Zero Probability of Evolution. Atheism wrong?

[Truly Enlightened]

If people started killing people they think are a physical danger to themselves and others it would be detrimental to society and the population. They might end up getting themselves killed since they would be the ones representing physical danger.I answer the relevant questions. Others are irrelevant to the scenario we are discussing.Depends on the situation.The act itself causes the death of the killer, but if you let the killer keep on killing he might produce 20 deaths. Wouldn't that be the greatest amount of harm?I would if you had restricted yourself to a reasonable amount of questions. It appears that you just write down whatever pops into your head at any given time. Provide one logical and rational question and I'll answer it.

Is the act of killing the most beneficial and least detrimental act for any person in society?

 

[ArtieE]

Is the act of killing the most beneficial and least detrimental act for any person in society?

This question is ambiguous. Please rephrase.

 

[Audie]

This question is ambiguous. Please rephrase.

So it was not just me, I could make no sense of it either.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

This question is ambiguous. Please rephrase.

Okay. Can you give me an example of an act of killing that DOES NOT cause maximum harm to any member or thing in society, and IS beneficial to any member of society?

 

[ArtieE]

Okay. Can you give me an example of an act of killing that DOES NOT cause maximum harm to any member or thing in society, and IS beneficial to any member of society?

Please rephrase this question so that it takes into consideration that we are not just talking about member (singular) but members (plural). A society consists of many members.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

Please rephrase this question so that it takes into consideration that we are not just talking about member (singular) but members (plural). A society consists of many members.

Let's try baby steps. Does any act of killing cause the greatest amount of harm to the person or thing being killed? I would hope that not only do you choose what questions you want to answer, but also how you want the questions to be phrased. It kind of defeat the purpose of a debate. also, what does "any member in society mean to you? Or are these too many questions?

 

[ArtieE]

Let's try baby steps. Does any act of killing cause the greatest amount of harm to the person or thing being killed?

Meaningless question since we are talking about how much harm is done to how many members of society not just a single individual.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

Meaningless question since we are talking about how much harm is done to how many members of society not just a single individual.

Remember, you are the one that asked me to only ask one question at a time, without stipulations. You didn't explain that there would be conditions applied. I have asked the same question in three different ways, and still no answer. Just excuses or answering my questions with questions. This time I will qualify my own question.

If I threw a rock at you, and hit you in the head, in your opinion, would I cause you ANY degree of discomfort? I will give you an out. If you can't answer this question, using no more than one word, I won't waste anymore of my time. If I were you, I also would avoid answering my questions.

 

[ArtieE]

Remember, you are the one that asked me to only ask one question at a time, without stipulations. You didn't explain that there would be conditions applied. I have asked the same question in three different ways, and still no answer. Just excuses or answering my questions with questions. This time I will qualify my own question.

If I threw a rock at you, and hit you in the head, in your opinion, would I cause you ANY degree of discomfort? I will give you an out. If you can't answer this question, using no more than one word, I won't waste anymore of my time. If I were you, I also would avoid answering my questions.

Of course it would cause me discomfort. Never said otherwise. But the question is of course irrelevant since we determine what is moral or immoral by the consequences for the whole society and everybody in it as a collective not just on the consequences for one person.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

Of course it would cause me discomfort. Never said otherwise. But the question is of course irrelevant since we determine what is moral or immoral by the consequences for the whole society and everybody in it as a collective not just on the consequences for one person.

These are not hard questions. In fact they only require a one word answer(yes or no). I don't care if you think these questions are relevant or not, or if you said something or not(which no one has claimed), or if they fit your definition of morality. Do you think that the act of killing(shooting, knifing, poisoning, etc.) will produce a higher or lesser degree of discomfort, than if you were hit in the head by a rock, in general? Sorry, I'm only limited to one question at a time. This question does require two words to answer.

 

[ArtieE]

Do you think that the act of killing(shooting, knifing, poisoning, etc.) will produce a higher or lesser degree of discomfort, than if you were hit in the head by a rock, in general?

