If There is No God, is Murder Wrong? (a Reply to Dennis Prager)

Doesn't matter, since they're nothing like what I'm talking about.

I "choose" to ignore the writing of Luther regarding anything at all, for the same reason I "choose" to ignore the writings of Aquinas, Hemmingway, Tom Clancy, and any number of other authors whose writings I've not become interested in.

 

I think all normal humans have got it hardwired into their DNA that it is wrong, whether God says so or not..
For example I play online wargames against human opponents and today I bazooka'd a troop carrier, blowing it and the men inside it to smithereens and I feel bloody guilty and remorseful! I tell myself it's only a wargame and that they would have killed me if they'd had the chance, but I still regret doing it and feel sorry for them, am I nuts or what?

 

So, what do you chose to believe in?
Voices?

 

The emotional aspect of being human requires some sort of moral guideline. Whether we get it from God (morals) or from society (ethics). Either way, it all just comes down to the golden rule- would you prefer to be treated the way you treat others? If yes- you're 'good', if no- you're 'evil'.

 

It's exactly what we are talking about. Taking human lives in the name of God.

Spoken like a true Christian; pick and choose. Keep the blinders on for anything that disagrees with your own deeply held beliefs.

From your posts, I'm guessing you are a Protestant (as opposed to Catholic). As such, how can you say you ignore the writings of the founder of your branch of Christianity?

 

No, I'm saying we - which is to say society - are not killing tens of thousands of people in highway accidents.

That's nothing like what I'm talking about, wherefore it's nothing like what we're talking about.

Yeah, you do that a lot. And you suck at it.

 

Pray tell, what are we talking about? Let's look at your comments.

Regarding “god's law”

You believe God's law is essential and clear.

Yet you would deny that people use God's Clear law to kill people. As I said: Spoken like a true Christian; pick and choose. Keep the blinders on for anything that disagrees with your own deeply held beliefs.

You state belief in God's Clear law. Are you denying that you are a Christian? Are you denying that you are of the Protestant branch of Christianity?

 

Lots of people base their lives on Religion of some kind.

Lots base theirs on Science.

Some base theirs on Philosophy however.

In Philosophy, Plato has already convincingly established that each of us in society has responsibilities within that society. If we violate the rules of this society then it can and will deal with us accordingly.

Murder is the unjustified unlawful killing of another human with premeditation of some sort.

You do not need Religion to know that murder is wrong. Plato is sufficient to understand why, as I noted above.

If you murder then society will surely hunt you down and apprehend you, then punish you in accordance with its particular rules. These rules vary from limited to unlimited imprisonment to execution. About a dozen nations of the world including the USA at the Federal and most state levels execute.

Ergo if you murder you will be punished for it by society.

Because murder is obviously wrong according to the logic and Philosophy of Plato.

Murder steals the life of its victim -- a life that cannot be restored.

Murder causes grief and pain to the family and friends of the victim.

Murder causes fear among the public.

Murder takes away a productive individual from the world.

I believe that the Chinese have the best response to murder -- they execute the offender and donate his/her organs to others who need them so that some lives are preserved in exchange for the life that was illegally stolen. Thus while two lives are invariable and irreversibly lost in this process, several other lives can be saved with the heart, liver, and kidneys donated to others.

 

It all seems to boil down to practical and pragmatic justification vs ideological and absolute justification. The religious insist on the latter, that something is only truly wrong if established in that absolute sense by an authority outside of man. The rest of us look at things like murder and theft and rape in practical terms, at least when we move beyond initial and emotional reaction and seek to justify our rejection of these things as wrong. We say they are harmful to society, and so are wrong, or that, because they harm a the victim, they are wrong.

Of course, this argumentation may appear weaker, because if one can get away with doing these things, then what is to stop them doing it? If they aren't caught and punished, it seems nothing will. This is where the religious pundit may argue that God is needed. But then, we all know that such beliefs do not prevent these crimes, either, that religious people and non-religious people alike can and do commit such crimes. Plus, if there is no god as claimed, then there is in fact no punishment for these acts anyway, beyond what we inflict on the perpetrators ourselves.

Anyway, the philosophical argument is definitely on the pragmatic side and follows what anyone not appealing to divine authority will argue. It all stems from our common ways of thinking about morality and the concepts of right and wrong. Throughout generations and across billions of unique people, the basic ideas are all the same; we're just expressing them in different terms each time.

