| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"altheim" |
| Date: |
15 Jul 2005 03:30:31 AM |
| Object: |
Re: Bombings and Afterlife |
"M????§???????§" <JoshuaClute@gmail.com> wrote:
I once attacked humanists (in a humanist ng) on the same grounds
because they claim to have the wellbeing of humanity at heart while
being atheist in mind. I figured that without God there was no point
to morality of any kind and that to claim such was hypocrisy. In fact
I went on to claim that, as there was no God to judge me, I might as
well go on a big shopping spree... with a gun.
It was explained to me that, as there was no god it was up to us
humans to take charge and care for ourselves. Whether we like
it or not, the system of morals that is already in place was derived
from the Bible. It simply makes sense to continue to use it. There
is no hypocrisy.
Reply
I replied to this as follows, but Ill paste it since it appears that
theres some confusion over what I say and to whom:
I agree completely with that, but that isnt MORALITY- that is making a
decision to behave in a certain way for the purpose of the preservation
of the species and with THAT I agree completely. I only disagree with
the fact that people call it 'moral'- it is NOT moral to do what serves
you best; by the very definition of morality that is selfishness,
egotism, and immorality to the core.
I dont argue that its not better for the human species to have
some sense of order and behavioral standards; I only argue that it isnt
moral.
But nobody asked me to clarify.
Ah! that I'm afraid is one of our failings. All too often it simply
does not occur to us (well me) to ask. I think we just assume
you will tell us anyway.
I haven't looked up the definition of 'morality' but my take on
the word is that it has to do with conscience and the concept
of right and wrong rather than with religion. The questions then
arise; can you know right from wrong without a conscience and
can you have a conscience without God?
My guess is that all theists will anwer NO and all atheists will
answer YES (with the possible exception of CAL who will
decline to answer as he would then be forced to presume the
existence of God).
Well one of them must be right. What do you think?
--
altheim
PS thanks for quoting text. If this is difficult for you perhaps you
should invest in a decent editor.
.
|
|
| User: "robpar" |
|
| Title: Re: Bombings and Afterlife |
15 Jul 2005 09:44:26 AM |
|
|
"M????§???????§" <JoshuaClute@gmail.com> wrote:
I once attacked humanists (in a humanist ng) on the same grounds
because they claim to have the wellbeing of humanity at heart while
being atheist in mind. I figured that without God there was no point
to morality of any kind and that to claim such was hypocrisy. In fact
I went on to claim that, as there was no God to judge me, I might as
well go on a big shopping spree... with a gun.
It was explained to me that, as there was no god it was up to us
humans to take charge and care for ourselves. Whether we like
it or not, the system of morals that is already in place was derived
from the Bible. It simply makes sense to continue to use it. There
is no hypocrisy.
The Bible was written, and god was created to enforce the rules of
society at the time. The rules of society are not always moral.
In fact the rules of society are often immoral. Morality is fairly
simple, and spelled out in the golden rule. But few people comprehend
the simple process of letting other live according to their own
standards. Instead they attempt to force other to live according to
their standards.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "=?utf-8?B?TdGU0YDQuM65wqfPhNC+0YDQuNGUxb/RlMKn?=" |
|
| Title: Re: Bombings and Afterlife |
17 Jul 2005 05:39:52 PM |
|
|
I think a lot of this is semantic, contingent upon the definition of
morality; I myself define morality as a system of law separate from
nature, and not having the qualities of nature (if morality were
natural then it wouldnt be immoral to steal, rape, kill, et cetera...).
I define it as selfless, considering how often the 'pious' talk about
selflessness, about giving up your corrupt human nature, about ignoring
your desires and seeking God...this all boils down to "Deny the self
and deny nature." That is morality in a nutshell to me.
I contrast morality with natural virtue, which would be founded
upon the opposite principals: ego-worship, strength of will,
preservation and continuation of life, et cetera...
In nature, goodness is defined as: strength, courage, loyalty (to
ones blood; to ones kind- for the purpose of self-preservation), wisdom
(it helps one survive), and a host of others. 'Selflessness' is not on
the list- nor is 'humility', 'self-abasement', 'deception' (deception
is an integral part of warfare and warfare is an integral part of
life), 'chastity' (refer to the Discovery Channel- animals like
knocking boots)- I could go on.
SO- 'morality' is 'selfless' (or claims to be- it is as egocentric
as anything else in existence, only it lies), founded upon a divine
principal which claims to have the authority to supercede the natural
world and, therefore, natural virtues.
M.
altheim wrote:
"M????=C2=A7???????=C2=A7" <JoshuaClute@gmail.com> wrote:
I once attacked humanists (in a humanist ng) on the same grounds
because they claim to have the wellbeing of humanity at heart while
being atheist in mind. I figured that without God there was no point
to morality of any kind and that to claim such was hypocrisy. In fact
I went on to claim that, as there was no God to judge me, I might as
well go on a big shopping spree... with a gun.
