| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"JPG" |
| Date: |
06 Feb 2006 07:47:12 AM |
| Object: |
An atheist's view of life's progress |
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20060206/FACTS06/TPComment/Features
An atheist's view of life's progress
With no higher power to guide, an atheist needs principles to live by,
says SUDHIR JAIN
SUDHIR JAIN
Atheists believe that the Creator, if any, has no interest in the
living beings and there is no life after death. There is no soul which
will enjoy the heavenly bliss or roast in hell for eternity. With no
scriptures to guide them and homogenize their opinions, atheists have
very divergent views. Therefore, I speak only for myself not for
atheists in general.
Most believers in an omnipotent God had this belief planted in them in
early childhood and they never saw any reason to think otherwise. In
other cases, the person did not have any particular faith until a
disaster struck and the idea of a Superpower provided much-needed
solace. This may be a partial explanation for recent resurgence of
religion. The increasing prosperity after industrial revolution made
Superpower superfluous to many people. However, insecure jobs, gang
warfare, terrorist activities, global warming, overpopulation, blatant
consumerism, etc., are stressing people beyond their endurance and they
are returning to the virtual arms of the saviour. Places of worship are
filling again with "born again" Christians, Hindus and Muslims.
In my childhood in India, my devout Hindu parents did not force
religion on the children. Their sons were free to choose different
paths as long as they were "good" boys. My oldest brother was always
very religious. The other brother was an agnostic but turned to God in
his 40s. I have been an atheist for as long as I can remember. I was a
voracious reader as a child and read many religious books. This study
convinced me that while the enunciated principles were noble, God and
soul were merely tools to force obeisance and they were not meant for
me. Further reading about other religions in later life confirmed this
belief.
With no higher power to guide, an atheist needs principles to live by.
Principles help in deciding what to do when there is no time to think.
A religious person prays when confronted by a tough problem. An atheist
falls back on his principles: what will be the right thing to do? A
selfish person decides to act in his interest irrespective of how
harmful it is to others. Many apparently religious people probably fall
in this group, too, just as many atheists could be included in the
group of kindly persons who help others, often at considerable
inconvenience.
The basic principle in my life is the common element in all religions:
Do unto others what you wish them to do to you. When someone does me an
unpleasant turn, I try not to retaliate. My efforts are geared toward
making other person feel better. Vengeance is the urge to do unto
others what they do to you and it is a sin in all religions. I wish to
avoid sins because I believe that what goes round comes around in this
life.
All good behaviour has the source in this principle. Be fair and honest
because you want others to be fair and honest to you. Do not lie to
colleagues because you don't want to be lied to. Help a person in
distress because you will be in distress some day. The sages have
differed through the ages about the degree to which one must sacrifice
his interest for others. But no one has ever recommended looking after
numero uno irrespective of other numerals. One should not need to fear
the punishment from God to follow this basic idea to a reasonable
degree.
One observation helps me keep my equanimity; good and bad events even
out over a period. Therefore, I do not go overboard with joy in good
times or suffer depression in bad times, expecting the pendulum to
swing before long. My temperament also helps; I am a problem solver.
When in trouble, I focus on possible solutions, concentrating on
minimizing the damage and coming out as whole as possible. This leaves
little time to feel helpless. I have been able to cope with my problems
so far with my internal resources. I do hope that I will tackle
whatever comes with the ability I have at that time.
Prayer gives people of faith strength and they believe that praying for
the well-being of a suffering individual transmits the strength to the
ailing. What does an atheist do to find this strength? When a task
appears to be beyond his capacity, rather than praying "God, give me
strength," an atheist says "Come on, you can do it." Sometimes he does
it, other times he can't. But prayers do not achieve results every
time, either. Does a non-believer benefit from the prayers of the
well-wishers? Recently I spent three days lost in a dense forest. While
I appreciate the kind thoughts behind the prayers of my religious
friends, I was not conscious of any strength transmitted by them.
What is the purpose of life on this planet? Religions state that we are
here for the glory of God who, if we let Him, guides us to our
salvation. I believe in a humble purpose: to discharge my
responsibilities to the best of my ability, to serve my family,
community and the humanity at large and live a lifestyle where I
contribute to society more than I take from it. I strive towards this
ideal, with what success is not for me to judge.
Sudhir Jain lives in Calgary.
.
|
|
| User: "Jim07D6" |
|
| Title: Re: An atheist's view of life's progress |
06 Feb 2006 10:19:27 AM |
|
|
"JPG" <j_peasemold_gruntfuttock@hotmail.com> said:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20060206/FACTS06/TPComment/Features
An atheist's view of life's progress
With no higher power to guide, an atheist needs principles to live by,
says SUDHIR JAIN
SUDHIR JAIN
Atheists believe that the Creator, if any, has no interest in the
living beings and there is no life after death. There is no soul which
will enjoy the heavenly bliss or roast in hell for eternity. With no
scriptures to guide them and homogenize their opinions, atheists have
very divergent views. Therefore, I speak only for myself not for
atheists in general.
Most believers in an omnipotent God had this belief planted in them in
early childhood and they never saw any reason to think otherwise. In
other cases, the person did not have any particular faith until a
disaster struck and the idea of a Superpower provided much-needed
solace. This may be a partial explanation for recent resurgence of
religion. The increasing prosperity after industrial revolution made
Superpower superfluous to many people. However, insecure jobs, gang
warfare, terrorist activities, global warming, overpopulation, blatant
consumerism, etc., are stressing people beyond their endurance and they
are returning to the virtual arms of the saviour. Places of worship are
filling again with "born again" Christians, Hindus and Muslims.
In my childhood in India, my devout Hindu parents did not force
religion on the children. Their sons were free to choose different
paths as long as they were "good" boys. My oldest brother was always
very religious. The other brother was an agnostic but turned to God in
his 40s. I have been an atheist for as long as I can remember. I was a
voracious reader as a child and read many religious books. This study
convinced me that while the enunciated principles were noble, God and
soul were merely tools to force obeisance and they were not meant for
me. Further reading about other religions in later life confirmed this
belief.
With no higher power to guide, an atheist needs principles to live by.
Principles help in deciding what to do when there is no time to think.
A religious person prays when confronted by a tough problem. An atheist
falls back on his principles: what will be the right thing to do? A
selfish person decides to act in his interest irrespective of how
harmful it is to others. Many apparently religious people probably fall
in this group, too, just as many atheists could be included in the
group of kindly persons who help others, often at considerable
inconvenience.
The basic principle in my life is the common element in all religions:
Do unto others what you wish them to do to you. When someone does me an
unpleasant turn, I try not to retaliate. My efforts are geared toward
making other person feel better. Vengeance is the urge to do unto
others what they do to you and it is a sin in all religions. I wish to
avoid sins because I believe that what goes round comes around in this
life.
All good behaviour has the source in this principle. Be fair and honest
because you want others to be fair and honest to you. Do not lie to
colleagues because you don't want to be lied to. Help a person in
distress because you will be in distress some day. The sages have
differed through the ages about the degree to which one must sacrifice
his interest for others. But no one has ever recommended looking after
numero uno irrespective of other numerals. One should not need to fear
the punishment from God to follow this basic idea to a reasonable
degree.
One observation helps me keep my equanimity; good and bad events even
out over a period. Therefore, I do not go overboard with joy in good
times or suffer depression in bad times, expecting the pendulum to
swing before long. My temperament also helps; I am a problem solver.
