Quote from: Aisha deCabre on December 13, 2006, 04:42:09 PM
...
Oh the crazy things that get put on Ebay. :rolleyes I believe I've heard that someone put their soul up. Forgot how much it went for...
Me, I'm a bit of an agnostic atheist (if such a thing can exist)...I've been brought up Christian, but I'm not the type to go on crusades against the evil and stuff like that. Me and my family believe that also as long as nobody pushes religion on other people it's good to have a tolerance of others for their beliefs and their cultures. I don't want to say I don't believe there's a god...just in case, you know. But there's also reasonable doubt there.
Also, I think that depending on the region of the world you're in, there's a god or a plethera of them for that region...not just one...the Christian belief of creation is widely known but there are hundreds of other stories like that too.
Well, I adhere to the same agnostic beliefs as you. But I despise and counteract religion in every way I can, so long as I don't have to go out of my way to do it. Why? Because I see in organized religion a distillation of the failures of humanity, and its delusions... And, of course, a viable target to attack to make a point and state that you want to rid yourself of those failures.
Oh, is that all? Well, better than what most of the internet has to say about religion I guess.
CHRIST HIMSELF HAS RISEN IN CHEETOS FORM! THE SECOND COMING IS UPON US! REPENT! REPENT!
There is no way that the guy selling that
actually thinks that there's anything holy about the cheeto. Honestly, it's pretty weak even as Christ-image hoaxes go.
Quote from: Stygian on December 13, 2006, 08:20:57 PM
Well, I adhere to the same agnostic beliefs as you. But I despise and counteract religion in every way I can, so long as I don't have to go out of my way to do it.
Which is the equivalent of what, yelling "
FAG" at every gay couple you see on the street? I call that rude.
<atheist rant on religion warning: ON>
One of my beefs with religion in general is the following: just about every religion has some type of holy book, in which various "great deeds" and "miracles" are describe that have been done by one or more deity(s).
When I look up at the night sky, I see a huge number of stars / galaxies / whatever. Some pictures of the Hubble space telescope are filled with some 10.000 galaxies with trillions of stars around which a gazillion planets orbit, some of which may contain life, and even intelligent life.
If there is a being that can create all that, with a 15 billion years of history some x-thousand years ago, anything described in those holy books as "great deeds" and "miracles" would be mere insignificant trifles, and would require no effort at all for this superbeing.
If there is a creator of the universe, then he/she/it would be infinitely more powerful then any god described in any holy book anywhere, ever.
<rant end>
Also, the pope-hat chip lacks a cross.
That's not a very good beef.
Most Creation Myths already answer that, to create everything ex-nihilo.
Quote from: King Of Hearts on December 14, 2006, 07:07:04 AM
That's not a very good beef.
Most Creation Myths already answer that, to create everything ex-nihilo.
My point is: the universe is far too big to be made by some totalitarian "believe in me or burn in hell/hades/bad place" kind of being that messes about with holy books/scriptures/scrolls/smoke signals.
Also, it's not my only beef, but I'll not go into any of the others.
It's not the create part that bugs me. Creation is a seperate (though related) discussion.
Its just that a creator of something so incredibly vast/beautiful/terrifying/grand as the entire universe (156 billion lightyears wide) would be above messing with holy books /miracles/us.
Ah, but you neglect the fact that the religious books are written by PEOPLE, who often interject their own points of view. Most of the Old Testament, for example, is Jewish traditional history, especially the books of Samuel, Kings and Chronicles. Even Matthew, mark, Luke, and John which all talk about the exact same person in the exact same period of time have differing accounts of numerous events. And some events in one book aren't in the others.
As for an infinite being not having any interest in one world, that's a very limited point of view. You limit this being's mind to one of our own, having only the tiny amount of processing to hold onto a few things at once. Try to even begin to fathom what it means to be omniscient. Also, imagine you've made all the worlds with your own hands. How many humans, who are imperfect, care about even the smallest thing they've made. How many artists toil over the tiniest details... then fly into a rage if someone leaves a coffee ring on their drawing. ;)
Trying to comprehend the mind of a god is like trying to be a blind fish that has lived in a cave all its life trying to comprehend an outside world of light and air. It's like modeling all the suns in the galaxy on our own solar system, something that cosmology has learned it cannot do now that we can glimpse some actual extrasolar systems.
And the concepts of eternal punishment... well, that's a tricky area because Christianity has for too long relied on an interpretation of scripture that tried to meld the Greek belief in eternal torment with some symbolic parables and improperly translated texts, while ignoring contrary texts
The very fact that the universe appears to be fundamentally quantized, and will therefor come to an end, I believe speaks for the nonexistence of god. Of course, the same principles state that energy cannot be undone, why a "new" universe will form... or the old one just dies in eternal expansion.
In truth, I am more angry with "bubble universe" theorists than with religious ones. The religious you can disregard as either indoctrinated, insecure or plainly reasonless. But people who try and imagine ends and beginning of the universe or some para-dimensional existence, or believe that they can come up with a scientific thesis for reincarnation...
Quote from: King Of Hearts on December 14, 2006, 06:31:12 AMWhat baffles me is why do people keep hanging on to the image of Jesus as a stereotypical caucasian with long straight hair, moustache and beard.
Have these artists seen Jesus to make a definitive portrait of him? What makes that image more Jesus-ey than a picture of a Black man? or a Chinese? Heck, a Martian?
Well...He would have been a semitic Jew, which means that he would have worn a beard (without rounding his temples) with moustache. There's certainly an outside chance that He was black (it's also true that He wouldn't have inherited any genes, but it's unlikely that God would have made His race something other than what was common in that area, probably ruling out Celtic or Martian).
Quote from: Vidar on December 14, 2006, 06:35:33 AMOne of my beefs with religion in general is the following: just about every religion has some type of holy book, in which various "great deeds" and "miracles" are describe that have been done by one or more deity(s).
You need to read more religious books. The Tao Te Ching doesn't have any miracles, and neither Buddhism nor Hinduism have books (the Bhagavad Gita is not the equivalent of the Bible), and I don't think that Buddhism even has miracles (or a creation myth).
Anyways, I'm still a Catholic, and still happy to be one.
Quote from: superluser on December 14, 2006, 12:39:12 PM
Quote from: King Of Hearts on December 14, 2006, 06:31:12 AMQuote from: Vidar on December 14, 2006, 06:35:33 AMOne of my beefs with religion in general is the following: just about every religion has some type of holy book, in which various "great deeds" and "miracles" are describe that have been done by one or more deity(s).
You need to read more religious books. The Tao Te Ching doesn't have any miracles, and neither Buddhism nor Hinduism have books (the Bhagavad Gita is not the equivalent of the Bible), and I don't think that Buddhism even has miracles (or a creation myth).
Those pesky exceptions just have to rain on my parade, don't they. :U
Taoism and Buddhism are non-theistic religions (they have no gods), and are perhaps better categorised as phylosophies.
Also, wikipedia disagrees with you on the no books thing.
Buddhism has the Tipitaka, Hinduism has the Shāstras, and the Tao Te Ching is the sacred text of Taoism.