It was explained to me that, as there was no god it was up to us
humans to take charge and care for ourselves. Whether we like
it or not, the system of morals that is already in place was derived
from the Bible. It simply makes sense to continue to use it. There
is no hypocrisy.
Reply
I replied to this as follows, but Ill paste it since it appears that
theres some confusion over what I say and to whom:
I agree completely with that, but that isnt MORALITY- that is making a
decision to behave in a certain way for the purpose of the preservation
of the species and with THAT I agree completely. I only disagree with
the fact that people call it 'moral'- it is NOT moral to do what serves
you best; by the very definition of morality that is selfishness,
egotism, and immorality to the core.
I dont argue that its not better for the human species to have
some sense of order and behavioral standards; I only argue that it isnt
moral.
But nobody asked me to clarify.
Ah! that I'm afraid is one of our failings. All too often it simply
does not occur to us (well me) to ask. I think we just assume
you will tell us anyway.
I haven't looked up the definition of 'morality' but my take on
the word is that it has to do with conscience and the concept
of right and wrong rather than with religion. The questions then
arise; can you know right from wrong without a conscience and
can you have a conscience without God?
My guess is that all theists will anwer NO and all atheists will
answer YES (with the possible exception of CAL who will
decline to answer as he would then be forced to presume the
existence of God).
Well one of them must be right. What do you think?
--
altheim
PS thanks for quoting text. If this is difficult for you perhaps you
should invest in a decent editor.
.
|
|
|
| User: "altheim" |
|
| Title: Re: Bombings and Afterlife |
18 Jul 2005 04:23:27 AM |
|
|
"M????§???????§" <JoshuaClute@gmail.com> wrote:
I think a lot of this is semantic, contingent upon the definition of
morality;
I myself define morality as a system of law separate from nature, and not
having the qualities of nature (if morality were natural then it wouldnt
be
immoral to steal, rape, kill, et cetera...). I define it as selfless,
considering
how often the 'pious' talk about selflessness, about giving up your
corrupt
human nature, about ignoring your desires and seeking God...this all boils
down to "Deny the self and deny nature." That is morality in a nutshell
to me.
Yes, that sounds reasonable enough. So are you saying that
Man would not have worked out a system of unnatural behaviour,
i.e. moral behaviour, had he not first assumed the existence of
a god - a kind of Big Brother - watching his every move?
I contrast morality with natural virtue, which would be founded upon the
opposite principals: ego-worship, strength of will, preservation and
continuation of life, et cetera...
Which is how we would behave if we were not endowed with the
ability to think.
In nature, goodness is defined as: strength, courage, loyalty (to ones
blood; to ones kind- for the purpose of self-preservation), wisdom
(it helps one survive), and a host of others. 'Selflessness' is not on
the
list- nor is 'humility', 'self-abasement', 'deception' (deception is an
integral part of warfare and warfare is an integral part of life),
'chastity'
(refer to the Discovery Channel- animals like knocking boots)- I could
go on.
SO- 'morality' is 'selfless' (or claims to be- it is as egocentric as
anything
else in existence, only it lies), founded upon a divine principal which
claims
to have the authority to supercede the natural world and, therefore,
natural
virtues.
Do you think it is possible for an atheist to acknowledge the
seven deadly sins listed in the Bible, along with the "virtues"?
If you say yes, as I feel you must, and you use them as your
guide in maintaining a civilised lifestyle, is this not also
"morality"?
M.
altheim wrote:
"M????§???????§" <JoshuaClute@gmail.com> wrote:
I once attacked humanists (in a humanist ng) on the same grounds
because they claim to have the wellbeing of humanity at heart while
being atheist in mind. I figured that without God there was no point
to morality of any kind and that to claim such was hypocrisy. In fact
I went on to claim that, as there was no God to judge me, I might as
well go on a big shopping spree... with a gun.
It was explained to me that, as there was no god it was up to us
humans to take charge and care for ourselves. Whether we like
it or not, the system of morals that is already in place was derived
from the Bible. It simply makes sense to continue to use it. There
is no hypocrisy.
Reply
I replied to this as follows, but Ill paste it since it appears that
theres some confusion over what I say and to whom:
I agree completely with that, but that isnt MORALITY- that is making a
decision to behave in a certain way for the purpose of the preservation
of the species and with THAT I agree completely. I only disagree with
the fact that people call it 'moral'- it is NOT moral to do what serves
you best; by the very definition of morality that is selfishness,
egotism, and immorality to the core.
I dont argue that its not better for the human species to have
some sense of order and behavioral standards; I only argue that it isnt
moral.
But nobody asked me to clarify.
Ah! that I'm afraid is one of our failings. All too often it simply
does not occur to us (well me) to ask. I think we just assume
you will tell us anyway.