When in trouble, I focus on possible solutions, concentrating on
minimizing the damage and coming out as whole as possible. This leaves
little time to feel helpless. I have been able to cope with my problems
so far with my internal resources. I do hope that I will tackle
whatever comes with the ability I have at that time.
Prayer gives people of faith strength and they believe that praying for
the well-being of a suffering individual transmits the strength to the
ailing. What does an atheist do to find this strength? When a task
appears to be beyond his capacity, rather than praying "God, give me
strength," an atheist says "Come on, you can do it." Sometimes he does
it, other times he can't. But prayers do not achieve results every
time, either. Does a non-believer benefit from the prayers of the
well-wishers? Recently I spent three days lost in a dense forest. While
I appreciate the kind thoughts behind the prayers of my religious
friends, I was not conscious of any strength transmitted by them.
What is the purpose of life on this planet? Religions state that we are
here for the glory of God who, if we let Him, guides us to our
salvation. I believe in a humble purpose: to discharge my
responsibilities to the best of my ability, to serve my family,
community and the humanity at large and live a lifestyle where I
contribute to society more than I take from it. I strive towards this
ideal, with what success is not for me to judge.
Sudhir Jain lives in Calgary.
The difference between theists and atheists is not so great. The same
motivations to have moral principles drive the theist as the atheist.
The difference is that the theist enshrines his results in religion.
Religion has two aspects that are troublesome for atheists - its
tendency toward authoritarianism calling for unthinking obedience, and
its divisiveness. Not to mention the infantilism of the
reward/punishment model of moral motivation. The atheist might
enshrine his morality, but it not in religion, the above writer seems
to be embracing Humanism, where the good of humanity is the ultimate
basis of moral value. Others might expand this to something like the
Gaia theory.
--- Jim07D6
.
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: An atheist's view of life's progress |
06 Feb 2006 11:48:17 AM |
|
|
"Jim07D6" <Jim07D6@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:89teu1h9dlmuafj319krpugtsqecq1cb7q@4ax.com...
"JPG" <j_peasemold_gruntfuttock@hotmail.com> said:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20060206/FACTS06/TPComment/Features
An atheist's view of life's progress
With no higher power to guide, an atheist needs principles to live by,
says SUDHIR JAIN
SUDHIR JAIN
Atheists believe that the Creator, if any, has no interest in the
living beings and there is no life after death. There is no soul which
will enjoy the heavenly bliss or roast in hell for eternity. With no
scriptures to guide them and homogenize their opinions, atheists have
very divergent views. Therefore, I speak only for myself not for
atheists in general.
Most believers in an omnipotent God had this belief planted in them in
early childhood and they never saw any reason to think otherwise. In
other cases, the person did not have any particular faith until a
disaster struck and the idea of a Superpower provided much-needed
solace. This may be a partial explanation for recent resurgence of
religion. The increasing prosperity after industrial revolution made
Superpower superfluous to many people. However, insecure jobs, gang
warfare, terrorist activities, global warming, overpopulation, blatant
consumerism, etc., are stressing people beyond their endurance and they
are returning to the virtual arms of the saviour. Places of worship are
filling again with "born again" Christians, Hindus and Muslims.
In my childhood in India, my devout Hindu parents did not force
religion on the children. Their sons were free to choose different
paths as long as they were "good" boys. My oldest brother was always
very religious. The other brother was an agnostic but turned to God in
his 40s. I have been an atheist for as long as I can remember. I was a
voracious reader as a child and read many religious books. This study
convinced me that while the enunciated principles were noble, God and
soul were merely tools to force obeisance and they were not meant for
me. Further reading about other religions in later life confirmed this
belief.
With no higher power to guide, an atheist needs principles to live by.
Principles help in deciding what to do when there is no time to think.
A religious person prays when confronted by a tough problem. An atheist
falls back on his principles: what will be the right thing to do? A
selfish person decides to act in his interest irrespective of how
harmful it is to others. Many apparently religious people probably fall
in this group, too, just as many atheists could be included in the
group of kindly persons who help others, often at considerable
inconvenience.
The basic principle in my life is the common element in all religions:
Do unto others what you wish them to do to you. When someone does me an
unpleasant turn, I try not to retaliate. My efforts are geared toward
making other person feel better. Vengeance is the urge to do unto
others what they do to you and it is a sin in all religions. I wish to
avoid sins because I believe that what goes round comes around in this
life.
All good behaviour has the source in this principle. Be fair and honest
because you want others to be fair and honest to you. Do not lie to
colleagues because you don't want to be lied to. Help a person in
distress because you will be in distress some day. The sages have
differed through the ages about the degree to which one must sacrifice
his interest for others. But no one has ever recommended looking after
numero uno irrespective of other numerals. One should not need to fear
the punishment from God to follow this basic idea to a reasonable
degree.
One observation helps me keep my equanimity; good and bad events even
out over a period. Therefore, I do not go overboard with joy in good
times or suffer depression in bad times, expecting the pendulum to
swing before long. My temperament also helps; I am a problem solver.
When in trouble, I focus on possible solutions, concentrating on
minimizing the damage and coming out as whole as possible. This leaves
little time to feel helpless. I have been able to cope with my problems
so far with my internal resources. I do hope that I will tackle
whatever comes with the ability I have at that time.
Prayer gives people of faith strength and they believe that praying for
the well-being of a suffering individual transmits the strength to the
ailing. What does an atheist do to find this strength? When a task
appears to be beyond his capacity, rather than praying "God, give me
strength," an atheist says "Come on, you can do it." Sometimes he does
it, other times he can't. But prayers do not achieve results every
time, either. Does a non-believer benefit from the prayers of the
well-wishers? Recently I spent three days lost in a dense forest. While
I appreciate the kind thoughts behind the prayers of my religious
friends, I was not conscious of any strength transmitted by them.
What is the purpose of life on this planet? Religions state that we are
here for the glory of God who, if we let Him, guides us to our
salvation. I believe in a humble purpose: to discharge my
responsibilities to the best of my ability, to serve my family,
community and the humanity at large and live a lifestyle where I
contribute to society more than I take from it. I strive towards this
ideal, with what success is not for me to judge.
Sudhir Jain lives in Calgary.
The difference between theists and atheists is not so great. The same
motivations to have moral principles drive the theist as the atheist.
I don't think so. The atheist has morality, the theist has only obedience.
The atheist has to know why what he does is good or bad because he invented
his morality himself.
The theist can never know the reason the god decides one thing is good and
the other bad.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim07D6" |
|
| Title: Re: An atheist's view of life's progress |
06 Feb 2006 11:56:05 AM |
|
|
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> said:
"Jim07D6" <Jim07D6@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:89teu1h9dlmuafj319krpugtsqecq1cb7q@4ax.com...
"JPG" <j_peasemold_gruntfuttock@hotmail.com> said:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20060206/FACTS06/TPComment/Features
An atheist's view of life's progress
With no higher power to guide, an atheist needs principles to live by,
says SUDHIR JAIN
SUDHIR JAIN
Atheists believe that the Creator, if any, has no interest in the
living beings and there is no life after death. There is no soul which
will enjoy the heavenly bliss or roast in hell for eternity. With no
scriptures to guide them and homogenize their opinions, atheists have
very divergent views. Therefore, I speak only for myself not for
atheists in general.
