In truth I get disappointed with many atheists.
OK so many people find gawd is a silly idea, but then seem content not to think through what rejecting that doctrine means.
They seem content once gawd is rejected to not question the morality that came with that notion, so essentially live lives driven by the same ethical and moral doctrines as the religious.
When reading many things written by atheists I am reminded of the end of 'Animal Farm'
Quote“The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.â€
― George Orwell
Are there others like me who feel it is useless incessantly quoting the bable to prove how superior a person is, but maybe to start thinking what it means to be atheist and what sort of culture this idea could produce, or am I on my own?
There's nothing wrong for an atheist to celebrate Halloween, Christmas, or any other religious based holiday. It's no more offensive than celebrating the anniversary of the first Superman comic book. Religion is fantasy. It's only dangerous when it is used as a tool to implement an agenda, particularly, a political agenda. Sure, as an atheist I will question such things as morality, education and the raising of children under the yoke of religion. But it doesn't mean I will abandon all cultural activities. I should be able to pick what's good and what's bad, dissect what's religious and what is not. Accept some, reject others.
To make it clear I am talking about ethics not party hats.
(https://ethicsalarms.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/dunce-cap.jpg)
Quote from: jonb on October 05, 2015, 07:27:28 AM
In truth I get disappointed with many atheists.
OK so many people find gawd is a silly idea, but then seem content not to think through what rejecting that doctrine means.
They seem content once gawd is rejected to not question the morality that came with that notion, so essentially live lives driven by the same ethical and moral doctrines as the religious.
When reading many things written by atheists I am reminded of the end of 'Animal Farm'
― George Orwell
Are there others like me who feel it is useless incessantly quoting the bable to prove how superior a person is, but maybe to start thinking what it means to be atheist and what sort of culture this idea could produce, or am I on my own?
A couple of problems with your observations, from my point of view. Atheism is not a culture. It is not one consolidated point of view. It is mainly negative in that is simply says that god/gods do not exist. It does not, then replace those gods/god with another philosophy. I see your disappointment as a lack of labor on your part. When you rejected religions/god, it is up to you to chose what is moral and what is not--not another atheist. You have to decide what is the right philosophy for you. If you don't then you will continue to be disappointed. One of the benefits of being in an organized religion is that you do not have to think about or reason about what is moral, right and good--or what your purpose in life is. That is all spoon fed to you. Atheism does not supply any of that; so if you want it, then you have to build it yourself.
Understand--atheism does not produce any 'culture'. It can't. You have to find a culture that fits what you think is a positive culture. So, quit seeing what you don't want and start searching for what you do want. Only you can do that for yourself. Atheists will not spoon feed that to you.
Quote from: jonb on October 05, 2015, 08:57:57 AM
To make it clear I am talking about ethics not party hats.
(https://ethicsalarms.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/dunce-cap.jpg)
to you, what is 'ethics' and how is that determined?
Quote from: Mike Cl on October 05, 2015, 09:13:50 AM
A couple of problems with your observations, from my point of view. Atheism is not a culture. It is not one consolidated point of view. It is mainly negative in that is simply says that god/gods do not exist. It does not, then replace those gods/god with another philosophy. I see your disappointment as a lack of labor on your part. When you rejected religions/god, it is up to you to chose what is moral and what is not--not another atheist. You have to decide what is the right philosophy for you. If you don't then you will continue to be disappointed. One of the benefits of being in an organized religion is that you do not have to think about or reason about what is moral, right and good--or what your purpose in life is. That is all spoon fed to you. Atheism does not supply any of that; so if you want it, then you have to build it yourself.
Understand--atheism does not produce any 'culture'. It can't. You have to find a culture that fits what you think is a positive culture. So, quit seeing what you don't want and start searching for what you do want. Only you can do that for yourself. Atheists will not spoon feed that to you.
I like Mike. :biggrin: What he said. Ethics by definition being moral social behavior.
Quote from: Mike Cl on October 05, 2015, 09:13:50 AM
A couple of problems with your observations, from my point of view. Atheism is not a culture. It is not one consolidated point of view. It is mainly negative in that is simply says that god/gods do not exist. It does not, then replace those gods/god with another philosophy.
I'll agree with you there,
atheism isn't a culture, but a lot of atheists make it into one. There are many militant atheists who take their own lack of beliefs and observations and mock the religious for it. I don't know many atheists in person, but the few I have met at the local book club here are people who have turned atheism into a battle cry to be antagonistic and downright contrary to any kind of religious symbol. When you spend so much time tearing down religion because you don't believe in one, well, that to me becomes a type of culture.
True, not all atheists are like that, but not all Christians demand to have the 10 commandments posted outside of court houses either. I think atheism is a school of thought that lends itself to superiority quite often.
But we are back to a set of ethics as defined by what? Atheism is a stance of being non religious. Does that imply a set of ethics? I imagine Baruch might have a response to that, but I would first of all substitute secular for atheist.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_ethics
QuoteSecular ethics is a branch of moral philosophy in which ethics is based solely on human faculties such as logic, reason or moral intuition, and not derived from purported supernatural revelation or guidance (which is the source of religious ethics).
Quote from: jonb on October 05, 2015, 07:27:28 AM
They seem content once gawd is rejected to not question the morality that came with that notion, so essentially live lives driven by the same ethical and moral doctrines as the religious.
Are there others like me who feel it is useless incessantly quoting the bable to prove how superior a person is, but maybe to start thinking what it means to be atheist and what sort of culture this idea could produce, or am I on my own?
Not really sure I understand what you are saying. Morality is a construct of humanity that was made part of the various regional religions. Just because a thing is in a religious text and generally moral and useful to society is no reason to discard it because of association. We can argue against the hypocrisy of the believers who spout scripture for one good "moray" by presenting other "morays" that are now considered useless or dangerous.
If you're suggesting that atheists need to produce our own moral and ethical "book" so that "our" culture can gain recognition, I don't think we can gain anything by producing a book that may in large part mirror the same tenets of various religions and then subject "us" to ridicule that we would reject religion and then turn around and embrace their tenets.
Quote from: Mike Cl on October 05, 2015, 09:13:50 AM
A couple of problems with your observations, from my point of view. Atheism is not a culture. It is not one consolidated point of view. It is mainly negative in that is simply says that god/gods do not exist. It does not, then replace those gods/god with another philosophy. I see your disappointment as a lack of labor on your part. When you rejected religions/god, it is up to you to chose what is moral and what is not--not another atheist. You have to decide what is the right philosophy for you. If you don't then you will continue to be disappointed. One of the benefits of being in an organized religion is that you do not have to think about or reason about what is moral, right and good--or what your purpose in life is. That is all spoon fed to you. Atheism does not supply any of that; so if you want it, then you have to build it yourself.
Understand--atheism does not produce any 'culture'. It can't. You have to find a culture that fits what you think is a positive culture. So, quit seeing what you don't want and start searching for what you do want. Only you can do that for yourself. Atheists will not spoon feed that to you.
There are sets of principals that have guided European/western culture, a major influence on what those principals are has been driven by the church in its many forms. If we are in a situation where the church is being rejected then a re evaluation of those principals I would say has to be studied.
To not study those principals that have influenced our cultures would leave a state where the culture and our attitudes are still driven by the church's dogmas and as such it would not matter if we were atheist or christard because we see the world and react to the world in the same way.
Culture is not imposed on people it is an expression of their collective ideas, thus if people are atheist that will influence the culture, unless that atheism is just something that is mouthed, not practised.
What I see are a lot of people who have been butt hurt by different churches or mom and dad's belief systems saying 'I be an atheist then suck on that', but then carrying on like all the other christards.
I feel unless atheists start to set their own moral compasses, they are using those of the christards and as such they are to all practical purposes christards
Quote from: jonb on October 05, 2015, 10:13:16 AM
I feel unless atheists start to set their own moral compasses, they are using those of the christards and as such they are to all practical purposes christards
Like an atheist 10 commandments?
I think it's better unwritten. When you write down moral rules, you just give people room to point at you and call you a hypocrite.
I liken it to my run time. If I'm trying to run a 15 minute two mile and I don't wear a watch, I usually come in well under my time because I have no idea how well I'm doing so I give it all I have. If I do wear a watch and constantly monitor my pace, I've always tended to run slower. It's subconscious, but it's like my body telling me that I can slow down and still meet my goal. That's not making me the best runner I can be, it just makes me an adequate runner. I view writing down a moral code in much the same way. When you make things black and white, people are less inclined to try harder.
There's no point in re-inventing the wheel. As aitm has pointed out, discarding because of an association is an exercise in futility. Rather take what we have and make it better. What I suspect is that you are looking for a clash of cultures. There is too much of that already.
Quote from: aitm on October 05, 2015, 10:06:07 AM
Not really sure I understand what you are saying. Morality is a construct of humanity that was made part of the various regional religions. Just because a thing is in a religious text and generally moral and useful to society is no reason to discard it because of association. We can argue against the hypocrisy of the believers who spout scripture for one good "moray" by presenting other "morays" that are now considered useless or dangerous.
If you're suggesting that atheists need to produce our own moral and ethical "book" so that "our" culture can gain recognition, I don't think we can gain anything by producing a book that may in large part mirror the same tenets of various religions and then subject "us" to ridicule that we would reject religion and then turn around and embrace their tenets.
I am far from suggesting that. However I think a world without a gawd looks like a very different place, from a world inhabited by spirits and voodoo. Living a world without a gawd is going to produce some commonalities for those living in it and an exploration of that might be a useful act.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on October 05, 2015, 10:35:38 AM
There's no point in re-inventing the wheel. As aitm has pointed out, discarding because of an association is an exercise in futility. Rather take what we have and make it better. What I suspect is that you are looking for a clash of cultures. There is too much of that already.
If the dimensions of the wheel are wrong then it is worth working on it to get it right. The exact value of Pi we are still working on you seem to be proposing the value of Pi given in the bable is close enough and needs no further work.
Actually what I am calling for is self examination not just borrowing others dis-proven ideas.
Somebody came up with an atheist 10 commandments.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_ethics
Again, I like secular ethics better; whatever. I'm on the same page with JP and aitm. You shouldn't try to reinvent the wheel, but over time the change in viewpoint will serve to modify the mindset of how ethics are applied.
Quote from: jonb on October 05, 2015, 10:13:16 AM
There are sets of principals that have guided European/western culture, a major influence on what those principals are has been driven by the church in its many forms. If we are in a situation where the church is being rejected then a re evaluation of those principals I would say has to be studied.
To not study those principals that have influenced our cultures would leave a state where the culture and our attitudes are still driven by the church's dogmas and as such it would not matter if we were atheist or christard because we see the world and react to the world in the same way.
Culture is not imposed on people it is an expression of their collective ideas, thus if people are atheist that will influence the culture, unless that atheism is just something that is mouthed, not practised.
