[quote]Sloth wrote:
Did you jump into this thread at the middle, or something? [/quote]
Obviously - however what difference does that actually make?
[quote]pat wrote:
Don’t fuck with the Jews, or it’s your ass.
[/quote]
Ha, fair enough.
[quote]pat wrote:
Either answer the questions or don’t answer at all. Dodging the answers serves nobody.
Can you answer them or not? If not, please don’t bother and let someone else have a try.[/quote]
I was attempting to cut to the chase - by pointing out that the end result of your morality question will result in failure to justify God’s existence. If this is not your intent, then what relevance do your questions have?
As to your question: I don’t know.
I lean toward cultural relativity - which is constrained by certain bounds, based on what it takes to achieve a biologically successful population.
[quote]Meatros wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
Either answer the questions or don’t answer at all. Dodging the answers serves nobody.
Can you answer them or not? If not, please don’t bother and let someone else have a try.[/quote]
I was attempting to cut to the chase - by pointing out that the end result of your morality question will result in failure to justify God’s existence. If this is not your intent, then what relevance do your questions have?
As to your question: I don’t know.
I lean toward cultural relativity - which is constrained by certain bounds, based on what it takes to achieve a biologically successful population. [/quote]
Thanks…Any other atheists wanna answer?
Pat let me try to clarify my position to answer what I believe you are asking.
The head of a religion (christianity for example) or any leader or the religion, doesn’t need to be the top guy, can have a non-religious purpose for delivering violence to another group, be it religious or non-religious. I.E the Jihad against the west, regardless of our religion. Even if the head or leader of the religion does not have religious motives, he may use religious motivation, to spur his people to fight the battle he wants them to fight. He has power and some or many will not question his power. Also he has the potential to have considerably more sway over some really feeble minded people who view the consequences of going against thier religious leaders as eternal damnation. It has happened before and it can happen again.
Atheists, do not have a set of rules by which to live, they are only grouped together by thier common disbelief in god or religion. There is no common morals or values systems. You can ask one athiest what good and evil is and get one answer and you can ask another and get another different answer. That being said, you can do the same excercise with any religious folk, and while thier answers may be more uniform, there will still be large discrepancies. What you do not have with atheism, is a large central power structure that hold great influence over the masses. Therefore, no great wars can be made in the name of atheism. If an atheist leader of a nation starts a war, it’s motivation is nationalistic, not religious. Even if his targets are of a religious nature.
Contrary to popular belief, religion does not hold the patent on morals or values systems. I actually have my own moral code and it was developed by observing other human beings. My father, my mother, my aunts and uncles, my heroes, my friends, etc… I’m guessing more of your actual practiced morals and values have been developed the same way, not from reading the bible or listening to sermons. I could be wrong though.
V
[quote]Meatros wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
Either answer the questions or don’t answer at all. Dodging the answers serves nobody.
Can you answer them or not? If not, please don’t bother and let someone else have a try.[/quote]
I was attempting to cut to the chase - by pointing out that the end result of your morality question will result in failure to justify God’s existence. If this is not your intent, then what relevance do your questions have?
As to your question: I don’t know.
I lean toward cultural relativity - which is constrained by certain bounds, based on what it takes to achieve a biologically successful population. [/quote]
I use the cosmological methodology to argue for the existence of God. I can use morality as a starting point, but it’s is not requisite.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Meatros wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
Therefore they did not kill in the name of atheism, but of communism.
[/quote]
Well, except that they did.
[/quote]
Is the limit to your evidence based on the amount that you assert this?
How do you ‘kill in the name of atheism’? What does that look like?
.[/quote]
Well, you take an atheist person or persons, ok? Call them the something like the “League of the Militant Godless.” Then either put rifles in their hands, or carry the rifles on their behalf. Then persecute the religious. They don’t neccessarily need to be exterminated all in one go, mind you. They simply need to be controlled and subjugated.
[/quote]
And where was there ever stand alone militant atheism?
[/quote]
Stand alone?[/quote]
Well I say political religion, you say atheism.
They were atheists but just because they were gnostic whorshippers on a jihad, their god was a jealous god.
No militant true believer accepts or respects other religions that has little to do with what shape the religion has.
So you would need to show me a belief system that centers around the fact that there is no god and has some collectivist militant agenda.
Just because quasi religious movemenst happened to be atheists does not mean that their atheism made them violent, its like claiming that all sun whorshippers are violent even though there is a range from complete hippies to the aztecs.