Quote from: Vidar on December 14, 2006, 04:18:31 PMTaoism and Buddhism are non-theistic religions (they have no gods), and are perhaps better categorised as phylosophies.
I think some Taoists and Buddhists would agree with you. I also think that many, many others would disagree with you.
At any rate, the point is that there are religions that don't have miracles or creation stories. Or gods. You specifically raised the issue of miracles in ``just about every religion,'' but that's really only the case in the Abrahamic ones.
Quote from: Vidar on December 14, 2006, 04:18:31 PMAlso, wikipedia disagrees with you on the no books thing.
Buddhism has the Tipitaka, Hinduism has the Shāstras, and the Tao Te Ching is the sacred text of Taoism.
I'm no expert on ancient sacred texts, but from what I can see, these books are not like we would view the Tanakh, the Bible, or the Koran. The Shastras are varied and sundry; if you are in one sect, you will view your Shastra as canon, but not the others. And the Tipitaka sounds a lot like a catechism or code of canon law.
(I remain a Catholic)
Quote from: superluser on December 14, 2006, 05:28:25 PM
(I remain a Catholic)
.. if a surprisingly (sadly) broadly educated one.
Sadly, because it shouldn't be a surprise that we know about our fellow man...
Quote from: Vidar on December 14, 2006, 08:06:12 AM
Quote from: King Of Hearts on December 14, 2006, 07:07:04 AM
That's not a very good beef.
Most Creation Myths already answer that, to create everything ex-nihilo.
My point is: the universe is far too big to be made by some totalitarian "believe in me or burn in hell/hades/bad place" kind of being that messes about with holy books/scriptures/scrolls/smoke signals.
Also, it's not my only beef, but I'll not go into any of the others.
It's not the create part that bugs me. Creation is a seperate (though related) discussion.
Its just that a creator of something so incredibly vast/beautiful/terrifying/grand as the entire universe (156 billion lightyears wide) would be above messing with holy books /miracles/us.
Thats the beauty of it.
Philospohicaly speaking the monotheistic Supreme Being is supposed to be Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnibenevolent. For God so loved the world... yada yada.
Theres supposed to be nothing above its grasp. Its not that humans are so significant that this supreme being moves out of its way to show us miracles and such, but that this being is so mighty that it does it happens anyway.
Quote from: Vidar on December 14, 2006, 06:35:33 AM
<atheist rant on religion warning: ON>
Ah, there's the mistake, right there. Vidar, bud, the word 'religion' in a thread should not trigger this. It was off-topic1 and spawned... well, what basically any thread that mentions religion turns eventually turns into. It didn't have to happen here, though.
Now, why doesn't everyone just flip that switch back too 'Off' so we can get back to calling the cheeto-seller (or rather, the cheeto-
buyer) a moron?
1 Please note I am absolutely the worst person to be saying this, as earlier on in this very same thread (here: http://clockworkmansion.com/forum/index.php?topic=1746.msg71531#msg71531) I contested Stygian's values regarding religion, which was probably unnecessary although I won't say unprovoked.
...what? Because I'm a hater I'm suddenly petty? Listen... If it were all for the community, and the belief, and the faithfulness, I too would consider being religious. Unfortunately it isn't. Religious communities often attract the morally "challenged", the insecure, the manipulative and the greedy. I have seen firsthand examples of people making asses of themselved for the sake of religious or political belief. I know. And I can tell you right now that I will not to be likened to some idiotic gaybasher who likes the sound of his own voice. They do meaningless things, and state meaningless opinions.
I disdain religion for how it often attempts to make us lesser by reducing our need of individual strength and security, how it often attempts to make us lesser by taking away our knowledge or reason by replacing them with dogmas and doctrines, and how it often attempts to make us lesser by making us see things with views formed by others or perspectives that do not hold, when we should look upon the world freely and without prejudice or presumptions.
I do as I do and believe as I believe for reasons I have found on my own through careful observation and contemplation. And I act as thoughtfully and consciously, I hope, for my own reasons. And if you believe them to be wrong, fine. But I won't let you disregard me as a ranting pig.
Religion + Internet = Flame
(No, I'm not saying peeps are flaming here.)
Shall we find a match, then, Haz? :-)
Quote from: HaZ×MaT on December 16, 2006, 03:54:49 AM
Religion + Internet = Flame
True.
Although there were no real flames going on here, merely a slightly warmed up exchange of viewpoints.
I don't think there were ever any real flamewars on this board anyway. That's what I like about this place. :boogie
Stygian, atheism has produced exactly the same thing. The founder of the largest atheist movement in the US in the 1970's was killed by members of her own family for money.
The problem isn't religion or the lack thereof. The problem is that people are naturally selfish, cruel animals with the minds to contemplate and rationalize all the wicked things they do, and come up with even more clever ideas to do more wicked things.
No matter what the belief system or factual basis of lifestyle, humans will find some way to ruin it.
Thus, the answer is obvious: Destroy All Humans. >:3
Sounds good to me. :3 Where should we start?
Somewhere far away from me. D:
We'll get there eventually. You have no chance to survive make your time. Ha ha ha ha!
Quote from: Alondro on December 16, 2006, 01:47:42 PM
Stygian, atheism has produced exactly the same thing. The founder of the largest atheist movement in the US in the 1970's was killed by members of her own family for money.
The problem isn't religion or the lack thereof. The problem is that people are naturally selfish, cruel animals with the minds to contemplate and rationalize all the wicked things they do, and come up with even more clever ideas to do more wicked things.
No matter what the belief system or factual basis of lifestyle, humans will find some way to ruin it.
Thus, the answer is obvious: Destroy All Humans. >:3
Noooo... Charline, what have I told you about butting in and taking Charles' place at the keyboard where you're not supposed to?
The examples you've provided prove only that creating organizations based around some sort of faith or belief (in the atheist case, the faith that religion should be purpousefully destroyed, instead of being withered and corroded and eventually forgotten, as is proper) rather than a rational, calculable and objective agenda, usually results in shit. However much I would have to agree with you that destroying humanity is a lovely thought in some ways, it is just not a viable option if you desire progress. The best course of action I believe is instead to adhere to my own philosophy and method of approach.
Which of course means infecting, corroding and slowly and painfully corrupting and changing all of society from within, and then taking over...
But why not destroy everything? In the absence of any possibility of immortality and a sustained universe, we must assume that everything will eventually become a frigid void. In that case, all life is futile, almost a joke if the universe were capable of playing one (which would indicate the absurd notion that the universe itself had consciousness... but then, that would be 'god', wouldn't it?) >:3
Let us take it to its logical conclusion. If science as it stands today is the sole truth, then all laws are pointless and cannot be justified at all. Humans are merely animals trying desperately to give meaning to themselves when they have none. It is impossible to go beyond the speed of light, thus interstellar travel is for all practical purposes impossible. When we die, it's the end of us forever, thus living at all is rather a useless endeavor since everything we do and everything we are is meaningless and futile. Vanity of vanities... all is vanity. In that case, we should simply eat drink and be merry, for tomorrow we all WILL die! Obey only your impulses, kill those you wish to kill, destroy, maim, obliterate whatever you feel like, because in the world of science only, it doesn't matter. You and everyone else, the planet too, will eventually cease to exist and all deeds will be forgotten and lost to time.