Most believers in an omnipotent God had this belief planted in them in
early childhood and they never saw any reason to think otherwise. In
other cases, the person did not have any particular faith until a
disaster struck and the idea of a Superpower provided much-needed
solace. This may be a partial explanation for recent resurgence of
religion. The increasing prosperity after industrial revolution made
Superpower superfluous to many people. However, insecure jobs, gang
warfare, terrorist activities, global warming, overpopulation, blatant
consumerism, etc., are stressing people beyond their endurance and they
are returning to the virtual arms of the saviour. Places of worship are
filling again with "born again" Christians, Hindus and Muslims.
In my childhood in India, my devout Hindu parents did not force
religion on the children. Their sons were free to choose different
paths as long as they were "good" boys. My oldest brother was always
very religious. The other brother was an agnostic but turned to God in
his 40s. I have been an atheist for as long as I can remember. I was a
voracious reader as a child and read many religious books. This study
convinced me that while the enunciated principles were noble, God and
soul were merely tools to force obeisance and they were not meant for
me. Further reading about other religions in later life confirmed this
belief.
With no higher power to guide, an atheist needs principles to live by.
Principles help in deciding what to do when there is no time to think.
A religious person prays when confronted by a tough problem. An atheist
falls back on his principles: what will be the right thing to do? A
selfish person decides to act in his interest irrespective of how
harmful it is to others. Many apparently religious people probably fall
in this group, too, just as many atheists could be included in the
group of kindly persons who help others, often at considerable
inconvenience.
The basic principle in my life is the common element in all religions:
Do unto others what you wish them to do to you. When someone does me an
unpleasant turn, I try not to retaliate. My efforts are geared toward
making other person feel better. Vengeance is the urge to do unto
others what they do to you and it is a sin in all religions. I wish to
avoid sins because I believe that what goes round comes around in this
life.
All good behaviour has the source in this principle. Be fair and honest
because you want others to be fair and honest to you. Do not lie to
colleagues because you don't want to be lied to. Help a person in
distress because you will be in distress some day. The sages have
differed through the ages about the degree to which one must sacrifice
his interest for others. But no one has ever recommended looking after
numero uno irrespective of other numerals. One should not need to fear
the punishment from God to follow this basic idea to a reasonable
degree.
One observation helps me keep my equanimity; good and bad events even
out over a period. Therefore, I do not go overboard with joy in good
times or suffer depression in bad times, expecting the pendulum to
swing before long. My temperament also helps; I am a problem solver.
When in trouble, I focus on possible solutions, concentrating on
minimizing the damage and coming out as whole as possible. This leaves
little time to feel helpless. I have been able to cope with my problems
so far with my internal resources. I do hope that I will tackle
whatever comes with the ability I have at that time.
Prayer gives people of faith strength and they believe that praying for
the well-being of a suffering individual transmits the strength to the
ailing. What does an atheist do to find this strength? When a task
appears to be beyond his capacity, rather than praying "God, give me
strength," an atheist says "Come on, you can do it." Sometimes he does
it, other times he can't. But prayers do not achieve results every
time, either. Does a non-believer benefit from the prayers of the
well-wishers? Recently I spent three days lost in a dense forest. While
I appreciate the kind thoughts behind the prayers of my religious
friends, I was not conscious of any strength transmitted by them.
What is the purpose of life on this planet? Religions state that we are
here for the glory of God who, if we let Him, guides us to our
salvation. I believe in a humble purpose: to discharge my
responsibilities to the best of my ability, to serve my family,
community and the humanity at large and live a lifestyle where I
contribute to society more than I take from it. I strive towards this
ideal, with what success is not for me to judge.
Sudhir Jain lives in Calgary.
The difference between theists and atheists is not so great. The same
motivations to have moral principles drive the theist as the atheist.
I don't think so. The atheist has morality, the theist has only obedience.
I said as much in what you clipped, Denis, by talking about the
authoritarianism and reward/punishment structures inherent in
religious morality. Maybe not emphatic enough for you?.
The atheist has to know why what he does is good or bad because he invented
his morality himself.
IMO like many theists, many atheists inherit their key moral values
from their parents, consciously and unconsciously, and never get down
to the brass tacks of starting from scratch.
The theist can never know the reason the god decides one thing is good and
the other bad.
Of course not. If God has reasons, then God is the slave of some
higher moral standard. It's a variation of the Euthryphro Dilemma.
--- Jim07D6
.
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: An atheist's view of life's progress |
06 Feb 2006 04:41:56 PM |
|
|
"Jim07D6" <Jim07D6@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:s53fu1tmpsrtiiun72pglpq22ievd1bm5c@4ax.com...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> said:
"Jim07D6" <Jim07D6@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:89teu1h9dlmuafj319krpugtsqecq1cb7q@4ax.com...
"JPG" <j_peasemold_gruntfuttock@hotmail.com> said:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20060206/FACTS06/TPComment/Features
An atheist's view of life's progress
With no higher power to guide, an atheist needs principles to live by,
says SUDHIR JAIN
SUDHIR JAIN
Atheists believe that the Creator, if any, has no interest in the
living beings and there is no life after death. There is no soul which
will enjoy the heavenly bliss or roast in hell for eternity. With no
scriptures to guide them and homogenize their opinions, atheists have
very divergent views. Therefore, I speak only for myself not for
atheists in general.
Most believers in an omnipotent God had this belief planted in them in
early childhood and they never saw any reason to think otherwise. In
other cases, the person did not have any particular faith until a
disaster struck and the idea of a Superpower provided much-needed
solace. This may be a partial explanation for recent resurgence of
religion. The increasing prosperity after industrial revolution made
Superpower superfluous to many people. However, insecure jobs, gang
warfare, terrorist activities, global warming, overpopulation, blatant
consumerism, etc., are stressing people beyond their endurance and they
are returning to the virtual arms of the saviour. Places of worship are
filling again with "born again" Christians, Hindus and Muslims.
In my childhood in India, my devout Hindu parents did not force
religion on the children. Their sons were free to choose different
paths as long as they were "good" boys. My oldest brother was always
very religious. The other brother was an agnostic but turned to God in
his 40s. I have been an atheist for as long as I can remember. I was a
voracious reader as a child and read many religious books. This study
convinced me that while the enunciated principles were noble, God and
soul were merely tools to force obeisance and they were not meant for
me. Further reading about other religions in later life confirmed this
belief.
With no higher power to guide, an atheist needs principles to live by.
Principles help in deciding what to do when there is no time to think.
A religious person prays when confronted by a tough problem. An atheist
falls back on his principles: what will be the right thing to do? A
selfish person decides to act in his interest irrespective of how
harmful it is to others. Many apparently religious people probably fall
in this group, too, just as many atheists could be included in the
group of kindly persons who help others, often at considerable
inconvenience.
The basic principle in my life is the common element in all religions:
Do unto others what you wish them to do to you. When someone does me an
unpleasant turn, I try not to retaliate. My efforts are geared toward
making other person feel better. Vengeance is the urge to do unto
others what they do to you and it is a sin in all religions. I wish to
avoid sins because I believe that what goes round comes around in this
life.
All good behaviour has the source in this principle. Be fair and honest
because you want others to be fair and honest to you. Do not lie to
colleagues because you don't want to be lied to. Help a person in
distress because you will be in distress some day. The sages have
differed through the ages about the degree to which one must sacrifice
his interest for others. But no one has ever recommended looking after
numero uno irrespective of other numerals. One should not need to fear
the punishment from God to follow this basic idea to a reasonable
degree.
One observation helps me keep my equanimity; good and bad events even
out over a period. Therefore, I do not go overboard with joy in good
times or suffer depression in bad times, expecting the pendulum to
swing before long. My temperament also helps; I am a problem solver.