 

You @Durandal seem to be approaching the topic from a pragmatic viewpoint without defining your Philosophy, Science, or Religion on topic.

If you drill down deeper into your own pragmatism you will see that at the grassroots or bedrock there is some kind of basis in ethics there somewhere. Ethics is a branch of Philosophy.

Pragmatism is an everyman's simplified form of Philosophy.

But ultimately everyone needs to come to terms with Classic and Modern Philosophy if they want to thoroughly examine and determine any issue, starting with what you should and should not eat and drink, all the way to how often you should bathe, and everything in between that you do in a day or a lifetime.

 

Yes, and I see that as a serious problem.

The catch with looking for that absolute authority is that the authority isn't going to stick to murder.

What we end up with is a sub population with a world view that simply isn't ready to accept evidence based argument. After all, when the ultimate authority is counter to evidence, one must make a choice. And, if the choice is to ignore evidence in favor of authority, then the sources of evidence come to be seen as likely false and not to be trusted.

This is how we get to the point where the very existence of science can be seen as a serious problem that must be dealt with.

This is one path for no longer being skeptical of statements that are made by authority, making our society vulnerable to fake news and solutions (be they medical, political, societal, or whatever) that ARE a problem.

 

Aye. It's people lending their own ideas false authority in hopes of coercing others to adhere to those ideas. It is definitely not the kind of thinking and action that we want to encourage among our kind if we are to deal intelligently with one another and a global society of humans possessing means to do great harm to one another. It is the pragmatic and practical approach that enables the kind of free and peaceful society that so many of us enjoy today.

 

"... Coercing others ..." is a branch of politics, which in turn is a branch of Philosophy.

 

"... Absolute authority ..." can mean almost anything to anyone.

Individually speaking it is a philosophical issue.

Civically speaking it is a political issue.

Religiously speaking it is an organizational issue.

 

Depends on what society one is in and what it says that murder is.

Many heathens think anytime abortion on demand is not murder. As the unborn are not real persons under their warped sense of the law.

Other cultures and Religions like the Aztec and Thuggies were delighted to capture victims to be ritually sacrificed---reminds me of the radical Pro-Choice folks.

 

Contraception is murder!

 

We are not talking about anything. You are trying to stuff words in my mouth, and I am pointing out that you have no idea what the hell you're talking about.

No, I deny they use it to murder people.

Of course I am, just as I have done consistently ever since I started posting on the internet over a decade and a half ago.

 

Once religion provides an authority that is required to be accepted above evidence, problems emerge.

Today that feeds a world view that science is a problem that must be reduced. After all, science has presented evidence of the falsity of the religious world view on some topics.

 

Religion is older than both Science and Philosophy.

Religion has always been the opiate of the masses ever since ancient times when kings and pharaohs claimed to be gods or sons of gods. And that is the answer to your question of why it is so.

As for science disproving Religion in general it is not possible.

Although today we know that none of the kings or pharaohs were gods or sons of gods, and also that the Earth is not the center of the Universe, those false religion doctrines and dogmas cannot indict Religion as a whole, which is what I think you are trying to sneak in.

Religion is merely the more detailed aspect of a Theist view of the Universe. And Theism is a Philosophy.

The other Philosophies besides Theism are Deism, Agnosticism, and Atheism.

Theism and Atheism are both faith systems.

Deism and Agnosticism are pure Philosophies.

 

Then write your Congressman about it.

 

You need to look at it in terms of free will. When you kill someone that is the ultimate violation of that beings free will. Now of course if your free will is being violated and the only way to defend yourself is to kill the other person then of course murder away... So, short answer... It depends.

 

The thousands who were burned at the stake during the European witch hunts would not differentiate between being murdered of being killed.

However, if you want to get technical, the definition of "murder" does include the word "unlawful".

So what the religious leaders of the witch hunts did was not murder since their religiously inspired laws made it legal to kill whatever persons they wanted to define as witches.

I guess you would also be OK with ignoring the snonyms for murder: killing, homicide, assassination, liquidation, extermination, execution, slaughter, butchery, massacre

 

Wrong. Society can decide what's right and wrong, but the Golden rule applies in any case, otherwise we'd have chaos.

 

were presumably not executed in pursuance of God's law, any more than Christ was.