I haven't looked up the definition of 'morality' but my take on
the word is that it has to do with conscience and the concept
of right and wrong rather than with religion. The questions then
arise; can you know right from wrong without a conscience and
can you have a conscience without God?
My guess is that all theists will anwer NO and all atheists will
answer YES (with the possible exception of CAL who will
decline to answer as he would then be forced to presume the
existence of God).
Well one of them must be right. What do you think?
--
altheim
PS thanks for quoting text. If this is difficult for you perhaps you
should invest in a decent editor.
.
|
|
|
| User: "bob young" |
|
| Title: Re: Bombings and Afterlife |
18 Jul 2005 06:10:03 AM |
|
|
--------------E145FAF8A2CF343F1D73F114
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-7; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
altheim wrote:
"M????§???????§" <JoshuaClute@gmail.com> wrote:
I think a lot of this is semantic, contingent upon the definition of
morality;
I myself define morality as a system of law separate from nature, and not
having the qualities of nature (if morality were natural then it wouldnt
be
immoral to steal, rape, kill, et cetera...). I define it as selfless,
considering
how often the 'pious' talk about selflessness, about giving up your
corrupt
human nature, about ignoring your desires and seeking God...this all boils
down to "Deny the self and deny nature." That is morality in a nutshell
to me.
Yes, that sounds reasonable enough. So are you saying that
Man would not have worked out a system of unnatural behaviour,
i.e. moral behaviour, had he not first assumed the existence of
a god - a kind of Big Brother - watching his every move?
The moral assumption must have been first on the scene and then a god was
created to strengthen it.
The brain power necessary to recognise a god, whether fictional, or, in those
days, very real in their simple minds, would have been enough to alow them the
freedom to create their moral structure.
I contrast morality with natural virtue, which would be founded upon the
opposite principals: ego-worship, strength of will, preservation and
continuation of life, et cetera...
Which is how we would behave if we were not endowed with the
ability to think.
In nature, goodness is defined as: strength, courage, loyalty (to ones
blood; to ones kind- for the purpose of self-preservation), wisdom
(it helps one survive), and a host of others. 'Selflessness' is not on
the
list- nor is 'humility', 'self-abasement', 'deception' (deception is an
integral part of warfare and warfare is an integral part of life),
'chastity'
(refer to the Discovery Channel- animals like knocking boots)- I could
go on.
SO- 'morality' is 'selfless' (or claims to be- it is as egocentric as
anything
else in existence, only it lies), founded upon a divine principal which
claims
to have the authority to supercede the natural world and, therefore,
natural
virtues.
Do you think it is possible for an atheist to acknowledge the
seven deadly sins listed in the Bible, along with the "virtues"?
Surely an atheist would scoff at these simple virtues and point out the
enormous strides that man has made in the creation of his legal sructure which
completeley eclipses the 'seven dealy sins'
If you say yes, as I feel you must, and you use them as your
guide in maintaining a civilised lifestyle, is this not also
"morality"?
M.
altheim wrote:
"M????§???????§" <JoshuaClute@gmail.com> wrote:
I once attacked humanists (in a humanist ng) on the same grounds
because they claim to have the wellbeing of humanity at heart while
being atheist in mind. I figured that without God there was no point
to morality of any kind and that to claim such was hypocrisy. In fact
I went on to claim that, as there was no God to judge me, I might as
well go on a big shopping spree... with a gun.
It was explained to me that, as there was no god it was up to us
humans to take charge and care for ourselves. Whether we like
it or not, the system of morals that is already in place was derived
from the Bible. It simply makes sense to continue to use it. There
is no hypocrisy.
Reply
I replied to this as follows, but Ill paste it since it appears that
theres some confusion over what I say and to whom:
I agree completely with that, but that isnt MORALITY- that is making a
decision to behave in a certain way for the purpose of the preservation
of the species and with THAT I agree completely. I only disagree with
the fact that people call it 'moral'- it is NOT moral to do what serves
you best; by the very definition of morality that is selfishness,
egotism, and immorality to the core.
I dont argue that its not better for the human species to have
some sense of order and behavioral standards; I only argue that it isnt
moral.
But nobody asked me to clarify.
Ah! that I'm afraid is one of our failings. All too often it simply
does not occur to us (well me) to ask. I think we just assume
you will tell us anyway.
I haven't looked up the definition of 'morality' but my take on
the word is that it has to do with conscience and the concept
of right and wrong rather than with religion. The questions then
arise; can you know right from wrong without a conscience and
can you have a conscience without God?
My guess is that all theists will anwer NO and all atheists will
answer YES (with the possible exception of CAL who will
decline to answer as he would then be forced to presume the
existence of God).
Well one of them must be right. What do you think?
--
altheim
PS thanks for quoting text. If this is difficult for you perhaps you
should invest in a decent editor.