When in trouble, I focus on possible solutions, concentrating on
minimizing the damage and coming out as whole as possible. This leaves
little time to feel helpless. I have been able to cope with my problems
so far with my internal resources. I do hope that I will tackle
whatever comes with the ability I have at that time.
Prayer gives people of faith strength and they believe that praying for
the well-being of a suffering individual transmits the strength to the
ailing. What does an atheist do to find this strength? When a task
appears to be beyond his capacity, rather than praying "God, give me
strength," an atheist says "Come on, you can do it." Sometimes he does
it, other times he can't. But prayers do not achieve results every
time, either. Does a non-believer benefit from the prayers of the
well-wishers? Recently I spent three days lost in a dense forest. While
I appreciate the kind thoughts behind the prayers of my religious
friends, I was not conscious of any strength transmitted by them.
What is the purpose of life on this planet? Religions state that we are
here for the glory of God who, if we let Him, guides us to our
salvation. I believe in a humble purpose: to discharge my
responsibilities to the best of my ability, to serve my family,
community and the humanity at large and live a lifestyle where I
contribute to society more than I take from it. I strive towards this
ideal, with what success is not for me to judge.
Sudhir Jain lives in Calgary.
The difference between theists and atheists is not so great. The same
motivations to have moral principles drive the theist as the atheist.
I don't think so. The atheist has morality, the theist has only obedience.
I said as much in what you clipped, Denis, by talking about the
authoritarianism and reward/punishment structures inherent in
religious morality. Maybe not emphatic enough for you?.
DOH!
That'll teach me to read for comprehension! ;-)
The atheist has to know why what he does is good or bad because he
invented
his morality himself.
IMO like many theists, many atheists inherit their key moral values
from their parents, consciously and unconsciously, and never get down
to the brass tacks of starting from scratch.
Granted. But I'm not sure there's a retribution of fire-and-brimstone for
just questioning the morals your parents left you with.
The theist can never know the reason the god decides one thing is good and
the other bad.
Of course not. If God has reasons, then God is the slave of some
higher moral standard. It's a variation of the Euthryphro Dilemma.
Exactly!
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
http://www.ashenempires.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim07D6" |
|
| Title: Re: An atheist's view of life's progress |
06 Feb 2006 04:55:49 PM |
|
|
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> said:
"Jim07D6" <Jim07D6@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:s53fu1tmpsrtiiun72pglpq22ievd1bm5c@4ax.com...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> said:
<...>
The atheist has to know why what he does is good or bad because he
invented
his morality himself.
IMO like many theists, many atheists inherit their key moral values
from their parents, consciously and unconsciously, and never get down
to the brass tacks of starting from scratch.
Granted. But I'm not sure there's a retribution of fire-and-brimstone for
just questioning the morals your parents left you with.
That's the first question. ;-)
--- Jim07D6
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bullet" |
|
| Title: Re: An atheist's view of life's progress |
14 Feb 2006 01:36:17 PM |
|
|
"Jim07D6" <Jim07D6@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:gtkfu1d10usjntefv6k0ihrvdfn77d4kcq@4ax.com...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> said:
"Jim07D6" <Jim07D6@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:s53fu1tmpsrtiiun72pglpq22ievd1bm5c@4ax.com...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> said:
<...>
The atheist has to know why what he does is good or bad because he
invented
his morality himself.
IMO like many theists, many atheists inherit their key moral values
from their parents, consciously and unconsciously, and never get down
to the brass tacks of starting from scratch.
Granted. But I'm not sure there's a retribution of fire-and-brimstone for
just questioning the morals your parents left you with.
That's the first question. ;-)
--- Jim07D6
An eternal life of damnation vs. an eternal life in paradise? How can that
be cosidered a legitimate question? Is there any way to know the answer in
the human experience?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bullet" |
|
| Title: Re: An atheist's view of life's progress |
07 Feb 2006 11:40:34 AM |
|
|
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:vIWdncCN39TWFnrenZ2dnUVZ_sSdnZ2d@io.com...
"Jim07D6" <Jim07D6@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:89teu1h9dlmuafj319krpugtsqecq1cb7q@4ax.com...
"JPG" <j_peasemold_gruntfuttock@hotmail.com> said:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20060206/FA
CTS06/TPComment/Features
An atheist's view of life's progress
With no higher power to guide, an atheist needs principles to live by,
says SUDHIR JAIN
SUDHIR JAIN
Atheists believe that the Creator, if any, has no interest in the
living beings and there is no life after death. There is no soul which
will enjoy the heavenly bliss or roast in hell for eternity. With no
scriptures to guide them and homogenize their opinions, atheists have
very divergent views. Therefore, I speak only for myself not for
atheists in general.
Most believers in an omnipotent God had this belief planted in them in
early childhood and they never saw any reason to think otherwise. In
other cases, the person did not have any particular faith until a
disaster struck and the idea of a Superpower provided much-needed
solace. This may be a partial explanation for recent resurgence of
religion. The increasing prosperity after industrial revolution made
Superpower superfluous to many people. However, insecure jobs, gang
warfare, terrorist activities, global warming, overpopulation, blatant
consumerism, etc., are stressing people beyond their endurance and they
are returning to the virtual arms of the saviour. Places of worship are
filling again with "born again" Christians, Hindus and Muslims.
In my childhood in India, my devout Hindu parents did not force
religion on the children. Their sons were free to choose different
paths as long as they were "good" boys. My oldest brother was always
very religious. The other brother was an agnostic but turned to God in
his 40s. I have been an atheist for as long as I can remember. I was a
voracious reader as a child and read many religious books. This study
convinced me that while the enunciated principles were noble, God and
soul were merely tools to force obeisance and they were not meant for
me. Further reading about other religions in later life confirmed this
belief.
With no higher power to guide, an atheist needs principles to live by.
Principles help in deciding what to do when there is no time to think.
A religious person prays when confronted by a tough problem. An atheist
falls back on his principles: what will be the right thing to do? A
selfish person decides to act in his interest irrespective of how
harmful it is to others. Many apparently religious people probably fall
in this group, too, just as many atheists could be included in the
group of kindly persons who help others, often at considerable
inconvenience.
The basic principle in my life is the common element in all religions:
Do unto others what you wish them to do to you. When someone does me an
unpleasant turn, I try not to retaliate. My efforts are geared toward
making other person feel better. Vengeance is the urge to do unto
others what they do to you and it is a sin in all religions. I wish to
avoid sins because I believe that what goes round comes around in this
life.
All good behaviour has the source in this principle. Be fair and honest
because you want others to be fair and honest to you. Do not lie to
colleagues because you don't want to be lied to. Help a person in
distress because you will be in distress some day. The sages have
differed through the ages about the degree to which one must sacrifice
his interest for others. But no one has ever recommended looking after
numero uno irrespective of other numerals. One should not need to fear
the punishment from God to follow this basic idea to a reasonable
degree.
One observation helps me keep my equanimity; good and bad events even
out over a period. Therefore, I do not go overboard with joy in good
times or suffer depression in bad times, expecting the pendulum to
swing before long. My temperament also helps; I am a problem solver.
When in trouble, I focus on possible solutions, concentrating on
minimizing the damage and coming out as whole as possible. This leaves
little time to feel helpless. I have been able to cope with my problems
so far with my internal resources. I do hope that I will tackle
whatever comes with the ability I have at that time.