Atheism is like sun whorshipping in that respect, it is not a defining characteristicm it just happens to be there.
[quote]Vegita wrote:
Pat let me try to clarify my position to answer what I believe you are asking.
The head of a religion (christianity for example) or any leader or the religion, doesn’t need to be the top guy, can have a non-religious purpose for delivering violence to another group, be it religious or non-religious. I.E the Jihad against the west, regardless of our religion. Even if the head or leader of the religion does not have religious motives, he may use religious motivation, to spur his people to fight the battle he wants them to fight. He has power and some or many will not question his power. Also he has the potential to have considerably more sway over some really feeble minded people who view the consequences of going against thier religious leaders as eternal damnation. It has happened before and it can happen again.
Atheists, do not have a set of rules by which to live, they are only grouped together by thier common disbelief in god or religion. There is no common morals or values systems. You can ask one athiest what good and evil is and get one answer and you can ask another and get another different answer. That being said, you can do the same excercise with any religious folk, and while thier answers may be more uniform, there will still be large discrepancies. What you do not have with atheism, is a large central power structure that hold great influence over the masses. Therefore, no great wars can be made in the name of atheism. If an atheist leader of a nation starts a war, it’s motivation is nationalistic, not religious. Even if his targets are of a religious nature.
Contrary to popular belief, religion does not hold the patent on morals or values systems. I actually have my own moral code and it was developed by observing other human beings. My father, my mother, my aunts and uncles, my heroes, my friends, etc… I’m guessing more of your actual practiced morals and values have been developed the same way, not from reading the bible or listening to sermons. I could be wrong though.
V[/quote]
OK. So what is morality?
What is Good? What is evil?
What makes an act good or evil?
I want to know the basis of your morality, not the where, the why…
[quote]pat wrote:
I use the cosmological methodology to argue for the existence of God. I can use morality as a starting point, but it’s is not requisite.[/quote]
Interesting, my view of time negates cosmological arguments.
I see Christian morality (for the most part) as subjective and arbitrary, necessarily.
[quote]Meatros wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
I use the cosmological methodology to argue for the existence of God. I can use morality as a starting point, but it’s is not requisite.[/quote]
Interesting, my view of time negates cosmological arguments.
I see Christian morality (for the most part) as subjective and arbitrary, necessarily.[/quote]
Time is not necessary for the cosmological form.
For instance, light is infinite yet still has a source.
[quote]pat wrote:
Time is not necessary for the cosmological form.
For instance, light is infinite yet still has a source. [/quote]
I’m afraid I don’t know what you mean here. It seems to me that Light is not infinite, as it has a ‘timeline’, so-to-speak - in that it only lasts as long as the source lasts.
In another sense, it is eternal, in the B-Theory of time. If the B-Theory of time is correct, then there is no need for a ‘source’, since there was never a point when the universe didn’t exist.
[quote]Meatros wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
Time is not necessary for the cosmological form.
For instance, light is infinite yet still has a source. [/quote]
I’m afraid I don’t know what you mean here. It seems to me that Light is not infinite, as it has a ‘timeline’, so-to-speak - in that it only lasts as long as the source lasts.
In another sense, it is eternal, in the B-Theory of time. If the B-Theory of time is correct, then there is no need for a ‘source’, since there was never a point when the universe didn’t exist.[/quote]
Light has two particular infinite properties. First it travels at the speed of light which is time=0.
Second, a beam of light will continue infinitely so long it is not inhibited.
Causation doesn’t require temporal order. There is not a single ‘thing’ in the universe that exists uncaused.
[quote]pat wrote:
Light has two particular infinite properties. First it travels at the speed of light which is time=0.
Second, a beam of light will continue infinitely so long it is not inhibited.[/quote]
I think the confusion that I am having hinges on your use of the term ‘infinite’. Neither of your uses mean that light has been around for ever, correct? This is not what you are saying, right?
Actually, what we experience within this universe is a change of either material or energy into a different type of material/energy. As to requiring a temporal order, I’m not sure what you are referring to - but then again, I don’t think that time exists. I also don’t think that the universe was caused. In fact, I don’t think it’s logically possible for the universe to have been caused.
As to things in the universe not being caused - what about quantum fluctuations? Also, applying what occurs within the universe to the universe potentially commits the fallacy of composition.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Vegita wrote:
Pat let me try to clarify my position to answer what I believe you are asking.