--------------E145FAF8A2CF343F1D73F114
Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-7
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
<p><font size=+1>altheim wrote:</font>
<blockquote TYPE=CITE><font size=+1>"M????§???????§" <JoshuaClute@gmail.com>
wrote:</font>
<br><font size=+1>> I think a lot of this is semantic, contingent upon
the definition of</font>
<br><font size=+1>> morality;</font>
<br><font size=+1>> I myself define morality as a system of law separate
from nature, and not</font>
<br><font size=+1>> having the qualities of nature (if morality were natural
then it wouldnt</font>
<br><font size=+1>> be</font>
<br><font size=+1>> immoral to steal, rape, kill, et cetera...).
I define it as selfless,</font>
<br><font size=+1>> considering</font>
<br><font size=+1>> how often the 'pious' talk about selflessness, about
giving up your</font>
<br><font size=+1>> corrupt</font>
<br><font size=+1>> human nature, about ignoring your desires and seeking
God...this all boils</font>
<br><font size=+1>> down to "Deny the self and deny nature." That
is morality in a nutshell</font>
<br><font size=+1>> to me.</font>
<p><font size=+1>Yes, that sounds reasonable enough. So are you saying
that</font>
<br><font size=+1>Man would not have worked out a system of unnatural behaviour,</font>
<br><font size=+1>i.e. moral behaviour, had he not first assumed the existence
of</font>
<br><font size=+1>a god - a kind of Big Brother - watching his every move?</font></blockquote>
<font size=+1>The moral assumption must have been first on the scene and
then a god was created to strengthen it.</font>
<p><font size=+1>The brain power necessary to recognise a god, whether
fictional, or, in those days, very real in their simple minds, would have
been enough to alow them the freedom to create their moral structure.</font>
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>
<p><font size=+1>> I contrast morality with natural virtue, which would
be founded upon the</font>
<br><font size=+1>> opposite principals: ego-worship, strength of will,
preservation and</font>
<br><font size=+1>> continuation of life, et cetera...</font>
<p><font size=+1>Which is how we would behave if we were not endowed with
the</font>
<br><font size=+1>ability to think.</font>
<p><font size=+1>> In nature, goodness is defined as: strength, courage,
loyalty (to ones</font>
<br><font size=+1>> blood; to ones kind- for the purpose of self-preservation),
wisdom</font>
<br><font size=+1>> (it helps one survive), and a host of others.
'Selflessness' is not on</font>
<br><font size=+1>> the</font>
<br><font size=+1>> list- nor is 'humility', 'self-abasement', 'deception'
(deception is an</font>
<br><font size=+1>> integral part of warfare and warfare is an integral
part of life),</font>
<br><font size=+1>> 'chastity'</font>
<br><font size=+1>> (refer to the Discovery Channel- animals like knocking
boots)- I could</font>
<br><font size=+1>> go on.</font>
<br><font size=+1>></font>
<br><font size=+1>> SO- 'morality' is 'selfless' (or claims to be- it is
as egocentric as</font>
<br><font size=+1>> anything</font>
<br><font size=+1>> else in existence, only it lies), founded upon a divine
principal which</font>
<br><font size=+1>> claims</font>
<br><font size=+1>> to have the authority to supercede the natural world
and, therefore,</font>
<br><font size=+1>> natural</font>
<br><font size=+1>> virtues.</font>
<p><font size=+1>Do you think it is possible for an atheist to acknowledge
the</font>
<br><font size=+1>seven deadly sins listed in the Bible, along with the
"virtues"?</font></blockquote>
<font size=+1>Surely an atheist would scoff at these simple virtues and
point out the enormous strides that man has made in the creation of his
legal sructure which completeley eclipses the 'seven dealy sins'</font>
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>
<p><font size=+1>If you say yes, as I feel you must, and you use them as
your</font>
<br><font size=+1>guide in maintaining a civilised lifestyle, is this not
also</font>
<br><font size=+1>"morality"?</font>
<p><font size=+1>></font>
<br><font size=+1>> M.</font>
<p><font size=+1>altheim wrote:</font>
<br><font size=+1>> "M????§???????§" <JoshuaClute@gmail.com> wrote:</font>
<br><font size=+1>> > > I once attacked humanists (in a humanist ng) on
the same grounds</font>
<br><font size=+1>> > > because they claim to have the wellbeing of humanity
at heart while</font>
<br><font size=+1>> > > being atheist in mind. I figured that without God
there was no point</font>
<br><font size=+1>> > > to morality of any kind and that to claim such
was hypocrisy. In fact</font>
<br><font size=+1>> > > I went on to claim that, as there was no God to
judge me, I might as</font>
<br><font size=+1>> > > well go on a big shopping spree... with a gun.</font>
<br><font size=+1>> > ></font>
<br><font size=+1>> > > It was explained to me that, as there was no god
it was up to us</font>
<br><font size=+1>> > > humans to take charge and care for ourselves.