Prayer gives people of faith strength and they believe that praying for
the well-being of a suffering individual transmits the strength to the
ailing. What does an atheist do to find this strength? When a task
appears to be beyond his capacity, rather than praying "God, give me
strength," an atheist says "Come on, you can do it." Sometimes he does
it, other times he can't. But prayers do not achieve results every
time, either. Does a non-believer benefit from the prayers of the
well-wishers? Recently I spent three days lost in a dense forest. While
I appreciate the kind thoughts behind the prayers of my religious
friends, I was not conscious of any strength transmitted by them.
What is the purpose of life on this planet? Religions state that we are
here for the glory of God who, if we let Him, guides us to our
salvation. I believe in a humble purpose: to discharge my
responsibilities to the best of my ability, to serve my family,
community and the humanity at large and live a lifestyle where I
contribute to society more than I take from it. I strive towards this
ideal, with what success is not for me to judge.
Sudhir Jain lives in Calgary.
The difference between theists and atheists is not so great. The same
motivations to have moral principles drive the theist as the atheist.
I don't think so. The atheist has morality, the theist has only obedience.
The atheist has to know why what he does is good or bad because he
invented
his morality himself.
Speak for yourself. I am atheist agnostic and I did not in any way invent my
code of ethics; I do what I do because it is the right thing to do. Doing
otherwise, like engaging in the popular sport of making war, creates an
absurd state of affairs among humans. We know better!
The theist can never know the reason the god decides one thing is good and
the other bad.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
.
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: An atheist's view of life's progress |
07 Feb 2006 01:40:05 PM |
|
|
"Bullet" <b@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:AqmdnX56FtDSRnXeRVn-uA@comcast.com...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:vIWdncCN39TWFnrenZ2dnUVZ_sSdnZ2d@io.com...
"Jim07D6" <Jim07D6@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:89teu1h9dlmuafj319krpugtsqecq1cb7q@4ax.com...
"JPG" <j_peasemold_gruntfuttock@hotmail.com> said:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20060206/FA
CTS06/TPComment/Features
(snip)
The difference between theists and atheists is not so great. The same
motivations to have moral principles drive the theist as the atheist.
I don't think so. The atheist has morality, the theist has only
obedience.
The atheist has to know why what he does is good or bad because he
invented
his morality himself.
Speak for yourself. I am atheist agnostic and I did not in any way invent
my
code of ethics; I do what I do because it is the right thing to do.
How do you know it's the right thing to do?
Doing
otherwise, like engaging in the popular sport of making war, creates an
absurd state of affairs among humans. We know better!
I can't respond until I know how you determine the right thing to do.
The theist can never know the reason the god decides one thing is good
and
the other bad.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
http://www.ashenempires.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim07D6" |
|
| Title: Re: An atheist's view of life's progress |
07 Feb 2006 02:00:52 PM |
|
|
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> said:
"Bullet" <b@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:AqmdnX56FtDSRnXeRVn-uA@comcast.com...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:vIWdncCN39TWFnrenZ2dnUVZ_sSdnZ2d@io.com...
"Jim07D6" <Jim07D6@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:89teu1h9dlmuafj319krpugtsqecq1cb7q@4ax.com...
"JPG" <j_peasemold_gruntfuttock@hotmail.com> said:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20060206/FA
CTS06/TPComment/Features
(snip)
The difference between theists and atheists is not so great. The same
motivations to have moral principles drive the theist as the atheist.
I don't think so. The atheist has morality, the theist has only
obedience.
The atheist has to know why what he does is good or bad because he
invented
his morality himself.
Speak for yourself. I am atheist agnostic and I did not in any way invent
my
code of ethics; I do what I do because it is the right thing to do.
How do you know it's the right thing to do?
He's so closeted a theist, he doesn't even know he has a theistic
approach to morality. Absolutism is like that.
--- Jim07D6
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bullet" |
|
| Title: Re: An atheist's view of life's progress |
13 Feb 2006 01:36:44 PM |
|
|
"Jim07D6" <Jim07D6@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:p7uhu1tbmse01lavcd6mic973rv3vn0bv7@4ax.com...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> said:
"Bullet" <b@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:AqmdnX56FtDSRnXeRVn-uA@comcast.com...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:vIWdncCN39TWFnrenZ2dnUVZ_sSdnZ2d@io.com...
"Jim07D6" <Jim07D6@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:89teu1h9dlmuafj319krpugtsqecq1cb7q@4ax.com...
"JPG" <j_peasemold_gruntfuttock@hotmail.com> said:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20060206/
FA
CTS06/TPComment/Features
(snip)
The difference between theists and atheists is not so great. The
same
motivations to have moral principles drive the theist as the
atheist.
I don't think so. The atheist has morality, the theist has only
obedience.
The atheist has to know why what he does is good or bad because he
invented
his morality himself.
Speak for yourself. I am atheist agnostic and I did not in any way
invent
my
code of ethics; I do what I do because it is the right thing to do.
How do you know it's the right thing to do?
He's so closeted a theist, he doesn't even know he has a theistic
approach to morality. Absolutism is like that.
--- Jim07D6
Knowing the right thing to do does not require belief that a god will burn
your ***** in hell for all eternity for not doing as his church dictates, it
only requires an understanding of how reductio ad absurdum works.
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/reductio%20ad%20absurdum
Denis says "the atheist invented his morality himself." He is mistaken. I am
atheist agnostic and I did not in any way invent my code of ethics; I do
what I do because it is the right thing to do.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: An atheist's view of life's progress |
13 Feb 2006 02:53:57 PM |
|
|
Bullet wrote:
"Jim07D6" <Jim07D6@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:p7uhu1tbmse01lavcd6mic973rv3vn0bv7@4ax.com...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> said:
"Bullet" <b@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:AqmdnX56FtDSRnXeRVn-uA@comcast.com...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:vIWdncCN39TWFnrenZ2dnUVZ_sSdnZ2d@io.com...
"Jim07D6" <Jim07D6@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:89teu1h9dlmuafj319krpugtsqecq1cb7q@4ax.com...
"JPG" <j_peasemold_gruntfuttock@hotmail.com> said:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20060206/
FA
CTS06/TPComment/Features
(snip)
The difference between theists and atheists is not so great. The
same
motivations to have moral principles drive the theist as the
atheist.
I don't think so. The atheist has morality, the theist has only
obedience.
The atheist has to know why what he does is good or bad because he
invented
his morality himself.
Speak for yourself. I am atheist agnostic and I did not in any way
invent
my
code of ethics; I do what I do because it is the right thing to do.
How do you know it's the right thing to do?
He's so closeted a theist, he doesn't even know he has a theistic
approach to morality. Absolutism is like that.
--- Jim07D6
Knowing the right thing to do ... only requires an understanding
of how reductio ad absurdum works.
False. And you have no such understanding anyway, Septic, as you
demonstrate yet again here.
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/reductio%20ad%20absurdum
I do
what I do because it is the right thing to do.
False, sir. One bag full, Septic. (And your theistic absolutism is
noted yet again also, Septic.) And, whatever happened to your
"contingencies of reinforcement" as the determinant of all behavior.
Fallacy of Special Pleading on your part evidently, Septic.
<snip Septical bastardization of RaA as unfit to reprint>
Jeff
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: An atheist's view of life's progress |
16 Feb 2006 08:10:30 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Bullet wrote:
"Jim07D6" <Jim07D6@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:p7uhu1tbmse01lavcd6mic973rv3vn0bv7@4ax.com...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> said:
"Bullet" <b@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:AqmdnX56FtDSRnXeRVn-uA@comcast.com...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:vIWdncCN39TWFnrenZ2dnUVZ_sSdnZ2d@io.com...
