wrote in that post was my opinion - I don’t understand why you mix things. I don’t pretend.

If you continue with these innuendos, I won’t reply to you anymore.

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

@PlaceboTarget

Scientifically speaking, this idea is wrong. Darwinism has been refined in the past decades. There have been too many mass extinctions since life appeared on Earth to believe that the human species is around solely thanks to the mechanisms of evolution. There have been great catastrophes so far, that is accidents, thanks to which mammals themselves had the chance to evolve the way we know them today.

I for one would prefer that you finish being wrong on one subject before you pursue being wrong on a separate subject.

[PlaceboTarget]

@Marley23

I’m not sure if that’s an invented distinction or merely an irrelevant one, but it’s at least one of the two.

I dare to believe the distinction is a relevant one, or else biologists wouldn’t have bothered to refine Darwin’s initial theory.

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

@PlaceboTarget

The stuff I wrote in that post was my opinion - I don’t understand why you mix things. I don’t pretend.

If you continue with these innuendos, I won’t reply to you anymore.

Uh oh… sounds like someone is warming up the old alibi generator!

[Marley23]

@PlaceboTarget

I dare to believe the distinction is a relevant one, or else biologists wouldn’t have bothered to refine Darwin’s initial theory.

It’s irrelevant to this discussion.

[PlaceboTarget]

@Great_Antibob

Really? We have atheists here. They contradict your claims about atheists. And that’s not enough?

This is what baffles me. The scarcity of rational arguments provided here that an atheist life should be spared. Plus, this overblown hostility directed at me. It is as though I should be punished for this theoretical infertility. I think I myself have been civil and rational, so if that’s all I can get out of the thread, I’m okay with it. And thankful for those who have bothered to contribute.