Whether we like</font>
<br><font size=+1>> > > it or not, the system of morals that is already
in place was derived</font>
<br><font size=+1>> > > from the Bible. It simply makes sense to continue
to use it. There</font>
<br><font size=+1>> >> is no hypocrisy.</font>
<br><font size=+1>> >></font>
<br><font size=+1>> ></font>
<br><font size=+1>> > Reply</font>
<br><font size=+1>> ></font>
<br><font size=+1>> > I replied to this as follows, but Ill paste it since
it appears that</font>
<br><font size=+1>> > theres some confusion over what I say and to whom:</font>
<br><font size=+1>> ></font>
<br><font size=+1>> > I agree completely with that, but that isnt MORALITY-
that is making a</font>
<br><font size=+1>> > decision to behave in a certain way for the purpose
of the preservation</font>
<br><font size=+1>> > of the species and with THAT I agree completely.
I only disagree with</font>
<br><font size=+1>> > the fact that people call it 'moral'- it is NOT moral
to do what serves</font>
<br><font size=+1>> > you best; by the very definition of morality that
is selfishness,</font>
<br><font size=+1>> > egotism, and immorality to the core.</font>
<br><font size=+1>> ></font>
<br><font size=+1>> > I dont argue that its not better for the human species
to have</font>
<br><font size=+1>> > some sense of order and behavioral standards; I only
argue that it isnt</font>
<br><font size=+1>> > moral.</font>
<br><font size=+1>> ></font>
<br><font size=+1>> > But nobody asked me to clarify.</font>
<br><font size=+1>></font>
<br><font size=+1>> Ah! that I'm afraid is one of our failings. All too
often it simply</font>
<br><font size=+1>> does not occur to us (well me) to ask. I think
we just assume</font>
<br><font size=+1>> you will tell us anyway.</font>
<br><font size=+1>></font>
<br><font size=+1>> I haven't looked up the definition of 'morality' but
my take on</font>
<br><font size=+1>> the word is that it has to do with conscience and the
concept</font>
<br><font size=+1>> of right and wrong rather than with religion. The questions
then</font>
<br><font size=+1>> arise; can you know right from wrong without a conscience
and</font>
<br><font size=+1>> can you have a conscience without God?</font>
<br><font size=+1>></font>
<br><font size=+1>> My guess is that all theists will anwer NO and all
atheists will</font>
<br><font size=+1>> answer YES (with the possible exception of CAL who
will</font>
<br><font size=+1>> decline to answer as he would then be forced to presume
the</font>
<br><font size=+1>> existence of God).</font>
<br><font size=+1>></font>
<br><font size=+1>> Well one of them must be right. What do you think?</font>
<br><font size=+1>></font>
<br><font size=+1>> --</font>
<br><font size=+1>> altheim</font>
<br><font size=+1>> PS thanks for quoting text. If this is difficult for
you perhaps you</font>
<br><font size=+1>> should invest in a decent editor.</font></blockquote>
</html>
--------------E145FAF8A2CF343F1D73F114--
.
|
|
|
| User: "=?utf-8?B?TdGU0YDQuM65wqfPhNC+0YDQuNGUxb/RlMKn?=" |
|
| Title: Re: Bombings and Afterlife |
24 Jul 2005 12:10:45 PM |
|
|
bob young wrote:
altheim wrote:
"M????=C2=A7???????=C2=A7" <JoshuaClute@gmail.com> wrote:
I think a lot of this is semantic, contingent upon the definition of
morality;
I myself define morality as a system of law separate from nature, and=
not
having the qualities of nature (if morality were natural then it woul=
dnt
be
immoral to steal, rape, kill, et cetera...). I define it as selfles=
s,
considering
how often the 'pious' talk about selflessness, about giving up your
corrupt
human nature, about ignoring your desires and seeking God...this all =
boils
down to "Deny the self and deny nature." That is morality in a nutsh=
ell
to me.
Yes, that sounds reasonable enough. So are you saying that
Man would not have worked out a system of unnatural behaviour,
i.e. moral behaviour, had he not first assumed the existence of
a god - a kind of Big Brother - watching his every move?
The moral assumption must have been first on the scene and then a god was
created to strengthen it.
The brain power necessary to recognise a god, whether fictional, or, in t=
hose
days, very real in their simple minds, would have been enough to alow the=
m the
freedom to create their moral structure.
The ancient conception of deity and ours today may not have been the
same; their 'gods' were the powers of nature- not something outside,
beyond, or superior to, but the very powers themselves. They saw life
in everything- this is not far from scientific fact (let us not forget
that, according to quantum mechanics and holographic theory both, the
universe, at the very most basic level, has consciousness).
I contrast morality with natural virtue, which would be founded upon =
the
opposite principals: ego-worship, strength of will, preservation and
continuation of life, et cetera...