"Jim07D6" <Jim07D6@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:89teu1h9dlmuafj319krpugtsqecq1cb7q@4ax.com...
"JPG" <j_peasemold_gruntfuttock@hotmail.com> said:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20060206/
FA
CTS06/TPComment/Features
(snip)
The difference between theists and atheists is not so great. The
same
motivations to have moral principles drive the theist as the
atheist.
I don't think so. The atheist has morality, the theist has only
obedience.
The atheist has to know why what he does is good or bad because he
invented
his morality himself.
Speak for yourself. I am atheist agnostic and I did not in any way
invent
my
code of ethics; I do what I do because it is the right thing to do.
How do you know it's the right thing to do?
He's so closeted a theist, he doesn't even know he has a theistic
approach to morality. Absolutism is like that.
--- Jim07D6
Knowing the right thing to do ... only requires an understanding
of how reductio ad absurdum works.
False. And you have no such understanding anyway, Septic, as you
demonstrate yet again here.
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/reductio%20ad%20absurdum
I do
what I do because it is the right thing to do.
False, sir. One bag full, Septic. (And your theistic absolutism is
noted yet again also, Septic.) And, whatever happened to your
"contingencies of reinforcement" as the determinant of all behavior.
<cue the chirping crickets again>
Jeff
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: An atheist's view of life's progress |
13 Feb 2006 05:01:05 PM |
|
|
In article <-ImdneDxN_Pkf23enZ2dnUVZ_sydnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Bullet" <b@nospam.net> wrote:
Denis says "the atheist invented his morality himself." He is mistaken. I am
atheist agnostic and I did not in any way invent my code of ethics; I do
what I do because it is the right thing to do.
Actually, Septic often does wrong things. particularly in his postings.
Septic may not have invented his own code of ethics, but however he came
by it, if he is following it, it is somewhat flawed.
On the other hand, being agnostic or atheistic does not require that one
invent one's own morality, and I rather doubt that most atheists do.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bullet" |
|
| Title: Re: An atheist's view of life's progress |
13 Feb 2006 01:46:19 PM |
|
|
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:9OmdnXTIF6oManXeRVn-og@io.com...
"Bullet" <b@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:AqmdnX56FtDSRnXeRVn-uA@comcast.com...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:vIWdncCN39TWFnrenZ2dnUVZ_sSdnZ2d@io.com...
"Jim07D6" <Jim07D6@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:89teu1h9dlmuafj319krpugtsqecq1cb7q@4ax.com...
"JPG" <j_peasemold_gruntfuttock@hotmail.com> said:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20060206/F
A
CTS06/TPComment/Features
(snip)
The difference between theists and atheists is not so great. The same
motivations to have moral principles drive the theist as the atheist.
I don't think so. The atheist has morality, the theist has only
obedience.
The atheist has to know why what he does is good or bad because he
invented
his morality himself.
Speak for yourself. I am atheist agnostic and I did not in any way
invent
my
code of ethics; I do what I do because it is the right thing to do.
How do you know it's the right thing to do?
Reductio ad absurdum.
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/reductio%20ad%20absurdum
And I certainly didn't invent that, it was being used to determine right
behavior long before I was hatched. 8^)
For example, refraining from murder, rape, and robbery is the right thing to
do because the opposite is an absurd state of affairs. Reductio ad absurdum.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: An atheist's view of life's progress |
13 Feb 2006 05:08:09 PM |
|
|
In article <-ImdnePxN_Pnf23enZ2dnUVZ_sydnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Bullet" <b@nospam.net> wrote:
How do you know it's the right thing to do?
Reductio ad absurdum.
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/reductio%20ad%20absurdum
assuming those standards universal.
And I certainly didn't invent that, it was being used to determine right
behavior long before I was hatched. 8^)
For example, refraining from murder, rape, and robbery is the right thing to
do because the opposite is an absurd state of affairs. Reductio ad absurdum.
Septic is being stupid again. One must already have a set of standards
agains which to judge things absurd before one can use 'reductio ad
absurdum' arguments. Absent ANY standards of behavior, there is no
behavior which is absurd.
It is common, but mistaken, for someone to think that anything in
conflict with their own unconscious standards is absurd, but the
absurity is in not recognizing those assumptions.
It is an absurdity that Septic indulges in too frequently.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bullet" |
|
| Title: Re: An atheist's view of life's progress |
13 Feb 2006 06:27:00 PM |
|
|
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-0A24C0.16080913022006@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <-ImdnePxN_Pnf23enZ2dnUVZ_sydnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Bullet" <b@nospam.net> wrote:
How do you know it's the right thing to do?
Reductio ad absurdum.
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/reductio%20ad%20absurdum
assuming those standards universal.
And I certainly didn't invent that, it was being used to determine right
behavior long before I was hatched. 8^)
For example, refraining from murder, rape, and robbery is the right
thing to
do because the opposite is an absurd state of affairs. Reductio ad
absurdum.
Septic is being stupid again.
Argument _ad hominem_ won't help you make your case for the hypothetical
('might be' conjecture) 'God' thingy having given man his moral standards,
it is logical fallacy, and you know it.
One must already have a set of standards
Handed down by your hypothetical ('might be' conjecture) 'God' thingy?
agains which to judge things absurd before one can use 'reductio ad
absurdum' arguments.
Where would you expect us to get those basic principles, from your
hypothetical ('might be' conjecture) God thingy?
Absent ANY standards of behavior, there is no
behavior which is absurd.
That is how our basic principles were established, through reductio ad
absurdum. That is to say that the opposite (freedom to perpetrate murder,
rape, or robery, for instance, or freedom for Dubya to commit high crimes
and misdemeanors against the state, with impunity) would be an absurd state
of affairs ruled out by consensus.
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/reductio%20ad%20absurdum
Can you think of a better way to establish basic principles?
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: An atheist's view of life's progress |
14 Feb 2006 03:11:45 PM |
|
|
Bullet wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-0A24C0.16080913022006@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <-ImdnePxN_Pnf23enZ2dnUVZ_sydnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Bullet" <b@nospam.net> wrote:
How do you know it's the right thing to do?
Reductio ad absurdum.
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/reductio%20ad%20absurdum
assuming those standards universal.
And I certainly didn't invent that, it was being used to determine right
behavior long before I was hatched. 8^)
For example, refraining from murder, rape, and robbery is the right
thing to
do because the opposite is an absurd state of affairs. Reductio ad
absurdum.
Septic is being stupid again.
One must already have a set of standards
agains which to judge things absurd before one can use 'reductio ad
absurdum' arguments.
Where would you expect us to get those basic principles,
Fallacy of Equivocation from Septic, "principles" vs. "standards". And
the question to you, Septic, is where _do_ you get your standards of
"absurdity" on which to _base_ your supposed RaA argument in the first
place? Eh? <cue the chirping crickets>
Absent ANY standards of behavior, there is no
behavior which is absurd.
That is how our basic principles were established,
Fallacy of Equivocation between standards and principles again from
Septic. Where did the _standards_ (of absurdity) come from on which
you _base_ your supposed "principles" (via RaA), Septic? Do you not
understand the question?