And since all is futile, we might as well blow ourselves up now and be done with it!
Any other opinion is delusional in a universe that has no purpose. Only the strong need survive for as long as they feel like it. The rest shall be exterminated to give more resources to those who have the willpower to take it. Mercy and compassion are useless.
In a world with no life beyond death of any kind, the purely logical, scientific universe, the Nazis, the Stalinists, and every other group that kills the weak for the gain of the elite is perfectly justified, because only the will to do so has any merit. There is no longer right or wrong, no good or evil, no reason to follow laws at all. Society exists only as long as the people all decide to follow it, and anyone in that society may decide to defy or destroy that society aand anyone in it at any time they wish and have the power to do so.
Any other moralistic thought or justification is useless. It becomes a self-perpetuated illusory sense of meaning that would be just as false as any belief in the divine in a finite universe in which life ends permanently. The only statement of justification that can be considered logically valid in any form once the ultimate end is added into the equation becomes, "Because I can."
I have quite thoroughly thought of the consequences of such a universe. And I find it utterly hopeless. Therefore, I shall continue to cling to this hope of a God and a new earth in time that will be perfect and I will have a whole universe's worth of worlds to see and all the time I need to explore it. As C. S. Lewis so clevery said through the character Puddleglum in "The Silver Chair": "Supposing we have only dreamed up, or made up, all those things... Then all I can say is that, in that case, the made-up things seem a good deal more important than the real ones. Suppose this black pit of a kingdom of yours is the only world. Well, it strikes me as a pretty poor one... I'm on Aslan's side even if there isn't any Aslan to lead it. I'm going to live as a Narnian even if there isn't any Narnia. Not that our lives will be very long, I should think; but that's a small price to pay if the world's as dull a place as you say."
I've spent my life studying science. I know more about genetics, evolution, and astronomy than 99% of the human race. But I'll continue to live as best I can manage the Christian life of honesty and truth, loving God and respecting my fellow man. The alternative, in my opinion, is simply not worth living. And I can't see that I've lost very much in denying the pathetic carnal pleasures that most people indulge themselves in and still never acheive happiness, instead dying in misery from drugs, murder, or disease for those brief moments of dopaminergically-induced ecstacy.
And that about sums up my 25 years of analysis on the subject of the meaning of life. :3
Your summary is indeed an excellent one, dear Charles. Yet you are presuming two things that it is critical that one does not in order to see the world from my perspective. Firstly; If the universe is indeed pointless, as all evidence indicates, then that must mean that all the worlds and its glory exist here for the sole purpouse of existing. The universe is, so that it may be lived. That in itself is a purpouse, and it is one that very much suits the spontaneous and irrational occurrencies and actions of life.
Secondly you presume that because of this pointlessness of existence, one must immediately fill the gap with whatever answer is best of what is at hand. There is no such need. In fact, just like there is no need for life, there is no need for the regard for life, or for life to regard things either. There is simply existence, and how we interpret it and what we make of it, which are all the same concept, one. And that is why it is perfectly logical to try and find a purpouse or a path, because that is the purpouse and path in itself. That is truly why we strive and work in society; it is not to shuffle matter and energy because we feel like it, but because we fill our existence with it. We remain sane and alive because of it, and even if the universe will come to an end, if we continue to strive this will all mean we will see the very maximum of possibilities that it offers, that we will squeeze every last drop of experience out of our transient lives. Who knows; we might be able to cheat death someday too. We've seen it's possible. Henrietta Lacks died in 1951, yet cells from her body, cells that should have died soon after separation from her, still live on in a laboratory environment, despite what we know to be true of replication and protein deterioration.
Simply because the universe may prove to be pointless it does not become logical to curl up into a fetal position and ignore the rest of the world. That's very much overacting things. As long as we have our minds, and our knowledge to drive us on towards the goal of power and immortality, we shall continue to have a purpouse, and life.
Quote from: Vidar on December 14, 2006, 06:35:33 AM
<atheist rant on religion warning: ON>
One of my beefs with religion in general is the following: just about every religion has some type of holy book, in which various "great deeds" and "miracles" are describe that have been done by one or more deity(s).
When I look up at the night sky, I see a huge number of stars / galaxies / whatever. Some pictures of the Hubble space telescope are filled with some 10.000 galaxies with trillions of stars around which a gazillion planets orbit, some of which may contain life, and even intelligent life.
If there is a being that can create all that, with a 15 billion years of history some x-thousand years ago, anything described in those holy books as "great deeds" and "miracles" would be mere insignificant trifles, and would require no effort at all for this superbeing.
If there is a creator of the universe, then he/she/it would be infinitely more powerful then any god described in any holy book anywhere, ever.
<rant end>
Also, the pope-hat chip lacks a cross.
supposing, just for a moment, that you are a primitave human being with no understanding of anything beyond the small corner of the world you call home. Which would you find more impressive; some guy coming along, pointing to the sky, and saying "I made that," or some guy coming along and curing your leprosy?
I dare say that only recently (in the last few hundred years) have humans, beyond a few special people, come to the point where they can appreciate something so far from their own daily lives.
Now, myself, I don't care for religeon in any form. I'm mostly agnosticm. I see atheism as silly because it requires you to devote energy to believing that something does not exist.
<mini-rant warning>
I find myself believing in god, but not in any organized worship of god, as the people long before the present day go along perfectly well without such things, believing waht they wanted to, and I doubt any loving god would condem them for that... and any god not loving enough for that is not the kind of god I would want to worship.
Quote from: Alondro on December 17, 2006, 08:56:48 PMWhen we die, it's the end of us forever, thus living at all is rather a useless endeavor since everything we do and everything we are is meaningless and futile. Vanity of vanities... all is vanity. In that case, we should simply eat drink and be merry, for tomorrow we all WILL die!
I've never seen this position (which is pretty much my position) expressed so eloquently. (You get definite props for quoting Qoheleth)
It's important to note that there's a difference between ethics and morality. Ethics is the study of what is right and wrong, from the perspective of a few first principles, while morality is the code of what is good and bad, from the perspective of Eternal Truth (whatever you believe that Truth to be).
You can be an atheist and have ethics, but you can't be an atheist and have morality. Now, an ethical society is still possible in a godless universe, and there are reasons for remaining in society, or a social contract, but it does come down to a sort of behavioral stock exchange. If enough people opt out of society, the whole thing crashes, since it's all based on the Tinkerbell effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tinkerbell_effect).
There are a lot of reasons why it's unlikely that people would stop believing in society, even to the extent that it's much less likely that society fails than the stock market or fiat currency, but we can see it happen every once in a while. Somalia would probably be the equivalent of the 1929 crash.
I'd rather believe in God than Tinkerbell.
Switching gears a bit, the concept of life existing for the sake of existing is a rather illogical argument, since it begs the question (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question). And since it begs the question, it makes me wonder if we can credibly assume that life even exists. Descartes (``I think, therefore, I am'') may simply have been observing an emergent phenomenon, that that which appears to be life may in fact only appear to be life.