What I see are a lot of people who have been butt hurt by different churches or mom and dad's belief systems saying 'I be an atheist then suck on that', but then carrying on like all the other christards.
I feel unless atheists start to set their own moral compasses, they are using those of the christards and as such they are to all practical purposes christards
There is a central point you seem to skim over. Atheism does not build anything. It is simply a statement of not believing in god/gods. That's it. Atheists do not agree on anything else. So, you are down on a group of people for not doing something. And that something would be impossible for them to do; supply a coherent set of moral or ethical standards. That is NOT the job of an atheist. If you want that, then as Strom suggests, look to 'secular humanism' or something of that sort. They are happy to supply you with a set of ethics, morals and standards. You keep looking in an empty drawer and putting that drawer down for not having anything in it. Well, if that bothers you so much, fill that drawer up yourself. Or quit whining about it.
I am an atheist. I abhor organized religion. But that does not mean that I disagree with everything organized religion does or believes. I pick and chose what I want as my personal ethical standards. That is my job. Not yours, not a minister, not a spouse, not another atheist. MY job.
You want atheists to set there own moral compass as a group?! Impossible!!! That makes no sense. How can one construct a culture from 'I don't believe in god!'??? A group of people set the rules for acceptable human behavior within that group. That is a culture. Atheists are NOT a group--not in a classical sense. Christians are a group for what they believe to be true. They are a 'group'. Atheists are not a group for there is not one commonly shared thought--except there is not god. That makes it impossible to form a culture. You are simply beating you head against a brick wall. But if that feels good to you, then keep on.
Quote from: TomFoolery on October 05, 2015, 09:37:56 AM
I'll agree with you there, atheism isn't a culture, but a lot of atheists make it into one. There are many militant atheists who take their own lack of beliefs and observations and mock the religious for it. I don't know many atheists in person, but the few I have met at the local book club here are people who have turned atheism into a battle cry to be antagonistic and downright contrary to any kind of religious symbol. When you spend so much time tearing down religion because you don't believe in one, well, that to me becomes a type of culture.
True, not all atheists are like that, but not all Christians demand to have the 10 commandments posted outside of court houses either. I think atheism is a school of thought that lends itself to superiority quite often.
The atheists that are building atheism into a culture or a set of rules to follow, attract other atheist that think that same set of rules are good ones. So, if culture is formed it is formed using the 'should' rules not the universal atheist rule that there is not god. I simply don't see atheism as a 'school of thought'.
Quote from: stromboli on October 05, 2015, 09:47:20 AM
But we are back to a set of ethics as defined by what? Atheism is a stance of being non religious. Does that imply a set of ethics? I imagine Baruch might have a response to that, but I would first of all substitute secular for atheist.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_ethics
Yes, that is the crux of the matter. The religious want to make atheism into a culture so they can then attack that culture. The religious simply cannot conceive of somebody not believing in their god. So it is easier for their minds to lump all non-believers into one camp. What an atheist 'believes in' is unknown. Each one is different. There is not a single unifying 'should' that binds them together. If you want to know what they 'believe in' you have to ask them, unlike the religious, since there 'shoulds' are known.
Quote from: Mike Cl on October 05, 2015, 10:54:49 AM
There is a central point you seem to skim over. Atheism does not build anything. It is simply a statement of not believing in god/gods. That's it. Atheists do not agree on anything else. So, you are down on a group of people for not doing something. And that something would be impossible for them to do; supply a coherent set of moral or ethical standards. That is NOT the job of an atheist. If you want that, then as Strom suggests, look to 'secular humanism' or something of that sort. They are happy to supply you with a set of ethics, morals and standards. You keep looking in an empty drawer and putting that drawer down for not having anything in it. Well, if that bothers you so much, fill that drawer up yourself. Or quit whining about it.
I am an atheist. I abhor organized religion. But that does not mean that I disagree with everything organized religion does or believes. I pick and chose what I want as my personal ethical standards. That is my job. Not yours, not a minister, not a spouse, not another atheist. MY job.
You want atheists to set there own moral compass as a group?! Impossible!!! That makes no sense. How can one construct a culture from 'I don't believe in god!'??? A group of people set the rules for acceptable human behavior within that group. That is a culture. Atheists are NOT a group--not in a classical sense. Christians are a group for what they believe to be true. They are a 'group'. Atheists are not a group for there is not one commonly shared thought--except there is not god. That makes it impossible to form a culture. You are simply beating you head against a brick wall. But if that feels good to you, then keep on.
I am not skiming over anything you are wrong. Cause effect is a tenet of science. You are American are you saying the culture around you has no influence on you, if so why are you not British? The lack of belief has to affect culture as much as a belief does. I know Americans like to believe in the individual, and that all you think has been generated in your own head, but then why would anybody spend money on advertising?
You see culturally you are American and you presume like many Americans that American is a default position and if the rest of the world did not have all their little foibles they would all be just like you. As such you do not recognise your own culture and how it is affecting you, and as it is not examined you make presumptions, some of which I would say are false.
QuoteI pick and chose what I want as my personal ethical standards.
A primal American statement, refuting the influences of culture or the subconscious.
Might a little self examination be helpful?
Too much to follow .. at lunch break. It has been argued by some, that being in a post-Christian era doesn't look as bad as it might be, because of this cultural-Christian stuff. As if we will revert back to Pagan practices, and start sacrificing people in the midst of Stonehenge. I think this is a post-Christian anxiety, rather than a legitimate prediction. Ethics comes from more than one source ... and as long as one or more sources reinforce it, then we will probably remain civilized.
Edited: Jonb .. your insight into Americans is spot on. As fish, we don't realize we are breathing water ... we have to be taken out of the American sea onto try land or fresh water ... and then we realize we are operating mostly at an unconscious level (assuming that even exists). Perhaps folks from smaller countries don't have that presumption ... though I think classically this happened in ancient China and ancient India. Which is to say, it is much easier for an American to avoid cognitive dissonance.
1. Ethics is moral social behavior. Atheism is disbelief in god. Moral social behavior comes from a commonality of agreed upon ideas concerning human social behavior. Atheism is lack of belief. Belief is not the same as behavior.
2. Secular versus religious is a dividing point between the two in terms of, for instance, the constitutional separation of church and state. We already have a concept of secularism in that respect- not praying in schools, posting the 10 commandments outside the court, etc.
3. You are also equating culture with religion. Granted that the two are often intermingled, but by definition they don't have to be. And culture as the foundation of ethics depends on the culture. You can argue that aspect ad infinitum, which is what will probably happen with this thread. If in terms of applicable ethics, the extremes being witch burnings and stoning adulterers versus merely condemning those actions verbally, you will never come to a consensus because every separate aspect will vary with different cultures.
Quote from: jonb on October 05, 2015, 11:33:10 AM
I am not skiming over anything you are wrong. Cause effect is a tenet of science. You are American are you saying the culture around you has no influence on you, if so why are you not British? The lack of belief has to affect culture as much as a belief does. I know Americans like to believe in the individual, and that all you think has been generated in your own head, but then why would anybody spend money on advertising?
You see culturally you are American and you presume like many Americans that American is a default position and if the rest of the world did not have all their little foibles they would all be just like you. As such you do not recognise your own culture and how it is affecting you, and as it is not examined you make presumptions, some of which I would say are false.
A primal American statement, refuting the influences of culture or the subconscious.
Might a little self examination be helpful?
Okay, Jon, let's see if I can make myself clearer. I am a US American. That culture affects me daily. My culture is reflected in our civil laws and in the expected modes of behavior. For the most part, I suppose, I reflect that culture. To a point. Not all of my culture is informed by christainity. Much of it is, but not all. All manner of groups want to have more of an influence. And all manner of groups have had an influence. So, my culture has many different influences shaping that culture. Atheists are only a small percentage of that culture. And there really is not a single group of atheists. There are organizations, such as the Freedom From Religion Foundation, whose members are mainly atheist, who want to have more of an impact. There are other groups of secular humanists who desire that as well. Those groups that are associated with atheism, make it plain what they reason to be the best for a society. Just being atheist does not. It does not tell you what a person believes or thinks by simply saying 'I'm atheist'. So, I don't really understand what it is when you talk of an atheist culture.
What I personally think and how I behave is very heavily influenced by my US culture. But that does mean I agree with all of that culture. I have always reflected upon how my culture impacts me personally. The morals of my culture are a group thing--the group developed those concepts and rules over the life of my country. I do not dismiss that lightly. Nor do I take it as ironclad, either. If do, have always, reflected on whether or not the cultural norms are norms that fit me. So, I chose what are to be my norms--and those may change with testing and further reflection.
I have been openly atheistic for only a short while. But by my saying I'm atheist does not and did not change my own personal moral code. That is evolving as I live and experience. I have always had a loose guide--the golden rule--but even that changes in specifics from time to time.
And yes, self examination is always recommended. And for me, ongoing. My own personal culture was not impacted by my openly stating I'm atheist. My ethics did not change. My behavior did not change. And when I tell you I'm atheist, you don't know anything about what my ethics are. To learn that you would have to ask questions about that.
Quote from: Baruch on October 05, 2015, 01:02:34 PM
Too much to follow .. at lunch break. It has been argued by some, that being in a post-Christian era doesn't look as bad as it might be, because of this cultural-Christian stuff. As if we will revert back to Pagan practices, and start sacrificing people in the midst of Stonehenge. I think this is a post-Christian anxiety, rather than a legitimate prediction. Ethics comes from more than one source ... and as long as one or more sources reinforce it, then we will probably remain civilized.
I would say the mark of civilisation is not the dogma it enforces, but its willingness to place its principals under scrutiny. Also to my mind many of the open outward looking pagan societies were far more ethical than the christards that came and massacred them.
Mike CL
Once the notion of there is no gawd, no final arbiter is presented as truth, then any concepts of a universal divinely imposed good or bad also falls. Thus any principals we may have have by nature to be created by ourselves. I know you say that atheists have nothing in common, but in that there is no off-the-shelf ethics for an atheist like there is for a christard all we atheists do have something in common.
It is interesting how many people have presumed I am putting forward the idea of a set of commandments as the only way for a group to be ethical. I answer this as minds who are still stuck in christard thinking. No I think we have commonalities because of our realisation there is no gawd. The first most evident fact it seems to me is that athiests have to think for themselves, and as such this will produce a very different understanding of ethics to those that have traditionally been imposed on us.
So is that not worth exploring?
Quote from: jonb on October 05, 2015, 02:34:26 PM
The first most evident fact it seems to me is that athiests have to think for themselves,
and as such this will produce a very different understanding of ethics to those that have traditionally been imposed on us.