Jeff
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: An atheist's view of life's progress |
15 Feb 2006 01:04:12 AM |
|
|
In article <BpydnbfE3sgusG_enZ2dnUVZ_sadnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Bullet" <b@nospam.net> wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-0A24C0.16080913022006@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <-ImdnePxN_Pnf23enZ2dnUVZ_sydnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Bullet" <b@nospam.net> wrote:
How do you know it's the right thing to do?
Reductio ad absurdum.
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/reductio%20ad%20absurdum
assuming those standards universal.
And I certainly didn't invent that, it was being used to determine right
behavior long before I was hatched. 8^)
For example, refraining from murder, rape, and robbery is the right
thing to
do because the opposite is an absurd state of affairs. Reductio ad
absurdum.
Septic is being stupid again.
Argument _ad hominem_ won't help you make your case for the hypothetical
('might be' conjecture) 'God' thingy having given man his moral standards,
it is logical fallacy, and you know it.
When I explain precisely what I mean by Septic being stupid and provide
the justification for it , the conclusion of Septic's supidity stands
by itselfas validly argued.
One must already have a set of standards
Handed down by your hypothetical ('might be' conjecture) 'God' thingy?
What sort of "thingy" is Septic hypothesizing? Any such hypothesis is
entirely his own.
agains which to judge things absurd before one can use 'reductio ad
absurdum' arguments.
Where would you expect us to get those basic principles, from your
hypothetical ('might be' conjecture) God thingy?
It is not a matter of where one one gets them, but what one can do
without any of them. What one cannot do is to adjudge any act to be
absurd without knowing what constitutees absurdity.
Thus "reductio as absurdum" requires prior knowledge of what is absurd.
Absent ANY standards of behavior, there is no
behavior which is absurd.
That is how our basic principles were established, through reductio ad
absurdum.
Without having standards in in advance of what can be adjudged absurd,
there is nothing that can be judged absurd. When asked "why is that
absurd" or what is absurd about that", Septic will have no reasons, just
pronouncements ex cathedra.
That is to say that the opposite (freedom to perpetrate murder,
rape, or robery, for instance, or freedom for Dubya to commit high crimes
and misdemeanors against the state, with impunity) would be an absurd state
of affairs ruled out by consensus.
Except that it appears that Dubya has exactly those freedoms and is
supported in his high crimes and misdemeanors, or at least most of them,
by the Republican party.
Thus it is NOT ruled out by consensus, however much it ought to be.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bullet" |
|
| Title: Re: An atheist's view of life's progress |
15 Feb 2006 02:41:15 PM |
|
|
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-5A154A.00041215022006@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <BpydnbfE3sgusG_enZ2dnUVZ_sadnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Bullet" <b@nospam.net> wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-0A24C0.16080913022006@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <-ImdnePxN_Pnf23enZ2dnUVZ_sydnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Bullet" <b@nospam.net> wrote:
How do you know it's the right thing to do?
Reductio ad absurdum.
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/reductio%20ad%20absurdum
assuming those standards universal.
And I certainly didn't invent that, it was being used to determine
right
behavior long before I was hatched. 8^)
For example, refraining from murder, rape, and robbery is the right
thing to
do because the opposite is an absurd state of affairs. Reductio ad
absurdum.
Septic is being stupid again.
Argument _ad hominem_ won't help you make your case for the hypothetical
('might be' conjecture) 'God' thingy having given man his moral
standards,
it is logical fallacy, and you know it.
When I explain precisely what I mean by Septic being stupid and provide
the justification for it , the conclusion of Septic's supidity stands
by itselfas validly argued.
One must already have a set of standards
Handed down by your hypothetical ('might be' conjecture) 'God' thingy?
What sort of "thingy" is Septic hypothesizing? Any such hypothesis is
entirely his own.
agains which to judge things absurd before one can use 'reductio ad
absurdum' arguments.
Where would you expect us to get those basic principles, from your
hypothetical ('might be' conjecture) God thingy?
It is not a matter of where one one gets them
Yes it is. You agree that we have basic principles (it is wrong to murder,
rape, or rob, for example), the question is, how are these basic principles
established? The only means we have of establishing such basic principles is
through reductio ad absurdum (disproof of a proposition by showing an
absurdity to which it leads), unless you can suggest a better way?
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: An atheist's view of life's progress |
15 Feb 2006 09:29:16 PM |
|
|
Bullet wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-5A154A.00041215022006@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <BpydnbfE3sgusG_enZ2dnUVZ_sadnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Bullet" <b@nospam.net> wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-0A24C0.16080913022006@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <-ImdnePxN_Pnf23enZ2dnUVZ_sydnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Bullet" <b@nospam.net> wrote:
How do you know it's the right thing to do?
Reductio ad absurdum.
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/reductio%20ad%20absurdum
assuming those standards universal.
And I certainly didn't invent that, it was being used to determine
right
behavior long before I was hatched. 8^)
For example, refraining from murder, rape, and robbery is the right
thing to
do because the opposite is an absurd state of affairs. Reductio ad
absurdum.
Septic is being stupid again.
Argument _ad hominem_ won't help you make your case for the hypothetical
('might be' conjecture) 'God' thingy having given man his moral
standards,
it is logical fallacy, and you know it.
When I explain precisely what I mean by Septic being stupid and provide
the justification for it , the conclusion of Septic's supidity stands
by itselfas validly argued.
True.
One must already have a set of standards
True.
Handed down by your hypothetical ('might be' conjecture) 'God' thingy?
What sort of "thingy" is Septic hypothesizing? Any such hypothesis is
entirely his own.
agains which to judge things absurd before one can use 'reductio ad
absurdum' arguments.
Where would you expect us to get those basic principles, from your
hypothetical ('might be' conjecture) God thingy?
It is not a matter of where one one gets them
Yes
No, sir. One bag full, Septic. It is a matter of what standards of
"absurdity" you are using and where those standards come from.
Evidently solely your own imagination.
Jeff
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: An atheist's view of life's progress |
15 Feb 2006 08:15:29 PM |
|
|
In article <yZSdnRXbsoxYLm7enZ2dnUVZ_sydnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Bullet" <b@nospam.net> wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-5A154A.00041215022006@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <BpydnbfE3sgusG_enZ2dnUVZ_sadnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Bullet" <b@nospam.net> wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-0A24C0.16080913022006@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <-ImdnePxN_Pnf23enZ2dnUVZ_sydnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Bullet" <b@nospam.net> wrote:
How do you know it's the right thing to do?
Reductio ad absurdum.
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/reductio%20ad%20absurdum
assuming those standards universal.
And I certainly didn't invent that, it was being used to determine
right
behavior long before I was hatched. 8^)
For example, refraining from murder, rape, and robbery is the right
thing to
do because the opposite is an absurd state of affairs. Reductio ad
absurdum.
Septic is being stupid again.
Argument _ad hominem_ won't help you make your case for the hypothetical
('might be' conjecture) 'God' thingy having given man his moral
standards,
it is logical fallacy, and you know it.
When I explain precisely what I mean by Septic being stupid and provide
the justification for it , the conclusion of Septic's supidity stands
by itselfas validly argued.
One must already have a set of standards
Handed down by your hypothetical ('might be' conjecture) 'God' thingy?
What sort of "thingy" is Septic hypothesizing? Any such hypothesis is
entirely his own.
agains which to judge things absurd before one can use 'reductio ad
absurdum' arguments.
Where would you expect us to get those basic principles, from your
hypothetical ('might be' conjecture) God thingy?