The fact that a bunch of atoms from what is described as a `hand' are striking a keyboard does not imply that I am alive, or that the continuity of consciousness is a real phenomenon. Rather, consciousness may be a residue that is playing in the universe and is being broadcast as a random consequence of the universe's existence.
On the other hand, if I exist because God put me here, then it's entirely logical that I exist.
Edit: This is what happens when you stay up late reading II Maccabees in an effort to make a Hanukkah story suitable for kids. (I may be a Catholic, but I have read the Bible)
Quote from: superluser on December 17, 2006, 11:01:03 PM
The fact that a bunch of atoms from what is described as a `hand' are striking a keyboard does not imply that I am alive, or that the continuity of consciousness is a real phenomenon. Rather, consciousness may be a residue that is playing in the universe and is being broadcast as a random consequence of the universe's existence.
Now you're walking the path. What Descartes started to argue was but the tip of a logical argument that states that "life" as a concept cannot be. There is no soul. There is no magic. There is only the consciousness that forms from the complexity of the materials and energy in transit... This is what religious people seem to refuse to believe; that there is nothing
beyond it all. That we are all just another variation of a finite possible number of variations and constellations of mass and energy, and that the fact that we are such is what makes our existence certain, that allows for
existence itself to be certain. And that this in itself is so much greater, so much more perfect than any magic or heaven or hell could ever be.
Quote from: Stygian on December 18, 2006, 12:23:14 AM
Now you're walking the path. What Descartes started to argue was but the tip of a logical argument that states that "life" as a concept cannot be. There is no soul. There is no magic. There is only the consciousness that forms from the complexity of the materials and energy in transit... This is what religious people seem to refuse to believe; that there is nothing beyond it all. That we are all just another variation of a finite possible number of variations and constellations of mass and energy, and that the fact that we are such is what makes our existence certain, that allows for existence itself to be certain. And that this in itself is so much greater, so much more perfect than any magic or heaven or hell could ever be.
And, if indeed sir, you are willing to bite all the bullets that come with a nihilistic philosophy, you are entitled to it. I wish you the best - Nietzsche, if I am correct, killed himself at 40. I do not mean to be rude sir! - my point is, that such philosophy, almost without exception, cannot be actively lived.
I will also note that, what most of the people here are complaining about, are the results of bad theology - "Burn sinner burn", is not a acceptable, nor an effective, message to those who do not believe. Rather, by showing through our lives the love that Christ has shown us, a far better path is shown.
I, of course, cannot speak for other religions.
(EDIT: Upon taking the time to actually read through this thread, I would like to give Alondro a hand.)
Jews Christians Mormons Mithra Cult Catholics Holocaust Idols Mammon Hinduism Spirits Rebirth Heaven Muslims Donations Scientology Crusades Harry Potter.
Quote from: Netami on December 18, 2006, 01:12:50 AM
Jews Christians Mormons Mithra Cult Catholics Holocaust Idols Mammon Hinduism Spirits Rebirth Heaven Muslims Donations Scientology Crusades Harry Potter.
Did you have to mention Harry Potter?! Now we're gonna get all sorts of wierd search engine results! :U
And I get fifty bucks from the advertisement agency.
Quote from: superluser on December 17, 2006, 11:01:03 PM
It's important to note that there's a difference between ethics and morality. Ethics is the study of what is right and wrong, from the perspective of a few first principles, while morality is the code of what is good and bad, from the perspective of Eternal Truth (whatever you believe that Truth to be).
You can be an atheist and have ethics, but you can't be an atheist and have morality. Now, an ethical society is still possible in a godless universe, and there are reasons for remaining in society, or a social contract, but it does come down to a sort of behavioral stock exchange. If enough people opt out of society, the whole thing crashes, since it's all based on the Tinkerbell effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tinkerbell_effect).
without reading the etire thread closely (its late for me) this part caught my eye.
How can someone who is athiest (Atheism is the state either of being without theistic beliefs, or of actively disbelieving in the existence of deities. -Wiki) be impossible to have Morality as you state?
Morality is "Morality is a system of principles and judgments based on cultural, religious, and philosophical concepts and beliefs, by which humans determine whether given actions are right or wrong. These concepts and beliefs are often generalized and codified by a culture or group, and thus serve to regulate the behaviour of its members." (from Wiki)... its not dependent upon religion, but rather as a group of people sharing a common foothold...
Now, Moralities (or even ethics for that matter) may not transfer exactly between different groups of people... but just because they different, does not mean its "absolute wrong"... It seems that the world, as a whole... when the majority (of people and/or of power) can decide what is right or wrong when it comes to this, but a lot of times they may still be wrong to the other cultures and such..
Example again: Nazis believed that Jews (among other peoples) were not deserving of life... so their ethics and morals place them above these people, and states that they have rights to kill those lesser than themselves... and not just Nazis are familiar with these practices. The Catholic church is ALSO familiar with this first hand... But the majority of the world will say that killing others because they are lesser than you, is wrong... even though the ones in power think that killing the killers is right (flawed logic)..... Oh well I forgot where I was going with this...
oh yea, Athiests can have Morality like anyone else...
I think you were thinking about NIALISTS... those that claim to believe in nothing.
Quote from: superluser on December 17, 2006, 11:01:03 PM
I'd rather believe in God than Tinkerbell.
I'd rather believe in myself and the people I meet than (i assume you mean the Christian's and/or Judaism's God) God.
Just so you know where I am coming from, I was raised Catholic, but later discovered myself as a Pagan or "Witch" if you will (not Wiccan), and lead an OK life basically practicing good "christian" values and acts of kindness.
Something more interesting, if it's worth for context, I do not have a belief in *any* god, goddess, or demi-variation of the two.. because I have not personally "felt" such a thing. I keep open minded of course, but most of my beliefs are in that of science... which is strange because then you have the Magic vs Science thing with is strange to some people and is a different discussion completely.
Quote from: Netami on December 18, 2006, 01:12:50 AM
Jews Christians Mormons Mithra Cult Catholics Holocaust Idols Mammon Hinduism Spirits Rebirth Heaven Muslims Donations Scientology Crusades Harry Potter.
You forgot Cthulhu, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the Invisible Pink Unicorn, and Russel's Teapot.
Also, with the way Harry Potter books are selling, it might as well be a religion. ~_^
Quote from: Vidar on December 18, 2006, 02:23:21 AM
Quote from: Netami on December 18, 2006, 01:12:50 AM
Jews Christians Mormons Mithra Cult Catholics Holocaust Idols Mammon Hinduism Spirits Rebirth Heaven Muslims Donations Scientology Crusades Harry Potter.
You forgot Cthulhu, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the Invisible Pink Unicorn, and Russel's Teapot.
Also, with the way Harry Potter books are selling, it might as well be a religion. ~_^
Oh not to mention all the Pagan religions and their subsets like Asatru, Celtic Reconstructionist, Discordian, Dianic, Druid, Shaman, Ecclectic, Gardenarian, Gnostic, Heathen, Wiccan, and Witch (and those are just the major ones).