The head of a religion (christianity for example) or any leader or the religion, doesn’t need to be the top guy, can have a non-religious purpose for delivering violence to another group, be it religious or non-religious. I.E the Jihad against the west, regardless of our religion. Even if the head or leader of the religion does not have religious motives, he may use religious motivation, to spur his people to fight the battle he wants them to fight. He has power and some or many will not question his power. Also he has the potential to have considerably more sway over some really feeble minded people who view the consequences of going against thier religious leaders as eternal damnation. It has happened before and it can happen again.
Atheists, do not have a set of rules by which to live, they are only grouped together by thier common disbelief in god or religion. There is no common morals or values systems. You can ask one athiest what good and evil is and get one answer and you can ask another and get another different answer. That being said, you can do the same excercise with any religious folk, and while thier answers may be more uniform, there will still be large discrepancies. What you do not have with atheism, is a large central power structure that hold great influence over the masses. Therefore, no great wars can be made in the name of atheism. If an atheist leader of a nation starts a war, it’s motivation is nationalistic, not religious. Even if his targets are of a religious nature.
Contrary to popular belief, religion does not hold the patent on morals or values systems. I actually have my own moral code and it was developed by observing other human beings. My father, my mother, my aunts and uncles, my heroes, my friends, etc… I’m guessing more of your actual practiced morals and values have been developed the same way, not from reading the bible or listening to sermons. I could be wrong though.
V[/quote]
OK. So what is morality?
What is Good? What is evil?
What makes an act good or evil?
I want to know the basis of your morality, not the where, the why…[/quote]
I’m not atheist so I’m not sure how this would advance the discussion any. I’ll humor you though so we can get on with the discussion.
Morality to me, is what my personal beliefs are and how I act accordingly. My set of morals or my self rules if you will, is not measured on a continuum of good or evil as you would define it. My morals lead me to seek experience, nothing more, nothing less. However, I thirst for advanced civilization experiences, I urge to experience bliss as true as I can experience it, therefore for me, lifting up those around me seems like the best way to gain this experience. My studies have lead me to view people who try to attain bliss through pushing others down, do not really raise themselves up, they only percieve it that way for a short time. This is simplistic but I don’t have time to go on a 3 page explanation here, you get my point.
Good and evil are entirely mad made phenomena, and within the scope of humanity, I believe they exist, yet outside of humanity, they do not. An act of evil to me would be an intentional act which would likley result in a negative or undesireable outcome for another human or another living being. an act of good, would be the opposite, an intentional act which would likley result in a positive or desireable outcome for another human or another living being.
To clarify what I mean by good and evil not existing outside the human reality. If man nuked the world and tore it apart destroying it, that in my mind would be an act of evil. However, if a commet slams into the earth, ripping it apart and destroying it, that is not an act of evil. The result is the same, yet a human defines one as a judgeable act and one as not judgeable. If people truly believed that a spirit is everlasting, or immortal, or a peice of god, then truly our essence cannot be killed no matter what physical fate we suffer here on earth. In that case, murder to me while viewed in the human experience is evil, the two souls who have the exchange most likley do not view it that way and they both most likley carry on with whatever it is sould do when not inhabiting a human body. Maybe they grab another human to experience some more 3d living, maybe they move on to some other thing.
So for me, good acts are ones that help me reach my personal goals, based on my moral foundation. I want to experience 3D bliss in this lifetime, so things that help me get to that reality are viewed by me to be good and things which take me farther away from that are bad. IF however someone had some really opposite beliefs and desires, if they came here seeking the experience of pain and suffering, well then they would be at odds with my desires and it would be reasonable for me to eliminate or help eliminate that force. Be it a singular man or a group of people. So for me killing is absolutely not a black and white, good or evil deed. It is entirely dependant upon the circumstances, and only for me is it relative. I think there are a lot of other humans who are looking to experience a blissful existance here, so I don’t feel like I am out on an island alone.
Hopefully I have answered your questions in a sufficient manner to get the ball rolling again, however like I siad, I believe in a god or a source and life after death, i’m just not into any organized religion.
V
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Meatros wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
Either answer the questions or don’t answer at all. Dodging the answers serves nobody.
Can you answer them or not? If not, please don’t bother and let someone else have a try.[/quote]
I was attempting to cut to the chase - by pointing out that the end result of your morality question will result in failure to justify God’s existence. If this is not your intent, then what relevance do your questions have?
As to your question: I don’t know.