I am still doing a poor job of following your suggestion. The first part of your statement above would imply you think atheists may not think for themselves regarding ethics, preferring to follow established ethics put forth by religions. I have a hard time with that as the very act of becoming an atheist pretty much declares that much thought has gone into it. Recognizing that many of established ethics and morality are to the betterment of humanity I see no problem with those and those that are not, that are also complimentary to some of the good ones by being part of the same book can be derided as religious drivel and ignored.
What exactly do you mean by " will produce a very different understanding of ethics to those that have traditionally been imposed on us."?
We are already aware that morality and ethics did not come from the gods, "we" prescribe to those because they have been shown to be inherently good. We already mock and ridicule those bads ones "imposed" on us and ignore them.
Can you give us a little more of an example as to your thinking? Perhaps you are playing football and I am thinking pool.
Quote from: jonb on October 05, 2015, 02:34:26 PM
Mike CL
Once the notion of there is no gawd, no final arbiter is presented as truth, then any concepts of a universal divinely imposed good or bad also falls. Thus any principals we may have have by nature to be created by ourselves. I know you say that atheists have nothing in common, but in that there is no off-the-shelf ethics for an atheist like there is for a christard all we atheists do have something in common.
Yeah, I suppose you could say that that is what we have in common. If so, so what? What I mean is, just because one says they are atheist does not mean they have any interest in philosophy or ethics or morals? Or cares? A person may simply examine the world and say that there is no room for a god. And leave it at that. On the other hand, it is interesting to me to know what a fellow atheist thinks the foundation of morals and ethics is. But that is just my own interest. Not all atheists seem to care all that much. So, like you, Jon, I find that an interesting discussion to have.
Quote from: Baruch on October 05, 2015, 01:02:34 PM
Too much to follow .. at lunch break. It has been argued by some, that being in a post-Christian era doesn't look as bad as it might be, because of this cultural-Christian stuff. As if we will revert back to Pagan practices, and start sacrificing people in the midst of Stonehenge. I think this is a post-Christian anxiety, rather than a legitimate prediction. Ethics comes from more than one source ... and as long as one or more sources reinforce it, then we will probably remain civilized.
Seems to me that if we rid the world (never happen, I know that) of the Christian 'ethic' the world would be more ethical.
Quote from: aitm on October 05, 2015, 02:45:16 PM
I am still doing a poor job of following your suggestion. The first part of your statement above would imply you think atheists may not think for themselves regarding ethics, preferring to follow established ethics put forth by religions. I have a hard time with that as the very act of becoming an atheist pretty much declares that much thought has gone into it. Recognizing that many of established ethics and morality are to the betterment of humanity I see no problem with those and those that are not, that are also complimentary to some of the good ones by being part of the same book can be derided as religious drivel and ignored.
What exactly do you mean by " will produce a very different understanding of ethics to those that have traditionally been imposed on us."?
We are already aware that morality and ethics did not come from the gods, "we" prescribe to those because they have been shown to be inherently good. We already mock and ridicule those bads ones "imposed" on us and ignore them.
Can you give us a little more of an example as to your thinking? Perhaps you are playing football and I am thinking pool.
(http://l.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/Zr0ZTI9XLzlGNyrD6ZjU3g--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3NfbGVnbztmaT1maWxsO2g9Mzc3O2lsPXBsYW5lO3B4b2ZmPTUwO3B5b2ZmPTA7cT03NTt3PTY3MA--/http://media.zenfs.com/en_us/News/Reuters/2015-09-27T150458Z_86367898_MT1ACI14034138_RTRMADP_3_RUGU.JPG)
It might be we are both talking football just what sort?
Anyways; there is a reason why I am talking about atheist ethics rather than secular ethics. I think secular ethics are driven to a large part from the religious wars of the renaissance to the 18th century and to a large part deal with the interaction of differing groups of christards and others who have some doctrinal differences, protestant catholic sort of jaz.
I find that much of the religious freedoms given to us by secular ethics are about freedom to think religiously, not about freedom from religion. On this forum I have seen the stories of discrimination at American schools picking on atheist children where they would not dream of attacking catholic or jewish kids.
So what is an athiest?
For me yes you can admit there is no gawd and leave it at that, but if you want to think or talk about it then to an extent you have to try to live it. For me a person who criticises christards but then lives by the values that they themselves have just criticised is not so much an atheist as a hypocrite.
Quote from: Mike Cl on October 05, 2015, 03:07:15 PM
Seems to me that if we rid the world (never happen, I know that) of the Christian 'ethic' the world would be more ethical.
So an atheist ethic is discernible. Just being free of gawd creates a more ethical culture, see you said it yourself so athiests have a commonality and it could however unlikely that might be produce a result and in your view that result would be advantageous. I am glad to have won you over.
Atheists are very different. As an atheist I might decide that the biological imperative is the foundation of ethical behavior, that the goal of living is to reproduce and have successful offspring, successful meaning they continue to reproduce. To that end I might open a reproductive center and trick women into becoming pregnant with my sperm. I could have hundreds of offspring that would be well cared for, many more than I could support on my own. What I'm doing isn't unethical because the purpose of life is to compete and survive, not be truthful or treat others well. Those behaviors might be of value but only if they successfully propagate genetic legacy. There is no "cosmic justice," a silly religious notion, and if I can outsmart the people around me and produce children I am behaving in an ethical manner. What would be unethical would be the state trying to curtail people's freedom to reproduce freely.
The biological imperative is an example of ethics not based on Abrahamic religions. This cowbird behavior is also morally abhorrent to most people. The reason most people from differing cultures would find the previous scenario wrong is because, in my opinion, religion is an expression of adaptive moral behaviors that evolved from primates over time and were never handed down by a supernatural agent or religious authority. Morals come from the bottom up, not the top down. The reason no one likes a cheat isn't because we were taught cheaters are bad, or God says cheating is bad, but because we have a visceral, emotional reaction to unfairness. Babies get mad when they believe other babies are getting more attention or food, they don't have to be taught to throw a fit. So I believe that Christianity doesn't own compassion, charity or wonder. All religions were built on moral reasoning that already existed in human cognition, and I don't have to believe in religion to believe in those values. Perhaps it might look like I'm aping Christians but I prefer to think they are aping apes.
Quote from: jonb on October 05, 2015, 04:35:26 PM
So an atheist ethic is discernible. Just being free of gawd creates a more ethical culture, see you said it yourself so athiests have a commonality and it could however unlikely that might be produce a result and in your view that result would be advantageous. I am glad to have won you over.
You had me 'won' over from the start. :)) I did not say that a monolithic atheistic moral existed. As GSO suggests, morality comes from below and not from on high. That means that the Christian ethic was in existence prior to their existence. They used part of it. Taking away god from the mix would make the moral laws clearly human. But that does not mean that all would agree with what would be moral or not. I am an atheist and I have my own personal moral code; I developed this code while living in a world that accepts god and while I was actively searching for that god and while it was dawning on me that there was not a god. My moral code did not depend upon god nor god's existence.
But it is a fine thing to do--talk about what is really moral for a society to follow--god or no god.
Quote from: jonb on October 05, 2015, 10:13:16 AM
There are sets of principals that have guided European/western culture, a major influence on what those principals are has been driven by the church in its many forms. If we are in a situation where the church is being rejected then a re evaluation of those principals I would say has to be studied.
To not study those principals that have influenced our cultures would leave a state where the culture and our attitudes are still driven by the church's dogmas and as such it would not matter if we were atheist or christard because we see the world and react to the world in the same way.
Culture is not imposed on people it is an expression of their collective ideas, thus if people are atheist that will influence the culture, unless that atheism is just something that is mouthed, not practised.
What I see are a lot of people who have been butt hurt by different churches or mom and dad's belief systems saying 'I be an atheist then suck on that', but then carrying on like all the other christards.
I feel unless atheists start to set their own moral compasses, they are using those of the christards and as such they are to all practical purposes christards
Thanks for the shoutout, Stromboli ;-) It really is two different things, and both are complicated of course ...
In one case we have the idealization where we are starting an all new society from scratch on some unoccupied island someplace. The problem with that is you can't start with people "tabula rasa" ... sorry John Locke ... you have to start with adults who are already acculturated somewhat. With children you get Lord Of The Flies, but with adults you get Robinson Crusoe and Friday.
In the other case, the realistic one, you have a bunch of squabbling auto mechanics on a bus, going down the highway at 60 mph, while they do auto work on it.
Another factor I see ... it depends on what you think culture is. Is it some kind of collective unconscious that changes slowly over time, or is it something superficial ... our mistaken labeling for whatever people are doing at a given time, regardless of why they are doing it (are Moderns going to soccer/football really the same as Romans going to the Colosseum?). Many people don't believe in an unconscious, let alone a collective one.
So yes, depending on your stated or unstated assumptions, one can re-examine things ... like any individual or collective body can ... but it is hard to do that outside the context of who you have been so far.
Quote from: Mike Cl on October 05, 2015, 11:09:05 AM
Yes, that is the crux of the matter. The religious want to make atheism into a culture so they can then attack that culture. The religious simply cannot conceive of somebody not believing in their god. So it is easier for their minds to lump all non-believers into one camp. What an atheist 'believes in' is unknown. Each one is different. There is not a single unifying 'should' that binds them together. If you want to know what they 'believe in' you have to ask them, unlike the religious, since there 'shoulds' are known.
Atheism wrapped in revolutionary politics, was once a very particular "should" with specific characteristics. Fortunately that particular ideology has receded. Today atheism does seem individualist and libertarian ... not something tolerated in those other political systems.
Looking at primates there are a lot of examples that could be seen as depicting moral codes. Even when males are competing for reproduction most animals have evolved not to kill, which is surprising if you think of how all important to the animal that act is.
We are a pack animal and as such an individual that only pursues self interest would disrupt the pack making it that not only that other members of the pack would loose but the self-motivated individual itself would ultimately loose out. so there might it seems be some ethics which are universal to all beings.
Then there are codes which are particular ways of life and cultures, for instance it would be hard to be a trader if everyone took your property so a group that might rely on traders to bring them goods might feel it is important to them to protect all passing traders.
However a goat herder in Iraq three thousand years ago would not understand evolution and in trying to codify ethics would attribute them to quite the wrong thing. Then as others come along as they do not understand the basis of that code will make errors and wrong attributions which might well twist natural human ethics into something very distasteful.
Getting rid of the concept of gawd means we have also disposed of the twisted thinking that came with it. The clarity of that vision could enable us to differentiate what is universal to us and what is expedient to varying situations. True a lot of what we come up with as westerners will seem quite like christard ethics, but it would be built on a firmer truer base and better able to evolve to meet the needs of humanity.
Quote from: Baruch on October 05, 2015, 07:25:02 PM
Atheism wrapped in revolutionary politics, was once a very particular "should" with specific characteristics. Fortunately that particular ideology has receded. Today atheism does seem individualist and libertarian ... not something tolerated in those other political systems.