And there's also Trekkie if we are including Harry Potter. :P
Ugh.
Quote from: Vidar on December 18, 2006, 02:23:21 AMthe Flying Spaghetti Monster,
I've been touched by His Noodly Appendage! :D
Quote from: fesworks on December 18, 2006, 02:48:25 AM
And there's also Trekkie if we are including Harry Potter. :P
All Power To The Engines! :D (w00t! Futurama reference!)
Quote from: Amber Panyko on December 18, 2006, 01:30:57 AM
Did you have to mention Harry Potter?! Now we're gonna get all sorts of wierd search engine results! :U
That's going to happen already if the adverts on the DMFA wiki are anything to go by.
For example:
Dan -> "Save your relationship", "cat constipation help"
Abel -> "Islam in the Bible", "Jesus Christ loves you"
Creature -> the Sun newspaper
SAIA -> "Pastoral care training"
Quote from: Stygian on December 18, 2006, 12:23:14 AMThat we are all just another variation of a finite possible number of variations and constellations of mass and energy, and that the fact that we are such is what makes our existence certain, that allows for existence itself to be certain. And that this in itself is so much greater, so much more perfect than any magic or heaven or hell could ever be.
You're not ``walking the path.'' If you accept your proposition, you have no reason to believe that you exist, even as a bundle of atoms. I can believe that you exist, because I'm reasoning from the assumption that you exist because God made you.
(This is not to say that there cannot be atheistic logical arguments that life exists; just that ``life exists because life exists'' is not one of them)
Why, then, are you arguing with someone on the internet when you cannot logically believe that either you or I exist?
Also, morals are based on beliefs; ethics is the science of evolving value judgments based on those beliefs. You can make an ethical system based on a few first principles, such as the following:
1.) I have the right to live as long as I choose to live and am capable of living.
2.) This code of ethics applies equally to all ethical creatures.
3.) Value #2 may apply to a lesser extent to creatures that are incapable of adhering to codes of ethics.
You can evolve most of our present laws from these three principles. There really aren't any subjective beliefs here; #2 is a game theory optimizer and #3 is a check on scorched-earth ethics. The only controversial one is #1, and if you have an issue with that, you might have some other issues.
Laws about drug use or noise ordinances are pretty much moral issues, and if you have beliefs about that, I'd suggest checking to make sure that you really are an atheist.
Not to throw a monkey wrench into this discussion, but I guess the fact just about all animals can't think on the level we do means they don't believe in god and therefore do not exist.
Also: You can't go telling people about morals like that, because whether you like it or not people still have an idea of how they want to act, and it's usually NOT "I'll do as I please" type acting. Your argument sounds like those christian comics that label athiests as rude or, like you seem to want to say, lacking morals and such. Whether or not you think religion is tied so closely with morality, people still take moral values.
<semi-out-of-discussion>Besides. What's the point in having a "moral" to a story if nothing was to be gained from reading it?
Adrias is, of course, correct. Most atheists are not rude, nor are they moral degenerates. This fact is, of course, more dependent on the person at hand.
Of course, if you want to say that morality is self-evident, you are admitting that there is a basic morality inherent in man, which is another discussion altogether.
However, you cannot dismiss the belief system that somebody believes in - "As a man thinks, so he is". Adrias makes the point that most peoples have an idea about how they should act - and this is probably a good thing. However, were one to ask them why they do so, I doubt that many could give an answer beyond 'I'm a good guy', or give no answer at all. While they may want to act virtuously, they still need something to tell them what virtuousness 'is'.
Let me put it like this- people will act as they will act, this is true. If someone wishes to act virtuously, wether that be by some personal moral code, or by some socital code, they can do so, and often do. However, once such codes are exposed to human beings, they begin to crack - not to sound pedantic, but, why does it become wrong to steal from this man, who's morality is determined by himself only? Why does it become wrong, from this man's personal moral code, to kill him? He may believe it is wrong: He may defend himself, certainly, but why does that make him right? Why should I listen to him? But, we have now reached an area in which might has made right.
But what about societal codes - certainly, the laws set down by a government have the ability to create a morality! This is not so: we have merely exchanged the one person for many. In this case, the majority imposes a morality on everyone - it is merely another form of enforced morality. Might, again, makes right.
So certainly, not all people act like barbarians, but you must ask: why do they do so? Eventually, someone will. Merely saying that people act 'morally' is not enough to stave off questions: why do they do so? What is morality? And why should we act in such a way? Indeed, if there is not an objective morality, than I say that there is no morality at all.
Quote from: Cogidubnus on December 18, 2006, 01:07:40 AM
And, if indeed sir, you are willing to bite all the bullets that come with a nihilistic philosophy, you are entitled to it. I wish you the best - Nietzsche, if I am correct, killed himself at 40.
Nietzsche went insane at the age of 44 (if I am calculating it correctly). He probably had syphilis, though how he contracted it is unknown (and indeed there are elements of his illness not consistent with syphilis so it may have been something else). His illness seems to be totally unrelated to his philosophy.
The real misconception I want to clear up, however, is the idea the Nietzsche was a nihilist. He
hated nihilism; he even saw himself as a prophet of the dangers of the coming nihilism. Nietzsche's philosophy was profoundly life-affirming, it just got horribly twisted by his sister's deliberate distortions (her publication of
The Will to Power, for example).
On topic, I am an atheist. This doesn't mean that I lack spiritual emotions, I just don't believe in God. It sucks at times. Being an atheist doesn't make me more or less likely to be moral or kind or anything. There are religious people I love and atheists I really dislike. I honestly think someone's religious beliefs play little role in how good a person they are.
As for morality itself, this is obviously something that people have been debating since debating began. It's easy to say "there is an objective morality - and here it is!" but it's not so easy to come up with a proof of it. I certanly don't have an answer here. Even if God does exsist, though, it really doesn't solve the problem.
Why should we do what God says? Because he will punish us otherwise? There still has to be something else. If you want to say "God is good
by definition" then you have other problems (for example, if God said to torture a bunch of Mow's to death :mowsad then it would be good... you can't even say he wouldn't say that because you have no other way to judge goodness or badness).
Quote from: Vidar on December 18, 2006, 02:23:21 AM
Quote from: Netami on December 18, 2006, 01:12:50 AM
Jews Christians Mormons Mithra Cult Catholics Holocaust Idols Mammon Hinduism Spirits Rebirth Heaven Muslims Donations Scientology Crusades Harry Potter.
You forgot Cthulhu, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the Invisible Pink Unicorn, and Russel's Teapot.
Also, with the way Harry Potter books are selling, it might as well be a religion. ~_^
Don't forget Jedi :D
Quote from: Aridas Soulfire on December 18, 2006, 09:49:09 AMYour argument sounds like those christian comics that label athiests as rude or, like you seem to want to say, lacking morals and such. Whether or not you think religion is tied so closely with morality, people still take moral values.
Then you are misunderstanding my argument.
To quote Fowler's Modern English Usage:
``Ethics is the science of morals & morals are the practice of ethics.''
