Atheists as a Majority

Post Reply New Topic

Eh, I find the term Agnostic to be crap.

Here I thought AS all thought in black and white, but plenty like to remain in the grey.






Because we are human.

So? Why not become beasts or gods? Stirner and Nietzsche argue that we should do the latter and their adherents are seen as belonging to the former. Really though, it is merely a fancy statement.

Ok?

We have an education system for a reason.

Ok? Social strifes very rarely happen instantaneously and value is subjective. Also, why shouldn't I mistreat my inferiors expressly for the purpose of making my fellow man suffer? You are arguing that the most egoistic position would be a Rawlsian position, however, you are assuming that men are homogeneous and I am not. I am explicitly asking you why psychopaths, who wish to cause suffering to every other being for the twisted pleasure of doing so without regard to their own life, are wrong. They would not care about the issues you bring up. Also, to argue otherwise, I think that modern societies could handle slavery better than past societies anyway and thus would have less to worry about with rebellion. Finally, to stick with naturalism, you are assuming different things than many other people would as there is not agreement on what human nature demands despite your assertions and your assertions don't count as truth as you still ignore lots and lots of the issues I brought up and simply brush them aside. Frankly, I know other people have "naturalist" conceptions that differ very very strongly from yours in terms of the morality inclined and these vary so much that disproving every single one is either pointless or impossible.

What if I don't give a damn about anyone? What if I distrust any organizational system that could have the power to force Rawlsianism on me or instead I am a Nozickian or Rothbardian who believes in human freedom as natural morality? What if I hate everyone? What if my ingrained social ideal demands that black people are as marginalized as the untouchables in India were? Why should a Marquis de Sade or a psycho care? Really, I think that your "naturalist" position is just a way of expressing your biases rather than any absolute derivation, especially given that from the research I have heard, more or less inequality in a nation does not necessarily mean greater inequality of happiness. http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/lif_l ... inequality The difference between the US and Switzerland is .2 and the difference between the US and France or Germany is .1 with the US being more equal in happiness despite being more unequal in economics. Really though, let's just say that we found a system that maximized happiness and social stability, who would say that this would be good? Brave New World by Aldous Huxley proposes a world with both maximized, but most people reject it as totally evil even though the people within saw it as entirely good. Obviously there must be something to account for this discrepancy.

Last edited by Awesomelyglorious on 16 Jan 2008, 7:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I recommend Christopher Hitchens' recent compilation of athiest writings called "The Portable Atheist". It contains works by such varied authors as Epicurus and Mark Twain.