It is not a matter of where one one gets them
Yes it is. You agree that we have basic principles (it is wrong to murder,
rape, or rob, for example), the question is, how are these basic principles
established? The only means we have of establishing such basic principles is
through reductio ad absurdum (disproof of a proposition by showing an
absurdity to which it leads), unless you can suggest a better way?
Unless Septic can give a reason why a particular action should be
considered absurd, it need not be considered absurd. And such reasons
must exist a priori to such consideration, if they are to be valid.
Does Septic get all of his ethics and morality in this same unreasoning
and unreasoned way, by merely deciding at each moment what looks good or
bad? That might explain why his arguments are so uniformly unreasonable!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bullet" |
|
| Title: Re: An atheist's view of life's progress |
16 Feb 2006 01:54:14 PM |
|
|
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-4D895B.19152915022006@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
Does [Bullet] get all of his ethics and morality in this same unreasoning
and unreasoned way
There is nothing unreasonable about reductio ad absurdum
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/reductio%20ad%20absurdum
it is the perfectly reasonable means of disproof of a proposition by showing
an absurdity to which it leads
But why are you trying to make this about me? Aren't you and I in full
agreement that we humans as a group HAVE basic principles (it is wrong to
murder, rape, or rob, for example), and now the question is, how are these
basic principles established? As far as I know the only means we have of
establishing such basic principles is through reductio ad absurdum (disproof
of a proposition by showing an absurdity to which it leads), unless you can
suggest a better way?
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/reductio%20ad%20absurdum
Can you think of a better way for us humans to establish basic principles?
If you don't agree that we establish basic principles of ethics (and
everything else) through reductio ad absurdum, then how do you think it is
done?
Can't you answer that simple question?
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: An atheist's view of life's progress |
16 Feb 2006 07:55:46 PM |
|
|
Bullet wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-4D895B.19152915022006@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
Does [Bullet] get all of his ethics and morality in this same unreasoning
and unreasoned way
There is nothing unreasonable about reductio ad absurdum
Fallacy of Ignoratio Elenchi from Septic. Whence comes the supposed
"absurdity" on which you purport to _base_ your reductio ad absurdum,
Septic? Evidently it is purely from your own imagination, which is the
"unreasoning and unreasoned way" Virgil is referring to. E.g. there is
nothing inherently or intrinsically absurd about a person being killed.
Happens all the time, especially in Texas. Your personal subjective
opinions about it are irrelevant, Septic.
Jeff
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bullet" |
|
| Title: Re: An atheist's view of life's progress |
17 Feb 2006 12:40:14 PM |
|
|
<jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1140141346.736902.206700@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Bullet wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-4D895B.19152915022006@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
Does [Bullet] get all of his ethics and morality in this same
unreasoning
and unreasoned way
There is nothing unreasonable about reductio ad absurdum
Fallacy of Ignoratio Elenchi from Septic. Whence comes the supposed
"absurdity" on which you purport to _base_ your reductio ad absurdum,
Septic? Evidently it is purely from your own imagination, which is the
"unreasoning and unreasoned way" Virgil is referring to. E.g. there is
nothing inherently or intrinsically absurd about a person being killed.
Nothing absurd about one murdering one's fellow human beans?? Thanks for
your personal subjective conviction (your belief), Jeffie. How many do you
think agree with you? Think you could get murder legalized? Don't you
understand that murder is prohibited because the opposite would be an absurd
state of affairs? Google reductio ad absurdum (disproof of a proposition by
showing an absurdity to which it leads).
Aren't you and I in full
agreement that we humans as a group HAVE basic principles (it is wrong to
murder, rape, or rob, for example), and now the question is, how are these
basic principles established? As far as I know the only means we have of
establishing such basic principles is through reductio ad absurdum (disproof
of a proposition by showing an absurdity to which it leads), unless you can
suggest a better way?
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/reductio%20ad%20absurdum
Can you think of a better way for us humans to establish basic principles?
If you don't agree that we establish basic principles of ethics (and
everything else) through reductio ad absurdum, then how do you think it is
done?
Can't you answer that simple question?
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: An atheist's view of life's progress |
17 Feb 2006 01:45:00 PM |
|
|
Bullet wrote:
<jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1140141346.736902.206700@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Bullet wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-4D895B.19152915022006@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
Does Septic get all of his ethics and morality in this same
unreasoning
and unreasoned way
There is nothing unreasonable about reductio ad absurdum
Fallacy of Ignoratio Elenchi from Septic. Whence comes the supposed
"absurdity" on which you purport to _base_ your reductio ad absurdum,
Septic? Evidently it is purely from your own imagination, which is the
"unreasoning and unreasoned way" Virgil is referring to. E.g. there is
nothing inherently or intrinsically absurd about a person being killed.
Nothing absurd??
See "the death penalty", Septic. Oh, you dishonestly snipped my
reference to the death penalty and pretended not to see it. Tsk, tsk.
And your avoidance of the question is also noted and logged. Whence
comes the supposed "absurdity" on which any RaA must be based, Septic?
How many do you
think agree with you?
Fallacy of Argumentum ad Populum from Septic. You mean to imply that
the "absurdity" of which you speak comes purely from agreement of
individuals' personal subjective convictions as to what is absurd??
Aren't you and I in full
agreement
No, not atall atall, Septic. Are you blind?
<snip Septic equivocating "principles" and "basis" yet again>
If you don't agree that we establish basic principles of ethics (and
everything else) through reductio ad absurdum,
<snip Fallacy of the Complex Question from Septic>
On what _basis_of_absurdity_ is RaA to be applied, and whence _comes_
that basis, Septic. Stop dodging the issue. It's Fallacy of
Ignoratio Elenchi from you, Septic, every time.
Jeff
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bullet" |
|
| Title: Re: An atheist's view of life's progress |
17 Feb 2006 02:38:21 PM |
|
|
<jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1140205500.535979.230550@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Bullet wrote:
<jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1140141346.736902.206700@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Bullet wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-4D895B.19152915022006@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
Does Septic get all of his ethics and morality in this same
unreasoning
and unreasoned way
There is nothing unreasonable about reductio ad absurdum
Fallacy of Ignoratio Elenchi from Septic. Whence comes the supposed
"absurdity" on which you purport to _base_ your reductio ad absurdum,
Septic? Evidently it is purely from your own imagination, which is
the
"unreasoning and unreasoned way" Virgil is referring to. E.g. there
is
nothing inherently or intrinsically absurd about a person being
killed.
Nothing absurd??
See "the death penalty"
That is not murder. We are discussing my statement, "We have some basic
principles established through reductio ad absurdum (it is wrong to
murder, rape, or rob, for example)."
[unsnip the issue Jeffie is trying to evade]
You wrote, "There is nothing absurd about a person being killed."
Nothing absurd about one murdering one's fellow human beans?? Thanks for
your personal subjective conviction (your belief), Jeffie. How many do you
think agree with you? Think you could get murder legalized? Don't you
understand that murder is prohibited because the opposite would be an absurd
state of affairs? Google reductio ad absurdum (disproof of a proposition by
showing an absurdity to which it leads).
Aren't you and I in full
agreement that we humans as a group HAVE basic principles (it is wrong to
murder, rape, or rob, for example), and now the question is, how are these
basic principles established? As far as I know the only means we have of
establishing such basic principles is through reductio ad absurdum (disproof
of a proposition by showing an absurdity to which it leads), unless you can
suggest a better way?
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/reductio%20ad%20absurdum
Can you think of a better way for us humans to e | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