Bergen Evans follows up in his Contemporary American Usage:
``[Fowler] believes that the impression that ethics is less definitely connected with religion than morals are is ``unfounded,'' and so it may be in philosophy, but in the common usage of words it is pretty well established.''
Morals, as I have always understood the word, are a set of beliefs about conduct that you hold as true on a basis impervious to logic. Ethics is a set of rules of conduct based on those beliefs which may be based on logical interpretation of those rules.
With few exceptions, no outside observer should be able to differentiate between the two.
More importantly, belief in religion has nothing to do with whether you are moral, immoral, rude, or whatnot. Most likely, your ethics will lead you to do the same things that morals would. It's really a semantic difference, here.
...now, I must admit, I may be confusing atheists with freethinkers (most of the atheists that I know are freethinkers), so I suppose you can have a set of moral beliefs that are completely illogical but have nothing to do with religion, but I really don't see what the point of that would be.
A set of beliefs that is logical and has nothing to do with religion would probably be ethics.
One of the things I most dislike about atheism is those who wish to do away with certain laws because they have a religious basis. There are only two ways to interpret that. Either they have no idea what would becoem legal if we did that, or they do know and want to do those things. Let's all imagine what would be legal if we took away all religious-based laws and left certain things to 'personal preference'.
Amsterdam.
Yes, you end up with Amsterdam... and all the horrible things found within... things that scared Kagemushi. And if you know Kage like I do and all the things he simply can shrug off (being around fur conventions for decades tends to create a high level of tolerance to freak-out-ness), you don't want to know what he could have seen that freaked him out. It was all legal too. :erk
There must be a solid moral code of some kind. The problem is, once you take away the foundation, more and more tends to become relative and time wears away shock value and increases desensitization as each new generation grows up with the newly allowable actions, until your entire society is in ruins.
It doesn't give any proof of God, of course. But it does bring up the unsettling question of how to base moral laws on anything without a god. I have yet to see a social system survive without any religion at all. I really wonder if one even can, given human nature.
Maybe if I make everyone like me... *works on mind-control nanobots* Need more silly now. Serious is getting dull. :p
Quote from: superluser on December 18, 2006, 03:24:06 PM
Then you are misunderstanding my argument.
To quote Fowler's Modern English Usage.... [please see superluser's postfor the rest of his argument]
superluser, your argument is interesting and I would like to address it. However, I'm not sure I have fully understood what you are saying so please feel free to correct any misunderstandings.
In everyday speech I think morality and ethics are used interchangeably; I doubt someone would ask me to be specific if I used ethics instead of morality. I do agree with the quote you posted however that morality is a word more associated with religion than ethics.
Formally, I have always understood morality to be the standards of right and wrong conduct that an individual (or society) has; ethics is the science through which such standards are analyzed and developed (though meta-ethics is a little different). A moral person is someone who corresponds to the moral standards of their community (or my community, depending on my point of view... however, I am deliberately not addressing the issue of universal moral values). As such atheists could have personal moralities. I think the point is that your moral standards allow you to make choices without having to constantly go through the ethical "proof" of that standard; the same way I can use mathematical formula without having to formally prove it every time.
Quote from: Alondro on December 18, 2006, 03:37:33 PM
One of the things I most dislike about atheism is those who wish to do away with certain laws because they have a religious basis. There are only two ways to interpret that. Either they have no idea what would becoem legal if we did that, or they do know and want to do those things. Let's all imagine what would be legal if we took away all religious-based laws and left certain things to 'personal preference'.
Amsterdam.
.....
It doesn't give any proof of God, of course. But it does bring up the unsettling question of how to base moral laws on anything without a god. I have yet to see a social system survive without any religion at all. I really wonder if one even can, given human nature.
Of course, atheists are as guilty of stereotyping as anyone else (he/she/it is religious therefore bad). This is why I don't think atheists are inherently better than religious people (their beliefs may be, but that is another discussion). There are plenty of religious standards that I agree with.
Ah, Amsterdam.... I have been there. I have been to the red light district in the middle of the night. It was a profoundly disturbing experience for me, so much so that I was almost unable to speak for the next day. (And this isn't the sex or pot or the prostitutes I'm talking about either, there is a lot of other stuff that goes on there.) But there were many fun things too, though it took me a while to realize it. It's pretty cool to be walking down the street and say to yourself "hey, I could pay for sex or some pot or go into this sex shop if I want." I may not want to (and I didn't), but you have no idea how liberating it is to not have the government over you with it's magnifying glass. I try to be moral because I want to be moral; not because someone tells me I have to.
Yeah, there are a lot of people there who have ruined their lives with drugs, etc. Unlike America where they are illegal? I think it's better to have it out in the open... if I had ever had any inclination to do drugs it would be gone - totally, totally gone - after my night there. These things are going to happen, period. Amsterdam is just open about it.
As for the unsettling question of how to base moral laws on anything without a god... well, yeah. It's not that easy even with a god. This is the problem Nietzsche knew our culture would have to face. I think this is something people need to talk about though; not just say "You are a brain-dead Christian! No, you are an immoral atheist!" I certainly don't have the answer.
Just to make it clear: "Atheism" does not equal "Nialism"... but I think that concept has been taken in hand already.
also, I think it would be best to have some examples of Morals and Examples of Ethics...
something like "Killing someone for your own gain" or "Stealing is ok, if you are trying to feed your family"
I mean, I think examples of which is which would be helpful, especially if the examples are similar.
Link (http://www.shakytable.com/wp-images/honestinquisition.gif)
Quote from: fesworks on December 18, 2006, 08:03:23 PMJust to make it clear: "Atheism" does not equal "Nialism"... but I think that concept has been taken in hand already.
Ahem, ``nihilism.'' In Latin, `nihil' means `nothing.' Coming from a Latin background, I always pronounce it ni-hil-iz-em, but I guess that's wrong in English.
Quote from: fesworks on December 18, 2006, 08:03:23 PMalso, I think it would be best to have some examples of Morals and Examples of Ethics...
I would, but first I should introduce you to something called the ``Chinese Room (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room).'' In this adaptation, there is a man in a room and every so often, someone will slip a piece of paper under the door. The paper will contain a moral question, written in Chinese. The man cannot read Chinese, but has a large book which tells him, based on what is written on the paper, what to write back.
Is the man moral? Can he even be said to be ethical? He doesn't even have a clue if what he's writing is sound advice, or even Chinese.
Moving on to your examples, a moral rationale for stealing to feed your family might be, ``As David took the showbread to feed his men, so can I steal to feed my family.'' An ethical one might be, ``If my family dies, then they cannot pass on their genes, and the diversity of the species is endangered.'' An ethical one based on moral precepts might be, ``Man is more important than money, therefore I can steal to feed my family.''
(fun to note is that you never specified that he was stealing food. He could be stealing cars and selling them to feed his family; the moral and ethical calculus are the same for these arguments)
Morals and ethics need not be what is generally considered positive, either. For example, a bad moral might be, ``Killing someone for your own gain is good because I'm Jim Jones, and God.'' A similar ethical argument might be, ``Killing someone for your own gain is right if you will give more back to society than you and the other person would have been able to do together.''
The situations and outcomes are the same. The only difference is what the person is thinking.