Which is how we would behave if we were not endowed with the
ability to think.
In nature, goodness is defined as: strength, courage, loyalty (to ones
blood; to ones kind- for the purpose of self-preservation), wisdom
(it helps one survive), and a host of others. 'Selflessness' is not =
on
the
list- nor is 'humility', 'self-abasement', 'deception' (deception is =
an
integral part of warfare and warfare is an integral part of life),
'chastity'
(refer to the Discovery Channel- animals like knocking boots)- I could
go on.
SO- 'morality' is 'selfless' (or claims to be- it is as egocentric as
anything
else in existence, only it lies), founded upon a divine principal whi=
ch
claims
to have the authority to supercede the natural world and, therefore,
natural
virtues.
Do you think it is possible for an atheist to acknowledge the
seven deadly sins listed in the Bible, along with the "virtues"?
Surely an atheist would scoff at these simple virtues and point out the
enormous strides that man has made in the creation of his legal sructure =
which
completeley eclipses the 'seven dealy sins'
Problem with this is that the legal structure is built upon the concept
of morality- remove the moral foundation, which I admit is false, and
we go back to the stone-age.
The real question is only as to whether a man can ADMIT that his
virtues are only an illusion...
If you say yes, as I feel you must, and you use them as your
guide in maintaining a civilised lifestyle, is this not also
"morality"?
Whether or not something is advantageous to the species has nothing to
do with whether or not something is 'moral'. Death is advantageous-
nature needs everything: war, disease, tragedies of all kind, et
cetera...that does not make it 'moral'. The legal system is most
assuredly NOT moral- it only maintains an organized power structure
under the GEISE of morality.
M.
altheim wrote:
"M????=C2=A7???????=C2=A7" <JoshuaClute@gmail.com> wrote:
I once attacked humanists (in a humanist ng) on the same grounds
because they claim to have the wellbeing of humanity at heart whi=
le
being atheist in mind. I figured that without God there was no po=
int
to morality of any kind and that to claim such was hypocrisy. In =
fact
I went on to claim that, as there was no God to judge me, I might=
as
well go on a big shopping spree... with a gun.
It was explained to me that, as there was no god it was up to us
humans to take charge and care for ourselves. Whether we like
it or not, the system of morals that is already in place was deri=
ved
from the Bible. It simply makes sense to continue to use it. There
is no hypocrisy.
Reply
I replied to this as follows, but Ill paste it since it appears that
theres some confusion over what I say and to whom:
I agree completely with that, but that isnt MORALITY- that is makin=
g a
decision to behave in a certain way for the purpose of the preserva=
tion
of the species and with THAT I agree completely. I only disagree w=
ith
the fact that people call it 'moral'- it is NOT moral to do what se=
rves
you best; by the very definition of morality that is selfishness,
egotism, and immorality to the core.
I dont argue that its not better for the human species to have
some sense of order and behavioral standards; I only argue that it =
isnt
moral.
But nobody asked me to clarify.
Ah! that I'm afraid is one of our failings. All too often it simply
does not occur to us (well me) to ask. I think we just assume
you will tell us anyway.
I haven't looked up the definition of 'morality' but my take on
the word is that it has to do with conscience and the concept
of right and wrong rather than with religion. The questions then
arise; can you know right from wrong without a conscience and
can you have a conscience without God?
My guess is that all theists will anwer NO and all atheists will
answer YES (with the possible exception of CAL who will
decline to answer as he would then be forced to presume the
existence of God).
Well one of them must be right. What do you think?
--
altheim
PS thanks for quoting text. If this is difficult for you perhaps you
should invest in a decent editor.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "=?utf-8?B?TdGU0YDQuM65wqfPhNC+0YDQuNGUxb/RlMKn?=" |
|
| Title: Re: Bombings and Afterlife |
24 Jul 2005 12:12:06 PM |
|
|
bob young wrote:
altheim wrote:
"M????=C2=A7???????=C2=A7" <JoshuaClute@gmail.com> wrote:
I think a lot of this is semantic, contingent upon the definition of
morality;
I myself define morality as a system of law separate from nature, and=
not
having the qualities of nature (if morality were natural then it woul=
dnt
be
immoral to steal, rape, kill, et cetera...). I define it as selfles=
s,
considering
how often the 'pious' talk about selflessness, about giving up your
corrupt
human nature, about ignoring your desires and seeking God...this all =
boils
down to "Deny the self and deny nature." That is morality in a nutsh=
ell
to me.
Yes, that sounds reasonable enough. So are you saying that
Man would not have worked out a system of unnatural behaviour,
i.e. moral behaviour, had he not first assumed the existence of
a god - a kind of Big Brother - watching his every move?
The moral assumption must have been first on the scene and then a god was
created to strengthen it.
