Did you even bother looking at studies? Scientific studies??? Do you have any idea what contributes to reducing population? NO of course you didn’t because you wouldn’t have written something so obviously ignorant.
…straight to the point
You are not “clear minded” because you trust your own thoughts. Your posing of these questions are with the goal of supporting your non-sensical statement. YET answers to these questions are available via a working knowledge of logic and the scientific method.
Scientific studies show educating and improving standard of living USUALLY (not with Catholics). That’s totally NOT the point. I was trying to make you realize that no one is truely able to think with a clean slate on morality.
Would you care to live in a society that had no sanction against murder? Do you care about suffering, or as White says, have any empathy for others and their well being?
I don’t need any superstition to find murder abhorrent.
What a truly asinine and facile observation, that has absolutely nothing to do with science either.
What if they keep making fatuous and facile sweeping claims in an internet forum? Since we’re conjuring up arbitrary reasons to justify murder. Again your rather silly observation has nothing to do with logic.
You seem determined to exercise as little thought as possible, before voicing these absurd assertions.
If you were starving, would you experience more or less suffering if others helped you? Do take your time…
Wow, a whole new level of fatuous idiocy, not to mention a truly abhorrent sentiment.
I sincerely hope that post is some misguided attempt at humour.
Influenced how exactly? Again you seem to prefer to make broad unevidenced assertions, rather than engage in debate. In really starting to tire of your endless preaching now.
Well. you have certainly demonstrated that point. Ummmm. Do you understand the “Scientific Method” at all… … a little part of it called… “independent vertification.” With absolutely no exposture to religion at all, science makes sense by removing any one individual from a conclusion, clear minded or not, a claim is supported by facts and evidence or it is not. When a claim is supported by facts and evidence, scientists regard the individual who came up with the claim as worthy of a Nobel Prize. And when the facts and evidence do not support the claim of the individual, he or she is worthy of being consigned to oblivian. Hey… sorta like the comments you are making!!
Homo sapiens is a social animal that lives together in groups, and cooperates on many tasks. Cooperation benefits the group as a whole, and in the end also the individual. Therefore, going around killing other individuals in your group for no reason hurts your group, and therefore, in the end, yourself. That is why, generally speaking, killing someone is not to your own benefit. For the special case of someone attacking or hurting you or your cooperating group, or for some reason has a behaviour that hurts you or your group, the group has agreed upon rules for what to do. Today, these are called laws, and their purpose is in the most basic case to prevent senseless hurting or killing for no reason.
Another aspect is the empathy that most people are equipped with (persons with psychopathic personality disorders etc. excepted), and even some animals. Empathy makes cooperation within groups easier and smoother. It also enables persons to understand when others are feeling pain or discomfort, and to seek to minimise it, or to not exhibit behaviour that triggers pain or discomfort in others.
So, for purely pragmatic reasons (cooperation within your in-group) and due to innate empathy, killing or hurting others is viewed as something that one should avoid. Therefore, societies have established rules against such behaviour. Today, we say that it is wrong and illegal to kill, maim or hurt others.
So you see, we don’t need religion or gods or supernatural or superstitious reasons to say that killing is wrong. It follows from purely rational arguments.
Who decides which qualities in a person is worthless? And who decides what qualities a person have? Maybe this person could have qualities that could benefit society given other circumstances or boundary conditions? Can society do other things than killing this person to prevent him or her from causing pain? By for example encourage (or force) this person to be reformed somehow, so he/she stops causing pain?
I have argued above that your assumptions are faulty (or at the very least incomplete), so your “logical” conclusion is therefore not valid.
What do you do if you one day discover strong evidence that the person that was executed was innocent? Pat the dead body on its back and say “sorry”?
Provide a citation to the scientific evidence please?
Please demonstrate this logic?
All animals that have evolved to live in societal groups are capable of morality. It’s an essential requirement that members of a society recognise and hold a broad agreement on what is moral. So religious superstition need play no part in morality.
Are you ever going to address objections to your assertions, or answer any questions?
I think we can draw a reasonable inference by now.
Oh dear. Which studies specifically show all that?
Here you won’t get away with statements like 90% of people ----- or “Scientific studies show”. You will be challenged to supply your sources.
Yes, I think we understood your claim. The response is that you are simply wrong. If you bothered to spend time reading and researching your posts you might not sound quite as willfully ignorant.
As it turns out, I’ve been a recovering Catholic for over 50 years. I went to university part time whilst working full time, and have a comfortable middle class life in retirement. My journey from Catholicism to atheism took me 20 years. My exception blows your generalisation out of water***
Ok, with absolutely no religious reference - how do you define evil? Or vice versa. Science doesn’t tell you killing people is wrong.
I can tell you how I define evil: that which increases suffering (which even my dog understands when someone is suffering or in pain). So, by logic, if you kill a tyrant then you have greatly reduced suffering! Right?
Also, reducing population and making the world better for the ones that remain is GOOD!
Capitalism (expounded during Christianity) is just another form of slavery. It culminated in a few living off the toil of many
It’s in the fucking dictionary ffs, does it have a special definition for religions? Do take your time, as I’ve only pointed this out 3 fucking times so far…
Neither does stamp collecting, so what’s your fucking point?
Do you care or have any empathy for the suffering of others? Yes or no…
Can you cite any moral imperative that must be based on religion?
No objective evidence can be demonstrated for any deity,
ipso fact theistic beliefs produce subjective morality, ana do secular worldviews.
All you’re doing is repeating the irrational questions and assertions, that multiple posters have already addressed.
Then you’re illiterate, is a dentist evil, or a doctor when they reset a broken limb? Your either not bright enough to dig beneath your facile rhetoric, or you must be trolling.
Fuck off, you are not citing logic here, just using it as a soundbite. I’ve already asked before for you to show your logic and you fucking ignored me. So this repetition makes you a liar.
Whilst increasing the tyrant’s suffering, and those who had any emotional attachment to them, thus your rationale is demonstrably false. Or at least facile to the point of stupidity. You’re using reductio ad absurdum fallacies, to try and reduce everything to moral relativism. Unintentionally of course…
Parenthetically why does one need any religious beliefs to be moral if as you claim, it’s about reducing suffering?
Oh ffs, if you take away people that are loved, that’s going to create suffering, are you really this dimwitted? So reducing the population is not just a desirable goal, it can depending on how it’s achieved be an immoral action
It’s no more dependant on christianity than any other religion. However what is your point here? If you want to discard capitalism which feeds billions, then you better have a viable alternative, or you must think mass poverty and starvation and anarchy are morally better alternatives.
And as an example of this you offered the example of a tyrant. But then you suggested murdering this tyrant. Why are you so quick to resort to the ultimate measure, in murder? There are other methods in deposing a tyrant from power.
And would not this murder also inflict suffering on the tyrant and this person’s loved ones?
So the person(s) who murder this tyrant are also guilty of “evil”. My oh my, you have set up a vicious circle of murder and suffering. Therefore this definition, by it’s nature, is “evil”, and so is the one who proposes it.
I suggest you go back to the drawing board and rethink your definition of “evil”.