An ethics built up from libertarian individuals is about as revolutionary as one could get! When opposed to the top down ethics we have to a large part inherited.
Quote from: stromboli on October 05, 2015, 01:44:57 PM
1. Ethics is moral social behavior. Atheism is disbelief in god. Moral social behavior comes from a commonality of agreed upon ideas concerning human social behavior. Atheism is lack of belief. Belief is not the same as behavior.
2. Secular versus religious is a dividing point between the two in terms of, for instance, the constitutional separation of church and state. We already have a concept of secularism in that respect- not praying in schools, posting the 10 commandments outside the court, etc.
3. You are also equating culture with religion. Granted that the two are often intermingled, but by definition they don't have to be. And culture as the foundation of ethics depends on the culture. You can argue that aspect ad infinitum, which is what will probably happen with this thread. If in terms of applicable ethics, the extremes being witch burnings and stoning adulterers versus merely condemning those actions verbally, you will never come to a consensus because every separate aspect will vary with different cultures.
Maybe part of Jonb's problem ... is that in a secular society, or in one that has a clear separation between private religion and public behavior (including politics) what you are saying, does fit well. But if you are not secular (and I consider a monarchy to be non-secular ... it is a divine right situation) or if religion is entangled at the public level vs the private level (say in a theocracy) then what you are saying doesn't make sense, the models are incommensurate.
Jonb - to me, to be British is to believe really strongly in some kind of moderate monarchy ... a kind of extended family that is different from the American, in that America is less a family and more an autocracy ... because while both Brits and Americans center their "social contract" per Hobbes, on the national executive, ours is elective and non-hereditary (mostly). Technically, the powers of Parliament and the rights of the people, derive by lèse-majesté ... they are acting as delegates of the royal sovereignty, who originally is a delegate of the Christian or Pagan god ... however much they may spar amongst themselves. Like the Commonwealth of Cromwell ... America is a military encampment with a temporary Commander in Chief. We must always have another Ireland to massacre and a Scotland to beat down. A very good historian has noted this continuity ... but of course there can't be any immense rope of unconscious binding that ties diverse people in space and time together ... are we not autonomous? Like Ms Thatcher said ... there is no such thing as society.
Also, I edited my response from lunch time.
QuoteMaybe part of Jonb's problem ... is that in a secular society, or in one that has a clear separation between private religion and public behavior (including politics) what you are saying, does fit well. But if you are not secular (and I consider a monarchy to be non-secular ... it is a divine right situation) or if religion is entangled at the public level vs the private level (say in a theocracy) then what you are saying doesn't make sense, the models are incommensurate.
Jonb - to me, to be British is to believe really strongly in some kind of moderate monarchy ... a kind of extended family that is different from the American, in that America is less a family and more an autocracy ... because while both Brits and Americans center their "social contract" per Hobbes, on the national executive, ours is elective and non-hereditary (mostly). Technically, the powers of Parliament and the rights of the people, derive by lèse-majesté ... they are acting as delegates of the royal sovereignty, who originally is a delegate of the Christian or Pagan god ... however much they may spar amongst themselves. Like the Commonwealth of Cromwell ... America is a military encampment with a temporary Commander in Chief. We must always have another Ireland to massacre and a Scotland to beat down. A very good historian has noted this continuity ... but of course there can't be any immense rope of unconscious binding that ties diverse people in space and time together ... are we not autonomous? Like Ms Thatcher said ... there is no such thing as society.
If that is what British is I am not British. This is an important point. You have modelled ethics from top down systems. Men in charge dictating the moral standards of society. The pope may rant all he likes the condom is popular even in Ireland. I am not interested in world leaders my personal opinion of them is that their actions and what they say is totally restricted by their desire for power. No I am talking to individuals on this forum we actually have the power to think for ourselves and put our thoughts into action, just like the people of Ireland.
Culture is created bottom up.
Yes, but bottom up is gauche and maybe socialist ... the horror! America has spent the last 200 years suffering from English royalty envy. Do you think there is a vaccine for this? Well maybe the Kennedy family. The Bush family is like Caesar discovering Cleopatra ... their model of a comfortable living is based on visits to Riyadh, not the Court of St James (Joe Kennedy was US ambassador to GB early in WW II).
Well politically, it is hard to get people to boycott (cost of water in Ireland), unless they are very Irish-American. Most Americans identify with the oppressors.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/oct/31/water-charges-ireland-cause-protests
It is in the nature of empires that they draw power to the centre. So to control them it becomes ever more important for those that wish for power to talk to those with power.
I heard on the BBC that the average American congressman now spends 62% of their time raising money to be re-elected. The British politicians do not have to do this as they are almost entirely of the moneyed class anyway.
This naturally means that as empires progress they loose contact with the general population and come to a point where as they are providing nothing for the population they become irrelevant.
For all the fine words people invariably choose to back their own self interest.
The Roman empire fell because the emperor could no longer provide bread. The British gained control in India because they could provide more to the Indians than the Moguls.
The Austrian and British empires dissolved because they could no longer provide any benefits to their territories.
And the same was true of the soviet empire.
This is just the natural way of things, foundations are all important once the top looses contact with the base the structure topples however impressive it might seem to be.
But what glorious history these bubbles of political power provide! And don't forget, guard your food chain ... Athens had to have Crimea, and Rome had to have Egypt and Tunisia. The corporate latifundia in Italy were not all that efficient anyway ... the beaten slaves kept having to be replaced. Unlike the US South, they didn't have a cotton gin to save them.
The American Senate is almost completely made up of millionaires. Appropriate for something called a Republic. Think of the American House as a grooming zone for future Senators, and as a convenient low-hand distraction for what the high-hand is doing ... hence the comical behavior ... except I am not laughing ;-( It all comes down to marginal exploitation ... once it costs more to get the next BTU than it can sell for, the writing is on the wall, hence the world economy since 1974. The end only comes when it takes more than a BTU to get a BTU ... and this applied to both slaves and petroleum.
I am mostly in agreement, but the bank might still have some monies when the run on the bank starts. The end can come not just at the actual financial point, but when it is perceived as likely to come, and that perception could even be false.
Structures are not only vulnerable to actual threats, but even in some circumstances the perception of threats.
Of course .. the whole world economy is political, not lawful ... the laws of economics are whatever the politicians say they are. And the arc of history of political-economy is just a Tulip Mania/Mississippi Company/South Sea Company con game. Every economist since before Adam Smith, is just another John Law (who invented fiat money) ... and Casanova (who invented the lottery).
Of course there can't be a run on the bank ... look at Zimbabwe ... it is easy to have billions of dollars right in your wallet, if the government is willing to feed the illusion to the bitter end. And with it all going digital, there is no need to even print the money. Assignat anyone? Just keep out of the way of Robespierre.
And there is the crux, the only legitimacy comes from the base.
Thus even though the people will naturally have a broad and differing set of views it is only their collective view that could legitimise what rules them.
So back to the OP atheists might have a broad set of views some of which will conflict but the ethics they hold to should come from them to have any legitimacy.
That is why I think we have to scrutinise what are our ethics.
Quote from: jonb on October 06, 2015, 03:36:33 PM
And there is the crux, the only legitimacy comes from the base.
Thus even though the people will naturally have a broad and differing set of views it is only their collective view that could legitimise what rules them.
So back to the OP atheists might have a broad set of views some of which will conflict but the ethics they hold to should come from them to have any legitimacy.
That is why I think we have to scrutinise what are our ethics.
Round and round we go.........................
You state................."only their collective view that could legitimize what rules them." I agree. The base. And the base includes theists, atheists and all the rest. The broad norms are set by the majority. Atheists are nowhere near the majority. So, when you say, "That is why I think we have to scrutinise what are our ethics.", I suggest there is no "our" to scrutinize. Each atheist is different in his or her ethical views. You may say that you mean just atheists. Okay, how would you suggest you get all atheists into one room or under one banner? I don't see it happening.
I do think it would be helpful for everybody to try to figure out what their own ethics are and from where those ethics come from. But that would be for everybody--atheist, theist and all in between.
One strong multicultural problem. And it isn't tacos or chop suey .. both of which are actually American. People need to agree on basic ethics, in order to form community. A strong difference on basic ethics, and you can't form any community. A community can even have more than one language, provided that most people in it are multilingual. But if you think it is OK to cut out the heart of a living human at the top of your Aztec temple, and I don't think it is OK ... then we are going to have irreconcilable differences.
Quote from: Baruch on October 06, 2015, 07:25:50 PM
One strong multicultural problem. And it isn't tacos or chop suey .. both of which are actually American. People need to agree on basic ethics, in order to form community. A strong difference on basic ethics, and you can't form any community. A community can even have more than one language, provided that most people in it are multilingual. But if you think it is OK to cut out the heart of a living human at the top of your Aztec temple, and I don't think it is OK ... then we are going to have irreconcilable differences.
You can still have many religions as long as religion is practiced within the confine of 4 walls, and outside of those walls, it's secularism for all.
So we can sacrifice people, provided it is a domestic practice?
Quote from: jonb on October 05, 2015, 07:27:28 AM
In truth I get disappointed with many atheists.
OK so many people find gawd is a silly idea, but then seem content not to think through what rejecting that doctrine means.
They seem content once gawd is rejected to not question the morality that came with that notion, so essentially live lives driven by the same ethical and moral doctrines as the religious.
When reading many things written by atheists I am reminded of the end of 'Animal Farm'
― George Orwell
Are there others like me who feel it is useless incessantly quoting the bable to prove how superior a person is, but maybe to start thinking what it means to be atheist and what sort of culture this idea could produce, or am I on my own?
Societies around the world have had morality, some long before Christianity. This shows that either each god provides morality to his people, or that morality isn't the exclusive purview of religion, and that, in point of fact, we are frequently moral despite being religious.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on October 07, 2015, 01:57:41 PM
Societies around the world have had morality, some long before Christianity. This shows that either each god provides morality to his people, or that morality isn't the exclusive purview of religion, and that, in point of fact, we are frequently moral despite being religious.
Yes, we are moral despite being religious.
In spite of/because of. We've had the morality debate several times on the forum. The answer always comes back that morality is a component of evolution, a necessary survival trait for social groups. As far as I'm concerned this entire thread is simply belaboring a non issue.
I vote that from now on any thread on "morality" should be directed to "Enter The Darkness"
In talking about atheist ethics, for sure there is a spectrum of views, rather than a block with hard and fast edges. However although there are random blips that don't fit the norm I think I can identify differences between a general group of atheists and a general group of say christards.
For instance in sexual politics among atheists there maybe arguments as to what level we have to set a mark that gives equality between the sexes, but hardly ever is an argument put forward that of biological difference leading to superiority. In fact should such an argument be put forward among atheists the person saying it might look quite outside the normal spectrum. However on religious sights this argument will be encountered often.