Anyways, if you want more examples, PM me; this is getting pretty long.
P.S.
Quote from: Netami on December 18, 2006, 09:01:11 PMLink (http://www.shakytable.com/wp-images/honestinquisition.gif)
This is the most bizarre thing I've ever read. It appears to be aimed at Fundamentalist Hasidic Protestant Catholic Americans. Now I see where the Orange Catholic Bible came from.
It is aimed at anyone who places their faith, regarding God, in the bible or the church teachings and not in their own heart and mind.
Quote from: Netami on December 18, 2006, 09:01:11 PM
Link (http://www.shakytable.com/wp-images/honestinquisition.gif)
that's awesome!
QuoteAhem, ``nihilism.'' In Latin, `nihil' means `nothing.' Coming from a Latin background, I always pronounce it ni-hil-iz-em, but I guess that's wrong in English.
my bad, sorry.
Also, I did mean "food" in that example, but I really wanted you to make your own examples... but going with what you wrote, It seems that the "Reasoning" to do something or not is what is at hand here for determining what is ethical and what is moral.
Can't an Athiest have the belief that one should not kill because they believe that noone has the right to take a life that is not their own... which goes along the same principles of not taking property the belongs to others because it is not yours to take.
Or are you saying that this is ethics?
I'm figuring that ethics would be "I will not kill this person, because I would not like it if someone killed
me."
what about this reasoning:
"This person has done me great wrong, but he exists as a hope to so-and-so people, I can't take that away from
them.. I should not kill him."
or (unrelated to the above):
"This person has been lying to everyone, feeding off of their fears and promising false hope. I have evidence of his deciet, and with what he has done, he does not deserve to live!"
or how about:
"I am [state your name]. You have killed my parents, and now I am going to kill you."
As in duty and pride and honoring your family.
OR
"I am [state your name]. You have killed my parents, and now I am going to kill you."
For mere revenge.
My only point to presenting these ideas is for you to help me understand your reasoning a bit better... I have no (for sure) idea if these are moral, ethical, both or neither.
I'll reiterate my main argument: You say Athiests can't have morals... I say they can. You said that Morals relate to religion, I say they don't need to. (but I think you weened on that one a bit?)
How does an amusing little ebay auction turn into this?
Quote from: LigerJet on December 19, 2006, 03:10:40 AM
How does an amusing little ebay auction turn into this?
When that amusing little ebay auction's humor is drawn primarily from the fact that it is religious? :eager
Quote from: fesworks on December 19, 2006, 01:53:57 AMCan't an Athiest have the belief that one should not kill because they believe that noone has the right to take a life that is not their own... which goes along the same principles of not taking property the belongs to others because it is not yours to take.
Or are you saying that this is ethics?
That's ethics, yes. You could argue that the concept of private ownership is a moral one, but it tends to be pretty common in ethical systems.
Quote from: fesworks on December 19, 2006, 01:53:57 AMI'm figuring that ethics would be "I will not kill this person, because I would not like it if someone killed me."
This is also ethics.
Quote from: fesworks on December 19, 2006, 01:53:57 AMwhat about this reasoning:
"This person has done me great wrong, but he exists as a hope to so-and-so people, I can't take that away from them.. I should not kill him."
This is probably morals. You're making a value judgment about someone being a great hope, and that such people are inherently more deserving of life.
You might be able to make an ethical argument about it, but from the way the statement stands, it would be very difficult.
Quote from: fesworks on December 19, 2006, 01:53:57 AMor (unrelated to the above):
"This person has been lying to everyone, feeding off of their fears and promising false hope. I have evidence of his deciet, and with what he has done, he does not deserve to live!"
or how about:
"I am [state your name]. You have killed my parents, and now I am going to kill you."
As in duty and pride and honoring your family.
OR
"I am [state your name]. You have killed my parents, and now I am going to kill you."
For mere revenge.
These are all morals. In #1, the question of who `deserves' to live inherently requires a value judgment. In #2, family is given higher prominence than other people--once again, a value judgment. In #3, the speaker is seeking revenge for revenge's sake, without explaining why it might be right.
Many of these can be turned into ethical arguments by adding a few details, but from the way that they're presented, I'm calling them like I see them.
Quote from: fesworks on December 19, 2006, 01:53:57 AMMy only point to presenting these ideas is for you to help me understand your reasoning a bit better... I have no (for sure) idea if these are moral, ethical, both or neither.
It's important to reiterate that there are no cross-cultural moral or ethical absolutes, with the possible exception of mass genocide. What you might consider bad morality, I might consider good morality.
So I'm classing these based on the moral/ethical divide, not on whether or not these are good or bad, right or wrong.
Quote from: fesworks on December 19, 2006, 01:53:57 AMI'll reiterate my main argument: You say Athiests can't have morals... I say they can. You said that Morals relate to religion, I say they don't need to. (but I think you weened on that one a bit?)
I said before that I usually associate atheists with freethinkers. I'm a Libertarian, and most of the atheists/agnostics that I talk to on a regular basis are either Libertarians or Socialists, groups that tend to be heavily populated with freethinkers.
It is entirely possible to base your belief system off of Miss Manners or Ayn Rand, and while those systems were supposed to be ethical systems, you could ignore the ethics and rationale behind them and take The Fountainhead as holy writ and follow it.
But then you start running into problems defining what religion is.
I'd... probably better not read all this... >_>
Quote from: Netami on December 18, 2006, 09:01:11 PM
Link (http://www.shakytable.com/wp-images/honestinquisition.gif)
WIN! :eager
I think I understand you much better now. Good points too.
QuoteIt's important to reiterate that there are no cross-cultural moral or ethical absolutes, with the possible exception of mass genocide. What you might consider bad morality, I might consider good morality.
So I'm classing these based on the moral/ethical divide, not on whether or not these are good or bad, right or wrong.
excellent point.
Quote from: superluser on December 19, 2006, 04:44:32 AM
Quote from: fesworks on December 19, 2006, 01:53:57 AMor (unrelated to the above):
"This person has been lying to everyone, feeding off of their fears and promising false hope. I have evidence of his deciet, and with what he has done, he does not deserve to live!"
or how about:
"I am [state your name]. You have killed my parents, and now I am going to kill you."
As in duty and pride and honoring your family.
OR
"I am [state your name]. You have killed my parents, and now I am going to kill you."
For mere revenge.
These are all morals. In #1, the question of who `deserves' to live inherently requires a value judgment. In #2, family is given higher prominence than other people--once again, a value judgment. In #3, the speaker is seeking revenge for revenge's sake, without explaining why it might be right.
Many of these can be turned into ethical arguments by adding a few details, but from the way that they're presented, I'm calling them like I see them.
Quote from: fesworks on December 19, 2006, 01:53:57 AMI'll reiterate my main argument: You say Athiests can't have morals... I say they can. You said that Morals relate to religion, I say they don't need to. (but I think you weened on that one a bit?)
I said before that I usually associate atheists with freethinkers. I'm a Libertarian, and most of the atheists/agnostics that I talk to on a regular basis are either Libertarians or Socialists, groups that tend to be heavily populated with freethinkers.