Could you be more specific? If you are killed quickly and painlessly say get shot in the head there is no or very little discomfort. If you are killed slowly say by torture there would be a lot of discomfort. If you were hit in the head by a rock you might die instantly or sustain injuries that may cause great discomfort over years.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

Could you be more specific? If you are killed quickly and painlessly say get shot in the head there is no or very little discomfort. If you are killed slowly say by torture there would be a lot of discomfort. If you were hit in the head by a rock you might die instantly or sustain injuries that may cause great discomfort over years.

Since the end result of any completed act of killing will always produce a loss of life, it is irrelevant if the loss of life is instant or produces the greatest amount of discomfort. We are also not talking about amounts of suffering. This question is simply intuitive, and is not meant to be difficult. So again, in your opinion would you say that all completed acts of killing (taking a life), is more or less harmful to any member in society, than being hit in the head by a small rock, thrown by a baby?

 

[ArtieE]

Since the end result of any completed act of killing will always produce a loss of life, it is irrelevant if the loss of life is instant or produces the greatest amount of discomfort.

OK, but you're the one who brought up discomfort I just responded.

We are also not talking about amounts of suffering. This question is simply intuitive, and is not meant to be difficult. So again, in your opinion would you say that all completed acts of killing (taking a life), is more or less harmful to any member in society, than being hit in the head by a small rock, thrown by a baby?

A completed act of killing one member of society is more harmful to that member than being hit in the head by a small rock thrown by a baby, unless getting hit in the head by the rock results in death. A completed act of killing ten members of society is more harmful to the society and its members than killing one member of society before he has the chance of killing ten members of society. So if killing one member is the only option to prevent him from killing ten it's the moral thing to do even though it causes that person harm because it prevents greater harm.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

OK, but you're the one who brought up discomfort I just responded.A completed act of killing one member of society is more harmful to that member than being hit in the head by a small rock thrown by a baby, unless getting hit in the head by the rock results in death. A completed act of killing ten members of society is more harmful to the society and its members than killing one member of society before he has the chance of killing ten members of society. So if killing one member is the only option to prevent him from killing ten it's the moral thing to do even though it causes that person harm because it prevents greater harm.

I was really trying to make a point here. But no amount of patience can withstand this level of added nonsense. I'm afraid if you tripped over the obvious, you would still be parroting the two sentences that you have rote learned. Your sense of moral judgement is in the same league as "Dirty Harry" He said "killing is fine, as long as the right people gets killed" You simply added that we should kill them to protect other members of society. For all of those that need their excuses to kill, the legal system have accommodated for your blood lust. It has created excusable, justifiable, accidental, and necessary homicide, to justify the urge to kill another human being when necessary.

Since it seems you can't comprehend the rationale that a moral act requires no justification under any conditions or any circumstances, then that act is moral in itself. However, the act of killing is not a moral act in itself, since it causes the greatest amount of harm, and must be justifiable to even be considered a non-criminal act. In all other circumstances killing is an illegal and immoral act. You obviously can't understand that a moral act is an act that causes the least amount of harm to anyone PERIOD! Therefore killing, torture, rape, can never be a moral act in and of itself. And since they are all illegal acts against society by their very nature, they must be justifiable, excusable, or absolutely necessary to avoid criminal liability. You will never understand the difference between being morally justified and being legally justified. You seem to think that if you are legally justified, then you are also morally justified.

People like you will always pick the most unlikely scenario, and cling to it. Do you think cops killing unarmed people by shooting them 18 times, is a moral act, even though they claim they were justified? How about the lies that society was told to get us to support 100's of thousands of lives lost in the Viet Nam and Iraq wars? Was the Government morally justified? Are we morally justified in the use of torture, rape, and killing to obtain information from prisoners? I suppose you were on the sidelines cheering, as our missiles were raining down, killing citizens in another society, in another country? But, as long as it is beneficial for the majority, it must be moral. And, doing nothing would be immoral. Who thinks like this! Does your sense of morality include the means justifying the ends? I want waste my time talking about "slippery slopes", or the ethics of morality, since that would also be a waste of time. I'm just happy to disagree with you.

 

[ArtieE]

I was really trying to make a point here. But no amount of patience can withstand this level of added nonsense. I'm afraid if you tripped over the obvious, you would still be parroting the two sentences that you have rote learned. Your sense of moral judgement is in the same league as "Dirty Harry" He said "killing is fine, as long as the right people gets killed" You simply added that we should kill them to protect other members of society. For all of those that need their excuses to kill, the legal system have accommodated for your blood lust. It has created excusable, justifiable, accidental, and necessary homicide, to justify the urge to kill another human being when necessary.

