A question for anyone who does not believe in God?

[Hounf of Culan]

I don't know if anyone has made a thread like this before. Anyhow, does anyone here believe that no religion/worldview, whatever you want to call it, is better than any other? That each man should be able to choose whatever way of life he pleases? Basically does anyone believe that each man should define his own happiness, live his life according to his own definitions of good and bad? If you say yes to that, I would also like to ask if you think that no man should ever get in the way of another man defining and living out his own happiness?

[AqD]

Yes, Yes, Yes, .....
________
Live sex webshows

[removeduser_487563287433]

I don't know if anyone has made a thread like this before. Anyhow, does anyone here believe that no religion/worldview, whatever you want to call it, is better than any other? That each man should be able to choose whatever way of life he pleases? Basically does anyone believe that each man should define his own happiness, live his life according to his own definitions of good and bad? If you say yes to that, I would also like to ask if you think that no man should ever get in the way of another man defining and living out his own happiness?

What if a man's happiness stems from raping and killing?

[AqD]

What if a man's happiness stems from raping and killing?

Then he "get in the way of another man defining and living out his own happiness" and should be removed.
________
LIVE SEX

[The Good]

This is supposed to be about the morality of certain "happiness," right? While rape and muder could be considered happiness to some, both are downright wrong and full of depravity. That's what they are, immoral, unjust, evil. Both of those are absolute wrongs, no matter how you try to put it.

I do believe in God by the way.

[Starvin Marvin]

Basically does anyone believe that each man should define his own happiness, live his life according to his own definitions of good and bad?

Well no, you have to live by the goverments definitions of good and bad.

[AqD]

Well no, you have to live by the goverments definitions of good and bad.

The governments are not supposed to define good or bad.

They are our servants, collecting tax and providing police and defense system and other public services.

IMO nowadays people are asking too much from the government and they have forgot why those officers or presidents are even there in the first place: they come to work for money and fame, not the benefit of any citizens.
________
ROLL A JOINT

[Starvin Marvin]

The governments are not supposed to define good or bad.

They are our servants, collecting tax and providing police and defense system and other public services.

IMO nowadays people are asking too much from the government and they have forgot why those officers or presidents are even there in the first place: they come to work for money and fame, not the benefit of any citizens.

yes but who makes the laws? the goverment and the goverment aren't our servants. (i don't smoke and do not care about this law but using it as an example). Did the goverment ask us about whether we wanted smoking to be banned in public places or not. NO they just went and made the law.

oh i live in england btw so you might not know about the stuff i'm going on about

[AqD]

yes but who makes the laws? the goverment and the goverment aren't our servants. (i don't smoke and do not care about this law but using it as an example). Did the goverment ask us about whether we wanted smoking to be banned in public places or not. NO they just went and made the law.

oh i live in england btw so you might not know about the stuff i'm going on about

Yes we have similar laws here. IMHO the government should ban something only if it does hurt other people. Smoking in public places DOES hurt others' health.

But the law should not extend to anything else, such as drugs or prostitutes.
________
Zoloft lawyers

[Kiljaden]

Smoking in public places DOES hurt others' health.

But the law should not extend to anything else, such as drugs or prostitutes.

Where I agree with your second statement, I disagree with your first. Smoking in outdoor public places does not harm others' health.

[Hounf of Culan]

Ferrets you party pooper, you jumped the gun. Firstly, if you believe that everyone can define his own happiness, you cannot believe that men should not infringe upon other's happinesses. Because some men could define their happiness as denying happiness to other men. So long as he defines it as his happiness to ruin others' happiness, you cannot stop him because it is perfectly within his rights to do so. If you say everyone can do as he pleases, then you have no basis upon which to stop someone from doing anything.

If you say that there are limits, that you can't do whatever you want, then you no longer truly believe that each man can create his own happiness. Merely by stating that you should not harm others, you have recognized an objective truth which is in direct conflict with the belief that we can create our own versions. In merely saying that, you are acknowledging that there are greater and lesser happinesses. The greater happiness do not infringe upon others' happinesses and the lesser ones do.

Most people try to believe both these things though, and I think that they are mutually exclusive principles, you cannot believe both.

[removeduser_487563287433]

But that's a paradox because it undermines the original position that nobody can infringe on other people's happiness, of which I am sure being murdered would be sufficient. What's your point because at the moment this is pure sophistry.

[Hounf of Culan]

My point is that if you say "everyone can do anything, except this thing/s" then you don't really believe that everyone can do anything because you can't do everything. To claim both of these things as true is hypocritical. Most people who believe the first thing also tend to believe the second thing, in my experience at least.

[Theseus1234]

well, more often than not other people's world views seem to impede on the happiness of people with different world views. that is why i have adopted a stance that seemed to me like the path more likely to avoid such conflict, but then again, atheism causes its own conflict as i have noticed on these forums

[removeduser_487563287433]

Nobody does claim that though. Very few people would say freedom of speech allows you to yell fire in a crowded theatre.

[The Good]

The fact that some things, are universally regarded as horribly wrong, such as murder and rape, cry out for the concept of morality being established, not just relative. By the logic of relative morality, if in a certain culture, killing people in public is allowed (and perhaps encouraged), then it is "right" for some people to do so. Now tell me how wrong that sounds.

[Hounf of Culan]

I have run into people who do claim things like that though. I'm not sure if they entirely thought out the extreme meaning of what they say, but I have been surprised on more than one occasion to hear my friends saying things like that. Though I don't think anymore needs to be said on that cuz it seems we have settled it pretty well. What I'm leading up to though is that certain actions/beliefs are intrinsically better than others and should be treated as such. I am in favor of "imposing", too strong a word, the right ways onto people. Not imposing by force, but explaining to people that they should do some things and they shouldn't do other things. There is no point in being tolerant of the wrong things, I would rather be a tad intolerate than say you can do anything.

[Hounf of Culan]

I agree with you, that does sound wrong to me, but you will run into people who will tell you otherwise and say that they have every right to do that.

[Theseus1234]

well then it doesnt depend on the religion/world view of the person to define what actions are "happy". it is up to humans as a joint people as to what is and not allowed (i.e. the geneva convention)

[Kiljaden]

I don't know if anyone has made a thread like this before.

This is philosophical debate, it has been done before

I Anyhow, does anyone here believe that no religion/worldview, whatever you want to call it, is better than any other? That each man should be able to choose whatever way of life he pleases? Basically does anyone believe that each man should define his own happiness, live his life according to his own definitions of good and bad?

Within reason, yes. Obviously there are insane people that do not understand the difference between right and wrong as the majority of sane people do (forgiving some minor disagreements such as sexuality, race, etc) http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=174741

I would also like to ask if you think that no man should ever get in the way of another man defining and living out his own happiness?

Within reason, yes. If it is a man's passion to have intercourse with trees, then by golly let him go some trees - as long as they are not MY trees . If it is a man's passion to rape children, by golly he's going to get a few bullets from my gun - two in his head, three in his chest, and his body will be defiled and sodomized by jungle boys in tight pants.