The brain power necessary to recognise a god, whether fictional, or, in t=
hose
days, very real in their simple minds, would have been enough to alow the=
m the
freedom to create their moral structure.
The ancient conception of deity and ours today may not have been the
same; their 'gods' were the powers of nature- not something outside,
beyond, or superior to, but the very powers themselves. They saw life
in everything- this is not far from scientific fact (let us not forget
that, according to quantum mechanics and holographic theory both, the
universe, at the very most basic level, has consciousness).
I contrast morality with natural virtue, which would be founded upon =
the
opposite principals: ego-worship, strength of will, preservation and
continuation of life, et cetera...
Which is how we would behave if we were not endowed with the
ability to think.
In nature, goodness is defined as: strength, courage, loyalty (to ones
blood; to ones kind- for the purpose of self-preservation), wisdom
(it helps one survive), and a host of others. 'Selflessness' is not =
on
the
list- nor is 'humility', 'self-abasement', 'deception' (deception is =
an
integral part of warfare and warfare is an integral part of life),
'chastity'
(refer to the Discovery Channel- animals like knocking boots)- I could
go on.
SO- 'morality' is 'selfless' (or claims to be- it is as egocentric as
anything
else in existence, only it lies), founded upon a divine principal whi=
ch
claims
to have the authority to supercede the natural world and, therefore,
natural
virtues.
Do you think it is possible for an atheist to acknowledge the
seven deadly sins listed in the Bible, along with the "virtues"?
Surely an atheist would scoff at these simple virtues and point out the
enormous strides that man has made in the creation of his legal sructure =
which
completeley eclipses the 'seven dealy sins'
Problem with this is that the legal structure is built upon the concept
of morality- remove the moral foundation, which I admit is false, and
we go back to the stone-age.
The real question is only as to whether a man can ADMIT that his
virtues are only an illusion...
If you say yes, as I feel you must, and you use them as your
guide in maintaining a civilised lifestyle, is this not also
"morality"?
Whether or not something is advantageous to the species has nothing to
do with whether or not something is 'moral'. Death is advantageous-
nature needs everything: war, disease, tragedies of all kind, et
cetera...that does not make it 'moral'. The legal system is most
assuredly NOT moral- it only maintains an organized power structure
under the GEISE of morality.
M.
altheim wrote:
"M????=C2=A7???????=C2=A7" <JoshuaClute@gmail.com> wrote:
I once attacked humanists (in a humanist ng) on the same grounds
because they claim to have the wellbeing of humanity at heart whi=
le
being atheist in mind. I figured that without God there was no po=
int
to morality of any kind and that to claim such was hypocrisy. In =
fact
I went on to claim that, as there was no God to judge me, I might=
as
well go on a big shopping spree... with a gun.
It was explained to me that, as there was no god it was up to us
humans to take charge and care for ourselves. Whether we like
it or not, the system of morals that is already in place was deri=
ved
from the Bible. It simply makes sense to continue to use it. There
is no hypocrisy.
Reply
I replied to this as follows, but Ill paste it since it appears that
theres some confusion over what I say and to whom:
I agree completely with that, but that isnt MORALITY- that is makin=
g a
decision to behave in a certain way for the purpose of the preserva=
tion
of the species and with THAT I agree completely. I only disagree w=
ith
the fact that people call it 'moral'- it is NOT moral to do what se=
rves
you best; by the very definition of morality that is selfishness,
egotism, and immorality to the core.
I dont argue that its not better for the human species to have
some sense of order and behavioral standards; I only argue that it =
isnt
moral.
But nobody asked me to clarify.
Ah! that I'm afraid is one of our failings. All too often it simply
does not occur to us (well me) to ask. I think we just assume
you will tell us anyway.
I haven't looked up the definition of 'morality' but my take on
the word is that it has to do with conscience and the concept
of right and wrong rather than with religion. The questions then
arise; can you know right from wrong without a conscience and
can you have a conscience without God?
My guess is that all theists will anwer NO and all atheists will
answer YES (with the possible exception of CAL who will
decline to answer as he would then be forced to presume the
existence of God).
Well one of them must be right. What do you think?
--
altheim
PS thanks for quoting text. If this is difficult for you perhaps you
should invest in a decent editor.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "=?utf-8?B?TdGU0YDQuM65wqfPhNC+0YDQuNGUxb/RlMKn?=" |
|
| Title: Re: Bombings and Afterlife |
24 Jul 2005 12:04:30 PM |
|
|
altheim wrote:
"M????=C2=A7???????=C2=A7" <JoshuaClute@gmail.com> wrote:
I think a lot of this is semantic, contingent upon the definition of
morality;
I myself define morality as a system of law separate from nature, and n=
ot
having the qualities of nature (if morality were natural then it wouldnt
be
immoral to steal, rape, kill, et cetera...). I define it as selfless,
considering
how often the 'pious' talk about selflessness, about giving up your
corrupt
human nature, about ignoring your desires and seeking God...this all bo=
ils
down to "Deny the self and deny nature." That is morality in a nutshell
to me.