Since it seems you can't comprehend the rationale that a moral act requires no justification under any conditions or any circumstances, then that act is moral in itself. However, the act of killing is not a moral act in itself, since it causes the greatest amount of harm, and must be justifiable to even be considered a non-criminal act. In all other circumstances killing is an illegal and immoral act. You obviously can't understand that a moral act is an act that causes the least amount of harm to anyone PERIOD! Therefore killing, torture, rape, can never be a moral act in and of itself. And since they are all illegal acts against society by their very nature, they must be justifiable, excusable, or absolutely necessary to avoid criminal liability. You will never understand the difference between being morally justified and being legally justified. You seem to think that if you are legally justified, then you are also morally justified.

People like you will always pick the most unlikely scenario, and cling to it. Do you think cops killing unarmed people by shooting them 18 times, is a moral act, even though they claim they were justified? How about the lies that society was told to get us to support 100's of thousands of lives lost in the Viet Nam and Iraq wars? Was the Government morally justified? Are we morally justified in the use of torture, rape, and killing to obtain information from prisoners? I suppose you were on the sidelines cheering, as our missiles were raining down, killing citizens in another society, in another country? But, as long as it is beneficial for the majority, it must be moral. And, doing nothing would be immoral. Who thinks like this! Does your sense of morality include the means justifying the ends? I want waste my time talking about "slippery slopes", or the ethics of morality, since that would also be a waste of time. I'm just happy to disagree with you.

Read this article.
Dramatic moment hero bystander shoots dead suspect who was battering police officer in the road as cops begs for him to pull the trigger
If the circumstances were exactly as described in the article did Ashad Russell do something right or something wrong? Something moral or immoral? What would you have done?

 

[BilliardsBall]

"What about your conscience if you let somebody harm or kill your family when you could have prevented it by hurting or killing the assailant?" So moral people should do the moral thing and let an assailant simply harm or kill their families instead or harming or killing him? That would be the moral thing to do?

We agree, they should do an immoral act for the greater good. The fact that you have to phrase it as a question shows it's a lesser of two EVILS.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

Read this article.
Dramatic moment hero bystander shoots dead suspect who was battering police officer in the road as cops begs for him to pull the trigger
If the circumstances were exactly as described in the article did Ashad Russell do something right or something wrong? Something moral or immoral? What would you have done?

I'm afraid that I have seen far too much actual graphic violence in my life, to watch it being played out in a video. Any act of killing, torture, or rape, are sickening to me. You will just have to describe the circumstances to me, since you seem uneffected. However, another poster stated, "We agree, they should do an immoral act for the greater good.". This was the only point I was trying to make. Obviously you believe that any inherently evil, illegal, and violent act is MORAL under any justifiable situations. I believe that the act of killing is an immoral act, under any circumstances. So if you think that causing the greatest amount of harm to anyone in society, fits the definition of a moral act, it won't be because of my lack of trying.

 

[SkepticThinker]

We agree, they should do an immoral act for the greater good. The fact that you have to phrase it as a question shows it's a lesser of two EVILS.

And in that instance, it would be the most moral act to carry out.

 

[Polymath257]

Is taking two lives worse than taking one?

Is saving two lives better than saving one?

In a choice between taking one life and having 10 others die, which choice is less harmful?

 

[Polymath257]

I'm afraid that I have seen far too much actual graphic violence in my life, to watch it being played out in a video. Any act of killing, torture, or rape, are sickening to me. You will just have to describe the circumstances to me, since you seem uneffected. However, another poster stated, "We agree, they should do an immoral act for the greater good.". This was the only point I was trying to make. Obviously you believe that any inherently evil, illegal, and violent act is MORAL under any justifiable situations. I believe that the act of killing is an immoral act, under any circumstances. So if you think that causing the greatest amount of harm to anyone in society, fits the definition of a moral act, it won't be because of my lack of trying.

I think an otherwise immoral act can be moral under *some* justifying circumstances.