It is entirely possible to base your belief system off of Miss Manners or Ayn Rand, and while those systems were supposed to be ethical systems, you could ignore the ethics and rationale behind them and take The Fountainhead as holy writ and follow it.
But then you start running into problems defining what religion is.
so do you still state that Athiests or freethinkers can't have morals? I could not tell if you merelt reworded yourself or changed you stance... because by what you defined as morals from my examples, I submit that Athiests could easily have those ideals, and thus have morals.
(I don;t wanna sound like I am beating a dead horse with this topic, but It hasn't been made specifically clear yet about that stance ;) )
Depending on your definition of atheism, atheists can probably have morals. This is a change in my reasoning.
The literal etymology of atheist would suggest that an atheist is someone who does not believe in a god or gods. This, however, would mean that Buddhists and Taoists are atheists, since they don't believe in a god or gods. They do, however, believe in reincarnation, karma, and often ascetism. A slightly broader definition would be that an atheist is someone that does not believe in preternatural phenomena.
Now we get into definitional problems. Is Confucianism a religion? From what little I understand of it, Confucius didn't intend to start a religion, but it's commonly listed as a religion. If that's a religion, does that make Objectivism a religion? Once we go that far, would it be wrong to call the instructions on a packet of toothpicks a religion?
I'm pretty sure that toothpick instructions is not a religion. Some people take Objectivism pretty far, and they might be considered religious, but I really think that the divide comes somewhere between Taoism and Confucianism.
Freethinkers cannot have morals. From Wikipedia:
``Freethought is a philosophical doctrine that holds that beliefs should be formed on the basis of science and logical principles and not be comprised by authority, tradition or any other dogmatic or other belief system that restricts logical reasoning.''
Since morals are derived from religion, and religion requires belief in preternatural phenomena, and preternatural phenomena is almost always unassailable by logic, therefore freethinkers cannot have morals.
And, as I've mentioned before, most atheists/agnostics that I know (and know are atheists/agnostics) are freethinkers.
I guess where we differ is in the athiests we know... I'd also have to say that I know no "freethinkers" as that Wiki entry defines what I previouslly associated as a "free thinker" (which would be to think for yourself and not be confined by rules... where as this "freethinker" definition seems to be the exact opposite as it is so specific and regimented in logic).
I define athiests (as well as the athiests i know) as people that don;t believe in a god, goddess, demi-gods, a great energy pool, or the "powers that may be"... basically that there is no great and powerful "sourse" or controller of thw world, etc...
as far as moral stemming from Religion... I guess I can buy that, though I can't say that morals didn't already exist before religions took them over... unless the fact that when people began to have (what would be considered "morals") became religion in and of itself? Ack... that's a seperate topic of discussion and research on it own...
I personally don;t think that what you and Wiki define a "freethinker" as can really exist.... entirely logic? I don't think its logically possible for a human to do such a thing... sooner or later our emotions will get the best of us, and emotions pretty much through basic logic out of the window.
I don't see why morals and religion would be insepperably intertwined. An atheist can regocnize the wrongness of, say, a murder as well as any other human being of sound mind, religious or not.
Quote from: Vidar on December 20, 2006, 06:44:08 AM
I don't see why morals and religion would be insepperably intertwined. An atheist can regocnize the wrongness of, say, a murder as well as any other human being of sound mind, religious or not.
I believe the point that they are trying to amke is that an atheist will have entirtly different reasons for recognizing it as such.
It's more or less a semantics thing, in that an atheist recognizing it as such is not morals, even though it is apaprently the same thing to an outside observer.
I came into this thread and noticed two things.
QuoteI see in organized religion a distillation of the failures of humanity
Quotewe should look upon the world freely and without prejudice or presumptions.
I suppose stating that one should not judge would work in this thread, considering that seems to be a rather Christian belief.
A belief that apparently doesn't get around in the louder parts.
Quote from: Aridas Soulfire on December 20, 2006, 08:01:35 PM
A belief that apparently doesn't get around in the louder parts.
It just doesn't get around, period.
The louder parts just call to mind how scarcely this belief is followed.
Quote from: fesworks on December 20, 2006, 01:07:09 AMI'd also have to say that I know no "freethinkers" as that Wiki entry defines what I previouslly associated as a "free thinker" (which would be to think for yourself and not be confined by rules... where as this "freethinker" definition seems to be the exact opposite as it is so specific and regimented in logic).
[...]
I personally don;t think that what you and Wiki define a "freethinker" as can really exist.... entirely logic? I don't think its logically possible for a human to do such a thing... sooner or later our emotions will get the best of us, and emotions pretty much through basic logic out of the window.
Whether or not a freethinker can exist, it is a goal, and so I think it's fair to say that if you try to base your actions and ethics on logic, you can call yourself a freethinker.
As to freethought and rules, the `free' here is probably referring to freedom from emotions and irrationality.
The OED defines free-thinker as ``one who refuses to submit his reason to the control of authority on matters of religious belief; a designation claimed esp. by the deistic and other rejectors of Christianity at the beginning of the 18th c.''
and free-thinking as ``the free exercise of reason in matters of religious belief, unrestrained by deference to authority; the adoption of the principles of the free thinker.''
I was hoping to find some of the earliest quotes on the topic, but they're mainly from detractors, who call free-thinkers `libertines,' ``despisers of religion,'' `pernicious,' among others.
Quote from: fesworks on December 20, 2006, 01:07:09 AMI define athiests (as well as the athiests i know) as people that don;t believe in a god, goddess, demi-gods, a great energy pool, or the "powers that may be"... basically that there is no great and powerful "sourse" or controller of thw world, etc...
Throw in ``don't believe in resurrection, reincarnation, or the afterlife,'' and I think we've got a good working definition.
Quote from: superluser on December 21, 2006, 12:22:41 AM
Whether or not a freethinker can exist, it is a goal, and so I think it's fair to say that if you try to base your actions and ethics on logic, you can call yourself a freethinker.
As to freethought and rules, the `free' here is probably referring to freedom from emotions and irrationality.
The OED defines free-thinker as ``one who refuses to submit his reason to the control of authority on matters of religious belief; a designation claimed esp. by the deistic and other rejectors of Christianity at the beginning of the 18th c.''
and free-thinking as ``the free exercise of reason in matters of religious belief, unrestrained by deference to authority; the adoption of the principles of the free thinker.''
hmmm, well i'm not going to argue that... I guess when I have always heard someone talking about being a "Free Thinker" it must be two seperate words as adjectives, and not a noun.... I think I mentioned that I think "free thinker" as in "thinking for onesself and not what others, peers, society, and "authority" tell you to , or make you think and do.... basically "Punk in the Mind"
QuoteQuote from: fesworks on December 20, 2006, 01:07:09 AMI define athiests (as well as the athiests i know) as people that don;t believe in a god, goddess, demi-gods, a great energy pool, or the "powers that may be"... basically that there is no great and powerful "sourse" or controller of thw world, etc...
Throw in ``don't believe in resurrection, reincarnation, or the afterlife,'' and I think we've got a good working definition.
Oh yea, I always forget about that part. Agreed.