Yes, that sounds reasonable enough. So are you saying that
Man would not have worked out a system of unnatural behaviour,
i.e. moral behaviour, had he not first assumed the existence of
a god - a kind of Big Brother - watching his every move?
M: Im saying that the weaker organisms, incapable of fulling expressing
the true natural virtues, manifest separate 'virtues' that promote
their own survival, that these 'virtues' are no less 'selfish' than the
virtues of the stronger, more 'natural', organisms, and that their
manifestation is, in a corrupt, weakened, way, only another
manifestation of the same immorality. Instead of ego-worship, one
worships the herd; instead of courage, one worships peace- why? Beause
the herd, peace, promote the survival of the average rather than the
exceptional, and are therefore taken as the new virtues of the weak.
I contrast morality with natural virtue, which would be founded upon the
opposite principals: ego-worship, strength of will, preservation and
continuation of life, et cetera...
Which is how we would behave if we were not endowed with the
ability to think.
M: Which is how we behave regardless, only we THINK otherwise. All men
worship themselves, just not all men admit it (we worship ourselves
through our virtues, our 'morality', as men that are CAPABLE of
virtue). The only difference is as to the degree of falsity
surrounding the virtue, and the degree of its natural strength.
In nature, goodness is defined as: strength, courage, loyalty (to ones
blood; to ones kind- for the purpose of self-preservation), wisdom
(it helps one survive), and a host of others. 'Selflessness' is not on
the
list- nor is 'humility', 'self-abasement', 'deception' (deception is an
integral part of warfare and warfare is an integral part of life),
'chastity'
(refer to the Discovery Channel- animals like knocking boots)- I could
go on.
SO- 'morality' is 'selfless' (or claims to be- it is as egocentric as
anything
else in existence, only it lies), founded upon a divine principal which
claims
to have the authority to supercede the natural world and, therefore,
natural
virtues.
Do you think it is possible for an atheist to acknowledge the
seven deadly sins listed in the Bible, along with the "virtues"?
If you say yes, as I feel you must, and you use them as your
guide in maintaining a civilised lifestyle, is this not also
"morality"?
M: I dont know all of the sins, but let me take a shot at
this...Vanity- that is, the origin of all art, individuality, and
advancement of the human condition; Lust- that is, sexuality, libido,
which is, in essence, the continuation of life; Wrath- the drive to
warfare, which cleanses the species, promotes the survival of the
stronger, more fit organism, and prevents atrophy; Sloth- okay, I cant
argue here...; Gluttony- ditto; Envy- sort of agree, but sort of
disagree (envy can promote the species as well and stimulate the
competitive instincts); and the last one I cant remember...oh well.
What Im saying is that much of what is commonly called 'evil' is
necessary and even desirable when human life is looked at over long
periods of time.
M.
altheim wrote:
"M????=C2=A7???????=C2=A7" <JoshuaClute@gmail.com> wrote:
I once attacked humanists (in a humanist ng) on the same grounds
because they claim to have the wellbeing of humanity at heart while
being atheist in mind. I figured that without God there was no point
to morality of any kind and that to claim such was hypocrisy. In fa=
ct
I went on to claim that, as there was no God to judge me, I might as
well go on a big shopping spree... with a gun.
It was explained to me that, as there was no god it was up to us
humans to take charge and care for ourselves. Whether we like
it or not, the system of morals that is already in place was derived
from the Bible. It simply makes sense to continue to use it. There
is no hypocrisy.
Reply
I replied to this as follows, but Ill paste it since it appears that
theres some confusion over what I say and to whom:
I agree completely with that, but that isnt MORALITY- that is making a
decision to behave in a certain way for the purpose of the preservati=
on
of the species and with THAT I agree completely. I only disagree with
the fact that people call it 'moral'- it is NOT moral to do what serv=
es
you best; by the very definition of morality that is selfishness,
egotism, and immorality to the core.
I dont argue that its not better for the human species to have
some sense of order and behavioral standards; I only argue that it is=
nt
moral.
But nobody asked me to clarify.
Ah! that I'm afraid is one of our failings. All too often it simply
does not occur to us (well me) to ask. I think we just assume
you will tell us anyway.
I haven't looked up the definition of 'morality' but my take on
the word is that it has to do with conscience and the concept
of right and wrong rather than with religion. The questions then
arise; can you know right from wrong without a conscience and
can you have a conscience without God?
My guess is that all theists will anwer NO and all atheists will
answer YES (with the possible exception of CAL who will
decline to answer as he would then be forced to presume the
existence of God).
Well one of them must be right. What do you think?
--
altheim
PS thanks for quoting text. If this is difficult for you perhaps you
should invest in a decent editor.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