Similarly on a subject like sexual orientation most atheists seem to have very little to no problems with others sexual orientation, even in church of England circles which is about as near a religious organisation can get to not having a belief, sexual orientation is still a very thorny subject.
Broadly I find atheists quite accepting of difference. True in America where atheism is a minority view it could be put forward that the atheist acceptance of minorities is out of pure self interest, they are a minority and so am I, however I find this same acceptance of otherness is true of atheists in Britain and Europe where they often live in communities where non-believers are in the majority. Christians may mouth an acceptance of difference, but behind the scenes I often hear quite other views expressed.
So although atheist views might over lap with other people it seems to me atheist and christard ethics are like this scatter pattern of red and green dots
(http://winedarksea.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/BetterScatterPlotPC1PC4.jpg)
true they may seem to overlap but they do also seem to cover slightly different areas. That difference I find interesting.
Atheists and christards share the same evolution so that could not explain a difference. Does that difference then come from belief or lack of it? Or could it be that the mindset of somebody that accepts there is no god is different to that of believers?
Quote from: stromboli on October 07, 2015, 03:01:10 PM
In spite of/because of. We've had the morality debate several times on the forum. The answer always comes back that morality is a component of evolution, a necessary survival trait for social groups. As far as I'm concerned this entire thread is simply belaboring a non issue.
I think that humans are overly ... self congratulatory. Morality and immorality are equally necessary for survival. Otherwise by now we should have all evolved into Mahatmas. For example, in some circumstances, it is absolutely to my benefit to murder certain people ... with or without the Decalogue or the power of the State. I simply don't think there are any hard and fast rules, that will survive any and all circumstances. And I don't think the typical situation of a family having dinner at Denny's, where extreme action is usually uncalled for .. can rule out extreme action in all circumstances ... unless of course your family lives at the Denny's ;-)
Quote from: josephpalazzo on October 07, 2015, 03:28:33 PM
I vote that from now on any thread on "morality" should be directed to "Enter The Darkness"
Do you equate ethics with morality? If you do, and ban ethics too ... well that says something about you that you might not want to admit to.
jonb ... on the original topic. I am sure that statisticians would agree with your Big Data analysis ... but they may be selling their own product. I am not sure that statistical analysis, in the absence of some cause-effect ... is useful ... other than providing a foil for unconscious assumption. On the other hand, correlation isn't causation. Both aspects of .. atheism and open mindedness, might share a common origin, rather than be a cause of each other. And I think that is where I would intuitively come down. People who are at least comfortable with alternative beliefs and behaviors, even if not actual practitioners of such ... probably will be open to both LGBT and atheism/agnosticism/secularism ... since both are contrary to the average trend of societies. You might also be likely to find people who also embrace more extreme politics ... like anarchism or socialism. In a word, different bohemians of the same Left Bank, tend to be found in the same gay bars ... partly because pre-Internet, there was no other way for them to meet, outside of society's disapproving eye.
To answer your last post I will use this
Quote from: Baruch on October 07, 2015, 07:36:54 PM
I think that humans are overly ... self congratulatory. Morality and immorality are equally necessary for survival. Otherwise by now we should have all evolved into Mahatmas. For example, in some circumstances, it is absolutely to my benefit to murder certain people ... with or without the Decalogue or the power of the State. I simply don't think there are any hard and fast rules, that will survive any and all circumstances. And I don't think the typical situation of a family having dinner at Denny's, where extreme action is usually uncalled for .. can rule out extreme action in all circumstances ... unless of course your family lives at the Denny's ;-)
This is the sort of view that might be expected from a person that calls themselves a freethinker and has thought through the repercussions of that stance.
As an artist who sat on the left bank, one of the things I know is that humans seem programmed to notice difference but find it difficult to notice their own similarities with others. You as an American would find it easy to identify the similarities of a group of Brits sitting round a table, but they would say no we are not similar at all I'm a cockney he's a Scott, and we don't talk about Taffy.
Given this it is not surprising my wish to explore the ethical commonalities that might be present in a group or groups of atheists has been met with such reticence, but as a person who likes learning about how different sets of people think and work I can't help but push this a little.
Pushy are we?
I simply prefer to consider all the data and all the alternatives upon that data, before I let my prejudice out of its box. That is the problem with intuition and spontaneous reaction ... unless these are very refined skills, it is unlikely that all data and all alternatives upon that data have been considered. Unless you need to jump in a lake to save someone drowning ... and that might be a bad choice if you can't swim ... we generally are not under time pressure.
As explained in a post many posts ago ... I tend to consider many things on an ongoing basis, as I live my life, as they occur to me. Then as later occasion arises I am free to open the gap between my unconscious and conscious minds and let her rip ... no not flatulence! Simply put, I try to not get in my own way ... my consciousness will get in the way more than it will help, if I micromanage. That and I edit a little before I post.
So the question remains, do rational people have any ethics in common, or it all situational and lovey-dovey?
Quote from: Baruch on October 07, 2015, 11:00:34 PM
Pushy are we?
So the question remains, do rational people have any ethics in common, or it all situational and lovey-dovey?
There is another alternative, that being rational, a person is open to the situation and can modify instead of only being able to impose a standard set of values on any event. It seems to me there are people who want and impose simple sets of rules that do not take factors into account so they can save themselves the bother about thinking over issues. Given that I am with Socrates
(http://www.empireonline.com/images/uploaded/bill-and-teds-excellent-adventure-socrates.jpg)
that the 'unexamined life is not worth living'.
No argument from me. I have visited the site of his prison, and his "ghost" told me so.
Quote from: Baruch on October 07, 2015, 07:37:55 PM
Do you equate ethics with morality? If you do, and ban ethics too ... well that says something about you that you might not want to admit to.
No, ethics is about rules of conduct in society. We need that. Society needs that. Morality is your own sense of right and wrong, and just like religion, you should keep that to yourself.
Cool, I thought that was what you meant ;-)
Now on to ethics ... ain't gonna happen ;-(
Quote from: Baruch on October 08, 2015, 07:13:35 AM
No argument from me. I have visited the site of his prison, and his "ghost" told me so.
Well I used him in my history exam.
PS
have you noticed how our dear little joseph pushes the ISIS view?
One world control under one set of laws
A refusal to allow his authority to be examined.
And now that it is OK to doubt as long as it is never mentioned or discussed in public.
I try to avoid "personalizing" ... just directing praise or blame for "people like X" ... if the shoe fits, it isn't my problem. I just accused Joe and Strom of being Monsanto employees ... but it is tongue in cheek ... even if they were, I don't have anything against their employees ... "dey vas only followink orders!".
The best recent take on Socrates is The Hemlock Cup by Bettany Hughes ... the new women historians, and some not so new ... have really done a good job. Of course Ms Hughes is a classics major from GB.
People come in many shapes and sizes, physically and mentally. It is best to be open minded, even with those who tempt you not to be. It could always be a simple misunderstanding, not something categorical.
I like your precision, as I am one who tends to only paint with a broad brush I need those little highlights.
Quote from: Baruch on October 08, 2015, 12:51:56 PM
I just accused Joe and Strom of being Monsanto employees ...
:103:
If the grill fits ...
Quote from: Mike Cl on October 05, 2015, 09:13:50 AM
A couple of problems with your observations, from my point of view. Atheism is not a culture. It is not one consolidated point of view. It is mainly negative in that is simply says that god/gods do not exist. It does not, then replace those gods/god with another philosophy. I see your disappointment as a lack of labor on your part. When you rejected religions/god, it is up to you to chose what is moral and what is not--not another atheist. You have to decide what is the right philosophy for you. If you don't then you will continue to be disappointed. One of the benefits of being in an organized religion is that you do not have to think about or reason about what is moral, right and good--or what your purpose in life is. That is all spoon fed to you. Atheism does not supply any of that; so if you want it, then you have to build it yourself.
Understand--atheism does not produce any 'culture'. It can't. You have to find a culture that fits what you think is a positive culture. So, quit seeing what you don't want and start searching for what you do want. Only you can do that for yourself. Atheists will not spoon feed that to you.
Morality is in us all. It was put there for a reason. Unfortunately most PEOPLE adjust it to their desires and wants. Morality isn't spoon fed by scripture. It is just verified or remembered if you will.
Faith in selfless Unity for Good.
Quote from: TomFoolery on October 05, 2015, 09:37:56 AM
I'll agree with you there, atheism isn't a culture, but a lot of atheists make it into one. There are many militant atheists who take their own lack of beliefs and observations and mock the religious for it. I don't know many atheists in person, but the few I have met at the local book club here are people who have turned atheism into a battle cry to be antagonistic and downright contrary to any kind of religious symbol. When you spend so much time tearing down religion because you don't believe in one, well, that to me becomes a type of culture.
True, not all atheists are like that, but not all Christians demand to have the 10 commandments posted outside of court houses either. I think atheism is a school of thought that lends itself to superiority quite often.
All men are flawed. Not just the religions or atheists. Moral action brought about through the conscience is universal.
Faith in selfless Unity for Good.
Quote from: jonb on October 05, 2015, 10:13:16 AM
There are sets of principals that have guided European/western culture, a major influence on what those principals are has been driven by the church in its many forms. If we are in a situation where the church is being rejected then a re evaluation of those principals I would say has to be studied.
To not study those principals that have influenced our cultures would leave a state where the culture and our attitudes are still driven by the church's dogmas and as such it would not matter if we were atheist or christard because we see the world and react to the world in the same way.
Culture is not imposed on people it is an expression of their collective ideas, thus if people are atheist that will influence the culture, unless that atheism is just something that is mouthed, not practised.
What I see are a lot of people who have been butt hurt by different churches or mom and dad's belief systems saying 'I be an atheist then suck on that', but then carrying on like all the other christards.
I feel unless atheists start to set their own moral compasses, they are using those of the christards and as such they are to all practical purposes christards
Not hardly. You must no that you are under God by his will trough Christ to be safe. You will find the same general moral code in all faiths that are true. This is because they are all derived from a direct connection through th e conscience. Unfortunately, the opposing side of us is still present in any who sin, and according to most scriptures non has ever been without fault. With that being said we can start to understand the very minor discrepancies between scriptures of most Faith
Faith in selfless Unity for Good.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on October 05, 2015, 10:35:38 AM
There's no point in re-inventing the wheel. As aitm has pointed out, discarding because of an association is an exercise in futility. Rather take what we have and make it better. What I suspect is that you are looking for a clash of cultures. There is too much of that already.
There's only one small problem with that; like hypocritical "believers"; you are cherry picking and thus not attaining a comprehensive understanding.
Faith in selfless Unity for Good.
Quote from: popsthebuilder on October 09, 2015, 11:25:14 PM
Not hardly. You must no that you are under God by his will trough Christ to be safe. You will find the same general moral code in all faiths that are true. This is because they are all derived from a direct connection through th e conscience. Unfortunately, the opposing side of us is still present in any who sin, and according to most scriptures non has ever been without fault. With that being said we can start to understand the very minor discrepancies between scriptures of most Faith
Faith in selfless Unity for Good.
They need to invent a new game in the Olympics for the kind of mental gymnastics you're doing.
Secretly a Warsie.
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on October 10, 2015, 12:21:55 AM
They need to invent a new game in the Olympics for the kind of mental gymnastics you're doing.
Secretly a Warsie.
Honestly I cannot see anyone buying tickets for that one
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-wI0aLNrQabw/UKPJNn5phuI/AAAAAAAACPQ/4vlXpi7jyhU/s1600/empty-stadium-in-caribbean_qMLeh_17022.jpg)
His mom might turn up though if he pays her.
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on October 10, 2015, 12:21:55 AM
They need to invent a new game in the Olympics for the kind of mental gymnastics you're doing.
Secretly a Warsie.
Not at all. Look up Druze and Bahia.
Faith in selfless Unity for Good.
Quote from: jonb on October 10, 2015, 12:33:17 AM
Honestly I cannot see anyone buying tickets for that one
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-wI0aLNrQabw/UKPJNn5phuI/AAAAAAAACPQ/4vlXpi7jyhU/s1600/empty-stadium-in-caribbean_qMLeh_17022.jpg)
His mom might turn up though if he pays her.
Good ole herd mentality negativity. Never gets old.
Faith in selfless Unity for Good.
Quote from: popsthebuilder on October 10, 2015, 01:18:16 AM
Good ole herd mentality negativity. Never gets old.
Faith in selfless Unity for Good.
You really do not know what evidence is do you, Are your lips moving as you read this?
Quote from: jonb on October 10, 2015, 01:26:04 AM
You really do not know what evidence is do you, Are your lips moving as you read this?
Evidence of what? Negativity through herd mentality?...
Faith in selfless Unity for Good.
Quite you cannot see evidence that I think you have fully established, but are your lips moving as you read?
Quote from: jonb on October 10, 2015, 01:35:59 AM
Quite you cannot see evidence that I think you have fully established, but are your lips moving as you read?
What does that have to do with anything? And yeah I guess sometimes not really what in thinking about when reading. I guess if I'm tryin to understand something better I may go back over it better and word or even read aloud. Again what is your point?
Just curious.
Faith in selfless Unity for Good.
Quote from: jonb on October 10, 2015, 01:35:59 AM
Quite you cannot see evidence that I think you have fully established, but are your lips moving as you read?
By the way; what evidence are you saying I refute?
Faith in selfless Unity for Good.
Quote from: popsthebuilder on October 10, 2015, 02:45:42 AM
What does that have to do with anything? And yeah I guess sometimes not really what in thinking about when reading. I guess if I'm tryin to understand something better I may go back over it better and word or even read aloud. Again what is your point?
Just curious.
Faith in selfless Unity for Good.
I am mortified, I feel genuinely guilty now. I am very very sorry, my only one slight hope is that you are an atheist who has socked up for a laugh.
Quote from: jonb on October 10, 2015, 03:03:42 AM
I am mortified, I feel genuinely guilty now. I am very very sorry, my only one slight hope is that you are an atheist who has socked up for a laugh.
I can only assume you are trying to degrade me in some way whilst attempting to attain some outward look of pity towards me.
So basically, You shouldn't pity me at all, and you can poke fun all you want, but doing both is a sign of a hypocrite.
Faith in selfless Unity for Good.
I'm sorry.
but do read about a thing before you speak about it, is the best advice I can give you, and please ignore everything else I have written to you.
Quote from: Baruch on October 09, 2015, 07:47:21 PM
If the grill fits ...
Actually I don't grill, the little character grilling stuff is meant to be YOU.
Quote from: popsthebuilder on October 10, 2015, 03:09:31 AM
I can only assume you are trying to degrade me in some way whilst attempting to attain some outward look of pity towards me.
So basically, You shouldn't pity me at all, and you can poke fun all you want, but doing both is a sign of a hypocrite.
Faith in selfless Unity for Good.
Nobody can degrade you better than you can. I don't pity you, don't worry. You have beliefs and faith but no reasoning or thinking. That's your world and you are welcome to it.
Quote from: Mike Cl on October 10, 2015, 09:15:01 AM
Nobody can degrade you better than you can. I don't pity you, don't worry. You have beliefs and faith but no reasoning or thinking. That's your world and you are welcome to it.
Don't assume things. To be able to understand things on a fundamentally different level than closed minded biased critics is the opposite of lack of reasoning and thought.
Faith in selfless Unity for Good.
Quote from: popsthebuilder on October 10, 2015, 10:05:40 AM
Don't assume things. To be able to understand things on a fundamentally different level than closed minded biased critics is the opposite of lack of reasoning and thought.
Faith in selfless Unity for Good.
You seem to be able to mouth the words--you just don't seem to understand what they mean.
Quote from: jonb on October 05, 2015, 07:27:28 AM
In truth I get disappointed with many atheists.
OK so many people find gawd is a silly idea, but then seem content not to think through what rejecting that doctrine means.
They seem content once gawd is rejected to not question the morality that came with that notion, so essentially live lives driven by the same ethical and moral doctrines as the religious.
When reading many things written by atheists I am reminded of the end of 'Animal Farm'
― George Orwell
Are there others like me who feel it is useless incessantly quoting the bable to prove how superior a person is, but maybe to start thinking what it means to be atheist and what sort of culture this idea could produce, or am I on my own?
Ethics and morals don't belong to any religion or culture. What ethics would you want to claim that would set you apart, and why is it so important to be set apart?
Sent from my LGL34C using Tapatalk
Quote from: jonb on October 10, 2015, 12:33:17 AM
Honestly I cannot see anyone buying tickets for that one
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-wI0aLNrQabw/UKPJNn5phuI/AAAAAAAACPQ/4vlXpi7jyhU/s1600/empty-stadium-in-caribbean_qMLeh_17022.jpg)
His mom might turn up though if he pays her.
I never thought any British football (soccer) team could be so reviled, that only one mom of on player showed up ;-) I consider myself gobsmacked and edumacated now!
Quote from: josephpalazzo on October 10, 2015, 07:35:10 AM
Actually I don't grill, the little character grilling stuff is meant to be YOU.
I know I am a villain and a criminal. Do you? Or has hubris taken you to the battlefield around Troy?
Quote from: WanderingWonderer on October 10, 2015, 11:10:36 AM
Ethics and morals don't belong to any religion or culture. What ethics would you want to claim that would set you apart, and why is it so important to be set apart?
Sent from my LGL34C using Tapatalk
in the parlance here, morality belongs to religion, but ethics belongs to humanity as a whole. BTW ... I gave you another "like". The moderators will have to clutch their pearls again ;-)) I give anyone a "like", when they say something I like ... I am not partisan ... except against lapses of conscience.
Quote from: Baruch on October 10, 2015, 11:50:25 AM
I never thought any British football (soccer) team could be so reviled, that only one mom of on player showed up ;-) I consider myself gobsmacked and edumacated now!
If you knew about English sporting history you would know how many times we field teams that are a total embarrassment. And if you were to look at my personal sporting prowess, you would understand that not only would I have to pay my mum to support me, but why she would insist on coming in disguise.
Well I love being informed by people who actually have lived what they are talking about. Empiricism isn't just for Brits or Empires. Never fear, there are cities in the US that feel like sports just as you characterize your own country. Go Chicago Cubs ;-) They haven't won a World Series for over 100 years. True amateur athletics ;-( Good thing I am an American football fan, not baseball. A sometimes fan am I, coordinated I am not.
Quote from: Baruch on October 10, 2015, 11:54:31 AM
in the parlance here, morality belongs to religion, but ethics belongs to humanity as a whole. BTW ... I gave you another "like". The moderators will have to clutch their pearls again ;-)) I give anyone a "like", when they say something I like ... I am not partisan ... except against lapses of conscience.
Ethics and morals are both the property of the individual and are expressed as a unique perspective. Granted, we often find bliss in our ignorance and comfort in the answers provided by the masses, and then we fight in their defense. Everyone, including atheists, hopes for victory, but that idea is one of the hurdles we have to overcome. Victory isn't ours unless it's everyone's.
See! You said another thing that was nice and reasonable ... so you got another "like". Are you Bahai or Druze? You mentioned them before. I once knew a Zoroastrian in Canada, thru the Net. Theists can be good Netizens ... if we choose to be. And atheists don't actually eat babies.
Quote from: WanderingWonderer on October 10, 2015, 12:58:49 PM
Ethics and morals are both the property of the individual and are expressed as a unique perspective. Granted, we often find bliss in our ignorance and comfort in the answers provided by the masses, and then we fight in their defense. Everyone, including atheists, hopes for victory, but that idea is one of the hurdles we have to overcome. Victory isn't ours unless it's everyone's.
Victory is a false god and not worth the bother.
I keep on telling Sisyphus you don't have to push that ball, just sit back and enjoy.
(//img%5Dhttps://framasphere.org/camo/8fef037285e6f46a5a7f8c65f04a5be7262fafb6/68747470733a2f2f33332e6d656469612e74756d626c722e636f6d2f31633235393065313630626161623437376563646633316132616337343033342f74756d626c725f6e67346a6866756d4e73317275773176736f335f3530302e676966)
Quote from: jonb on October 10, 2015, 01:54:30 PM
Victory is a false god and not worth the bother.
I keep on telling Sisyphus you don't have to push that ball, just sit back and enjoy.
(//img%5Dhttps://framasphere.org/camo/8fef037285e6f46a5a7f8c65f04a5be7262fafb6/68747470733a2f2f33332e6d656469612e74756d626c722e636f6d2f31633235393065313630626161623437376563646633316132616337343033342f74756d626c725f6e67346a6866756d4e73317275773176736f335f3530302e676966)
Victories are validated all the time, but they can be partial delusions as well. A common problem is accepting a victory of realization as ultimate realization rather than a mere step in the right direction. The character called Christ was victorious in planting an idea that was far more peaceful than the doctrines of his ancestors. The ancient Mayan savior eliminated human sacrifice. Charles Darwin was victorious in publicising a theory that improves our understanding of life. Nikola Tesla successfully enhanced our technological capabilities. All of these are valid victories, and they all stem from a pursuit of a better understanding.
They only won because they lacked the foresight to pick on big enough enemies.
Quote from: jonb on October 10, 2015, 01:54:30 PM
Victory is a false god and not worth the bother.
Doesn't that entirely depend upon what one would call a 'victory'?
Quote from: WanderingWonderer on October 10, 2015, 03:05:03 PM
Victories are validated all the time, but they can be partial delusions as well. A common problem is accepting a victory of realization as ultimate realization rather than a mere step in the right direction. The character called Christ was victorious in planting an idea that was far more peaceful than the doctrines of his ancestors. The ancient Mayan savior eliminated human sacrifice. Charles Darwin was victorious in publicising a theory that improves our understanding of life. Nikola Tesla successfully enhanced our technological capabilities. All of these are valid victories, and they all stem from a pursuit of a better understanding.
I think you are thinking of Nezhualcoyotle ... who was the ruler of Teshcoco, on the west side of the valley of the Meshika ... or Mexico. This was related to, but not the same as the Maya (of Chichen Itza) who themselves were halfbreeds not the same as the Classic Maya.
Quote from: Baruch on October 10, 2015, 03:40:39 PM
I think you are thinking of Nezhualcoyotle ... who was the ruler of Teshcoco, on the west side of the valley of the Meshika ... or Mexico. This was related to, but not the same as the Maya (of Chichen Itza) who themselves were halfbreeds not the same as the Classic Maya.
Perhaps, but the point stands?
Quote from: WanderingWonderer on October 10, 2015, 04:20:38 PM
Perhaps, but the point stands?
Yes, of course ... I gave you another "like".
Quote from: Mike Cl on October 10, 2015, 03:37:03 PM
Doesn't that entirely depend upon what one would call a 'victory'?
When the Spartans won the Peloponnesian war, they had no political structure that was up to the task of administering an Empire and it marked the ending of their eight hundred year old culture.
Victory is only how we choose to categorise an event, not the event itself.
What is the point of pursuing labels? For me victory is a false god, it has no meaning.
At least in war, there are no winners. This is a good reason to dislike the American penchant of calling every government policy a "War on X". Americans are an arrogant folk, they don't realize why we lose every "War on X". Modest people would advertise "An afternoon chat about X, over a pot of tea".
Quote from: jonb on October 10, 2015, 09:09:14 PM
When the Spartans won the Peloponnesian war, they had no political structure that was up to the task of administering an Empire and it marked the ending of their eight hundred year old culture.
Victory is only how we choose to categorise an event, not the event itself.
What is the point of pursuing labels? For me victory is a false god, it has no meaning.
For me it is not that simple. I live victories. Or at least some of them. But I'm thinking of victory in personal terms. I won my simulated baseball league--that is a victory. I dropped 5 pounds last week--that is a victory. My wife completed a project she was working on for a month. That is a victory. And so on.
But I gather you are talking about large scale victories on a national level? I think of victories in a different manner. Probably more like you do.
Quote from: jonb on October 05, 2015, 07:27:28 AM
In truth I get disappointed with many atheists.
OK so many people find gawd is a silly idea, but then seem content not to think through what rejecting that doctrine means.
They seem content once gawd is rejected to not question the morality that came with that notion, so essentially live lives driven by the same ethical and moral doctrines as the religious.
When reading many things written by atheists I am reminded of the end of 'Animal Farm'
― George Orwell
Are there others like me who feel it is useless incessantly quoting the bable to prove how superior a person is, but maybe to start thinking what it means to be atheist and what sort of culture this idea could produce, or am I on my own?
um what are you talking about? George Orwell is using symbolism to describe the greed and corruption of man
From the first page ... by Jonb
"Actually what I am calling for is self examination not just borrowing others dis-proven ideas." Let me put it more negatively ... atheists are people, and people are mostly ideologues. In analogy to the atheist saying "I believe in one more god than a monotheist disbelieves vs polytheism" ... an atheist believes in one less ideology than a theist (treating polytheism as a single thing) ... but that is only one less than some large number N. Re-examination challenges all ideologies. The Athenian atheists were just as hot to execute Socrates as were the Athenian theists. That is why the prosecution was wise to make two separate charges against him, they covered all their bases.
It takes another mind, to articulate my own thoughts in some cases. It also may take awhile for it to sink thru ;-) Belated thanks to Jonb.
Mike
A diet of victory
To just diet faces us with a path of constant self denial, an irksome thing of constant negativity where we have to accept we will have to have less enjoyment than all the others around us. The path is hard and to hold to that self denial a person finds they need constant reminders why they are on it.
So they weigh themselves and record all the little victories, little reminders that they are getting to the goal. As time goes on they become reliant on these little victories to hold them to the chosen path. But paths are not easy and people fall off them. Its my cousin Murial's wedding it would be rude to leave what is offered, just this one night I will make an exception for a special occasion. So without restraint and being extra hungry because of the time of denial more is eaten than normal. I did it once without harm so this is the end of the month. Soon the person is holding to a strict diet in the week and binging at the weekend, and the whole of the western world gets fatter.
(http://worldnewsdailyreport.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/fat-guy.png)
I don't know this particular man and have not looked up the back story but I would say; You can be almost sure this man has been on very many very strict diets with all their little victories.
Baruch a clever man meets an old mad veteran in the mall who is befuddled by the effects of war and as this old man is stupid he has to ask questions. The clever man knowing himself presumes others to be the same as himself (it is the only model he has to work with after all). The clever man gives a great answer to one of the questions, and then thanks the stupid man.
Quote from: jonb on October 11, 2015, 09:31:11 AM
Mike
A diet of victory
To just diet faces us with a path of constant self denial, an irksome thing of constant negativity where we have to accept we will have to have less enjoyment than all the others around us. The path is hard and to hold to that self denial a person finds they need constant reminders why they are on it.
So they weigh themselves and record all the little victories, little reminders that they are getting to the goal. As time goes on they become reliant on these little victories to hold them to the chosen path. But paths are not easy and people fall off them. Its my cousin Murial's wedding it would be rude to leave what is offered, just this one night I will make an exception for a special occasion. So without restraint and being extra hungry because of the time of denial more is eaten than normal. I did it once without harm so this is the end of the month. Soon the person is holding to a strict diet in the week and binging at the weekend, and the whole of the western world gets fatter.
(http://worldnewsdailyreport.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/fat-guy.png)
I don't know this particular man and have not looked up the back story but I would say; You can be almost sure this man has been on very many very strict diets with all their little victories.
Baruch a clever man meets an old mad veteran in the mall who is befuddled by the effects of war and as this old man is stupid he has to ask questions. The clever man knowing himself presumes others to be the same as himself (it is the only model he has to work with after all). The clever man gives a great answer to one of the questions, and then thanks the stupid man.
Not quite sure what to make of all of the above. The fat guy above proves nothing. Are you saying all fat people are the result of diets? What of the man who weighted 400 lbs, and now weighs in at 150 and maintains that the rest of his life? No victory? I suspect were playing a semantics game. There are phases or things in life we call victories, which are really made up so we can pat ourselves on the back and then get whatever reward we want. (And 'reward' needs to be fully defined as well) One should not use the idea of a victory to fool ourselves into believing a falsehood or a negative outcome. Maybe instead of victory we should use positive outcome or negative outcome. Maybe when we lose that pound, we regard it as a positive outcome, and a building block, rather than a victory, for 'victory' may lead some to think that it is more final than it really is. A building block is just one more item on that road of building something. And the going off the diet as taking away a building block or two. Is that why you don't like the word 'victory' for it is commonly thought of as being something final and complete, while in reality it is something that is not final, nor complete?
To achieve something I think the difficulties have to be faced up to, it also often seems to me that by trying to circumvent those difficulties the goal is missed. But don't make the mistake that this Elmer Gantry can always live up to those words.
Quote from: jonb on October 11, 2015, 09:31:11 AM
...
Baruch a clever man meets an old mad veteran in the mall who is befuddled by the effects of war and as this old man is stupid he has to ask questions. The clever man knowing himself presumes others to be the same as himself (it is the only model he has to work with after all). The clever man gives a great answer to one of the questions, and then thanks the stupid man.
Wow! But then the shoppers at the mall gather, and execute the clever man for being clever (his last name is Sophist) ... well for worshipping a new god without authorization of the State, and for corrupting the youth by proselytizing this new god ... but that would reverse the actual outcome. The stupid old man gets accused and executed. Yeah, I already saw the movie, but for the young generation:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okZHInakSYo
Quote from: jonb on October 11, 2015, 09:58:23 AM
To achieve something I think the difficulties have to be faced up to, it also often seems to me that by trying to circumvent those difficulties the goal is missed. But don't make the mistake that this Elmer Gantry can always live up to those words.
There is a difference between facing up to criminals and joining their gang. Whether you are in the gang or not ... circumvention can just be avoidance of the problem, not facing up to it. It seems to me that people often follow the easiest path ... but then theologians speak of this, so it must be wrong. In the case of an eating disorder, one approach is to try to satiate the hunger. But this doesn't work, no matter how much one tries. Another approach is to shame the person with the eating disorder, because someone has been successful with a diet (which really means that for whatever reason their eating disorder abated ... it is like the rooster claiming he made the sun come up) ... or a person who never had an eating disorder, who shames the person with an eating disorder (which really means they are talking out of their ass, since they know nothing of the subject). All three are pissing up wind, but the second and third alternative betray the bigotry and self righteousness and ignorance of the accusers. In this case actual science, rather than monkey shines, can help. Why is the person ill? It isn't a moral question (this also applies to drug addiction and alcoholism). The Elmer Fudds of this world aren't even experts at hunting rascally rabbits.
Quote from: popsthebuilder on October 09, 2015, 11:28:18 PM
There's only one small problem with that; like hypocritical "believers"; you are cherry picking and thus not attaining a comprehensive understanding.
Faith in selfless Unity for Good.
Religion is batshit. How's that cherry-picking?
Quote from: josephpalazzo on October 13, 2015, 07:00:05 AM
Religion is batshit. How's that cherry-picking?
Religion is scewed by man. True Faith is not.
Faith in selfless Unity for Good.
Quote from: popsthebuilder on October 13, 2015, 10:21:23 AM
Religion is scewed by man. True Faith is not.
Faith in selfless Unity for Good.
True Faith=Total Blindness of the batshit religion.
Quote from: Mike Cl on October 13, 2015, 11:17:11 AM
True Faith=Total Blindness of the batshit religion.
Just admitted that most religion is flawed by man in some way. How is that being blind to the fact?
Faith in selfless Unity for Good.
Quote from: popsthebuilder on October 13, 2015, 11:49:22 AM
Just admitted that most religion is flawed by man in some way. How is that being blind to the fact?
Faith in selfless Unity for Good.
Because all religion is flawed--buy it's own teachings. You are simply the same as all other theists, in that you say you see the one True religion. If people don't see it your way, then they are blind and stupid and will go to hell because the one true god told you so. Batshit crazy--you fit the bill perfectly.
Quote from: popsthebuilder on October 13, 2015, 10:21:23 AM
Religion is scewed by man. True Faith is not.
Faith in selfless Unity for Good.
You've just eliminated the human species. So who has the true faith then? Do you realize how screwed up you are??
Quote from: Mike Cl on October 13, 2015, 01:26:54 PM
Because all religion is flawed--buy it's own teachings. You are simply the same as all other theists, in that you say you see the one True religion. If people don't see it your way, then they are blind and stupid and will go to hell because the one true god told you so. Batshit crazy--you fit the bill perfectly.
What I preach is peaceful unity under God. I generaly don't condemn people.
Faith in selfless Unity for Good.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on October 13, 2015, 05:50:20 PM
You've just eliminated the human species. So who has the true faith then? Do you realize how screwed up you are??
I'm not sure if any one religion is right. I know that none need to be cast out by me. I know thavthe Bahai Faith and the Druze religion seem to be on the right track, but we are to use our heart and scripture to test others doctrines..
I really don't care if you think I'm out there. I'm quite used to it. Holy literally translates to different. I will gladly be the odd one out rather than just another lost sheep.
Faith in selfless Unity for Good.
Quote from: popsthebuilder on October 13, 2015, 09:28:03 PM
What I preach is peaceful unity under God. I generaly don't condemn people.
Faith in selfless Unity for Good.
Well, goodie, goodie, goodie for you. You don't seem to mind spreading lies and bullshit. Yes, that is harmful to those who may some day, learn to reason. That seems to leave you out, though. Belief and faith is all you have--facts and reasoning seems to be beyond your abilities. Maybe one day you will be able to grow up.
Quote from: Mike Cl on October 13, 2015, 10:05:18 PM
Well, goodie, goodie, goodie for you. You don't seem to mind spreading lies and bullshit. Yes, that is harmful to those who may some day, learn to reason. That seems to leave you out, though. Belief and faith is all you have--facts and reasoning seems to be beyond your abilities. Maybe one day you will be able to grow up.
Why don't you state a single fact that I'm not aware of. State of single thing that I refute with my faith. Seriously, any fact, any scientific fact, it doesn't matter, there is not a single thing that I refute by being faithful. That's just you assuming things.
Faith in selfless Unity for Good.
How can you assume that I'm lying about something that you cannot even prove isn't real? What kind of reasoning is that? What type of logic does it take to assume things that you have no clue about? You assume that I do not know things just because you do not know them or do not believe them. To me that is a grand lack of reasoning on your part.
Faith in selfless Unity for Good.
Quote from: popsthebuilder on October 13, 2015, 10:09:01 PM
Why don't you state a single fact that I'm not aware of. State of single thing that I refute with my faith. Seriously, any fact, any scientific fact, it doesn't matter, there is not a single thing that I refute by being faithful. That's just you assuming things.
Faith in selfless Unity for Good.
Why don't you state a single fact. I have not seen one from you yet. I seriously don't think you know what a fact is. One fact is is that you are willfully ignorant.
Quote from: Mike Cl on October 13, 2015, 10:14:13 PM
Why don't you state a single fact. I have not seen one from you yet. I seriously don't think you know what a fact is. One fact is is that you are willfully ignorant.
Ignorant of what?
Faith in selfless Unity for Good.
Quote from: popsthebuilder on October 13, 2015, 09:32:27 PM
I'm not sure if any one religion is right. I know that none need to be cast out by me. I know thavthe Bahai Faith and the Druze religion seem to be on the right track, but we are to use our heart and scripture to test others doctrines..
I really don't care if you think I'm out there. I'm quite used to it. Holy literally translates to different. I will gladly be the odd one out rather than just another lost sheep.
Faith in selfless Unity for Good.
Anyone who claims to have the "true" faith borders on the threshold of being clinically insane. You should see a shrink.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on October 14, 2015, 05:47:43 AM
Anyone who claims to have the "true" faith borders on the threshold of being clinically insane. You should see a shrink.
Thanks. Anyone how claims the physical is the limit of existence needs to wake up to the significance of life.
Faith in selfless Unity for Good.
Quote from: popsthebuilder on October 14, 2015, 10:39:00 AM
Thanks. Anyone how claims the physical is the limit of existence needs to wake up to the significance of life.
Faith in selfless Unity for Good.
Sorry to rain on your parade but I much prefer a meaningful life in a physical world than wasting my entire life on a fantasy that isn't support by any evidence whatsoever. Cheers.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on October 14, 2015, 10:45:52 AM
Sorry to rain on your parade but I much prefer a meaningful life in a physical world than wasting my entire life on a fantasy that isn't support by any evidence whatsoever. Cheers.
Helping others in any way possible isn't a waste. Being selfless isn't a waste. Doing all you can to gather up worldly objects is a waste and selfish. You can't take anything with you when you die but your soul. If you have a greedy soul then that won't even make the trip. To have a positive influence in the lives of others is a wonderful thing. And don't worry. No one can burst my bubble.
Faith in selfless Unity for Good.
Quote from: popsthebuilder on October 14, 2015, 10:53:40 AM
Helping others in any way possible isn't a waste.
It is a waste when your help consists of nothing but spewing nonsense to those you think you're helping.
QuoteYou can't take anything with you when you die...
No kidding...
Quotebut your soul.
A fantasy that no one has ever proved it's real. But keep on with those silly dreams.
QuoteAnd don't worry. No one can burst my bubble..
And that's why my advice to you is to see a shrink still stands.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on October 14, 2015, 11:34:17 AM
It is a waste when your help consists of nothing but spewing nonsense to those you think you're helping.
No kidding...
A fantasy that no one has ever proved it's real. But keep on with those silly dreams.
And that's why my advice to you is to see a shrink still stands.
What would be the point? Am I hurting anyone by not being the same? Am I a danger to myself by helping others without expecting things in return?
These forums aren't the main way I help, and all of you aren't identical. Some of you have ears and eyes that you are actually trying to use instead of just accepting what others have told you.
Faith in selfless Unity for Good.
Quote from: popsthebuilder on October 14, 2015, 08:33:05 PM
Some of you have ears and eyes that you are actually trying to use instead of just accepting what others have told you.
I accept what others are telling me if that is supported by evidence. When it's not supported by evidence, I call it bullshit.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on October 14, 2015, 08:38:47 PM
I accept what others are telling me if that is supported by evidence. When it's not supported by evidence, I call it bullshit.
And what of things you come to know yourself. If you can't prove it to others would you just assume you are loony tunes, or would you consider that not everything is strictly physical?
Faith in selfless Unity for Good.
Quote from: popsthebuilder on October 14, 2015, 08:54:56 PM
And what of things you come to know yourself. If you can't prove it to others would you just assume you are loony tunes, or would you consider that not everything is strictly physical?
Faith in selfless Unity for Good.
If an idea can't be proven then it falls into the category of speculation, with the understanding that new facts can prove or disprove the speculation.
Quote from: popsthebuilder on October 14, 2015, 08:54:56 PM
And what of things you come to know yourself. If you can't prove it to others
The obvious are a) delusion b) willing ignorance.
If you can't prove it to others they will consider you a nut job, and rightfully so.
To be culturally religious and believe none of that is to be apathetic, cynical, cowardly, dishonest, and a very selfish person who is willing to watch others continue destroying all that is good with humanity.
However, "culturally religious" should apply only to participating in religious rituals and supporting religious organizations. NONE of our holidays are in any way rooted in Xtianity, and the obscure religions which they are rooted in were practiced for the same reasons that sensible people do today - they are time to be spent with family and friends. Going to church on Xmas eve is the most terrible way that I can think of spending time with my parents and sister, short of watching them die. This is why I essentially told them just that when my Dec. 23rd flight was cancelled and I had to fly over from Charlotte the next day, enabling them to trap me into dinner AFTER we all went to their stupid Catholic Mass! NEVER AGAIN!
Following the idiotic dribble of religious morality after you stop believing in a god is silly, I don't know why anyone would have any respect for the bible or any other religious text on a moral or philosophical level, it's just a book that kind of declares things without reason, including it''s morality, alongside every other religious text.
Subjective morality is much better then a 2000 year old book that tells you to stone someone to death for fucking someone who you don't want them to fuck.
Quote from: Jannabear on January 11, 2016, 07:28:52 PM
Following the idiotic dribble of religious morality after you stop believing in a god is silly, I don't know why anyone would have any respect for the bible or any other religious text on a moral or philosophical level, it's just a book that kind of declares things without reason, including it''s morality, alongside every other religious text.
Subjective morality is much better then a 2000 year old book that tells you to stone someone to death for fucking someone who you don't want them to fuck.
A developed conscience is much better than a 2000 year old book. That is what I would call a subjective morality.
Quote... it's just a book that kind of declares things without reason, including it''s morality, alongside every other religious text.
The Tao Te Ching?
QuoteSubjective morality is much better then a 2000 year old book that tells you to stone someone to death for fucking someone who you don't want them to fuck.
My subjective morality tells me that is okay because I just don't like gay people. Is it still better?
Quote from: Shiranu on January 11, 2016, 08:19:47 PM
The Tao Te Ching?
My subjective morality tells me that is okay because I just don't like gay people. Is it still better?
You have to make arguments for it, what you're thinking of is arbitrary morality, where people just declare things are good or bad, kind of what the bible does.
Quote from: Shiranu on January 11, 2016, 08:19:47 PM
The Tao Te Ching?
My subjective morality tells me that is okay because I just don't like gay people. Is it still better?
Objective morality: A false idea that someone thinks their morality is objective because they think it came from a god.
Subjective morality: Morality came to through reasoning, not always good morality, but typically yields the best results, often based on human nature to.
Arbitrary morality: When someone declares something to be immoral or moral, what religious texts do.
I'm editing this to clarify that I know, atheists can believe in subjective morality to, so let me rephrase it.
Objective morality: The stupid notion that a certain moral standard is somehow set in place in the universe.
Quote from: Jannabear on January 12, 2016, 04:40:51 AM
Objective morality: A false idea that someone thinks their morality is objective because they think it came from a god.
Subjective morality: Morality came to through reasoning, not always good morality, but typically yields the best results, often based on human nature to.
Arbitrary morality: When someone declares something to be immoral or moral, what religious texts do.
Objective morality ... based on philosophy rather than religious texts. But it is BS IMHO.
Tao Te Ching ... Eastern philosophy in general ... a Sage points a finger at the Moon. You can look where he is pointing, or not. But don't get fixated on his finger.
I would suggest that a society comes up with a subjective morality of it's own. It is reflected in its civil laws and criminal laws; the laws that apply to all. Even in a so called christian society, the agreed upon interpretation of the bible is subjective, for the bible can be claimed to be the objective source--but there is so much wiggle room in it that several different sets of laws can be called god's law. And those subjective civil/criminal laws are in flux.
Not all religions were created equal.
'
I believe in japan they still celebrate religious holidays and go to temples while the majority of the country is still considered atheist.
I have no problem performing meaningless rituals as a cultural preservation but I do have a problem with preserving stupidity.
Take the religion out of religion then I won't have a problem with it.
Kind of like how I still love and celebrate christmas but I don't give two hoots about jesus.