I lean toward cultural relativity - which is constrained by certain bounds, based on what it takes to achieve a biologically successful population. [/quote]
Thanks…Any other atheists wanna answer? [/quote]
I could I guess…
What is good? Well, something that is beneficial to the “group” you are a part of. f.eks.
Murder isn’t generealy looked well upon, it damages the pack, and doesn’t bring anything other than fear and so forth - and unnatural decrease in population.
Don’t know if my idea gets through properly. I guess what I’m saying is:
“Good is defined by the group one exists in”, since most groups are different on alot of levels, good must be a relative term.
By benefitial I mean whatever helps the group expand.
I guess it’s kinda the same as meatros, so this post is kinda redundant
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Vegita wrote:
Pat let me try to clarify my position to answer what I believe you are asking.
The head of a religion (christianity for example) or any leader or the religion, doesn’t need to be the top guy, can have a non-religious purpose for delivering violence to another group, be it religious or non-religious. I.E the Jihad against the west, regardless of our religion. Even if the head or leader of the religion does not have religious motives, he may use religious motivation, to spur his people to fight the battle he wants them to fight. He has power and some or many will not question his power. Also he has the potential to have considerably more sway over some really feeble minded people who view the consequences of going against thier religious leaders as eternal damnation. It has happened before and it can happen again.
Atheists, do not have a set of rules by which to live, they are only grouped together by thier common disbelief in god or religion. There is no common morals or values systems. You can ask one athiest what good and evil is and get one answer and you can ask another and get another different answer. That being said, you can do the same excercise with any religious folk, and while thier answers may be more uniform, there will still be large discrepancies. What you do not have with atheism, is a large central power structure that hold great influence over the masses. Therefore, no great wars can be made in the name of atheism. If an atheist leader of a nation starts a war, it’s motivation is nationalistic, not religious. Even if his targets are of a religious nature.
Contrary to popular belief, religion does not hold the patent on morals or values systems. I actually have my own moral code and it was developed by observing other human beings. My father, my mother, my aunts and uncles, my heroes, my friends, etc… I’m guessing more of your actual practiced morals and values have been developed the same way, not from reading the bible or listening to sermons. I could be wrong though.
V[/quote]
OK. So what is morality?
What is Good? What is evil?
What makes an act good or evil?
I want to know the basis of your morality, not the where, the why…[/quote]
…conscience…
Now see, what we have here are three attempts to define morality, by not really defining it. In short, whatever helps a group survive/expand. Well, if a group could expand by taking another groups resources, a group they could easily crush, that would be moral. Of course, if you ask some enviromentalists they’d make it seem as if exapansion is, well, immoral. The whole earth devouring, humanity as virus, thing. Then there’s simply conscience. And we all know that varies by extremes.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Now see, what we have here are three attempts to define morality, by not really defining it. In short, whatever helps a group survive/expand. Well, if a group could expand by taking another groups resources, a group they could easily crush, that would be moral. Of course, if you ask some enviromentalists they’d make it seem as if exapansion is, well, immoral. The whole earth devouring, humanity as virus, thing. Then there’s simply conscience. And we all know that varies by extremes. [/quote]
Not exactly. What you are describing is ‘might makes right’, which some moral theories deploy (such as Christianity). I think that most of the moral schemes here are not quite that simple, in that if various groups did as you say, the population would flutter out. In short, such a mentality (if it were wide spread) would eventually get taken care of via natural selection. Mankind has evolved alturism though and empathy, which can be seen in primitive form by our closest ancestors (chimps and bonobos).
[quote]Meatros wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Now see, what we have here are three attempts to define morality, by not really defining it. In short, whatever helps a group survive/expand. Well, if a group could expand by taking another groups resources, a group they could easily crush, that would be moral. Of course, if you ask some enviromentalists they’d make it seem as if exapansion is, well, immoral. The whole earth devouring, humanity as virus, thing. Then there’s simply conscience. And we all know that varies by extremes. [/quote]
Not exactly. What you are describing is ‘might makes right’, which some moral theories deploy (such as Christianity). I think that most of the moral schemes here are not quite that simple, in that if various groups did as you say, the population would flutter out. In short, such a mentality (if it were wide spread) would eventually get taken care of via natural selection. Mankind has evolved alturism though and empathy, which can be seen in primitive form by our closest ancestors (chimps and bonobos). [/quote]
Ok, allow me to be more direct. If a clearly superior group needed the resources that another clearly inferior group possessed, in order to continue it’s expansion (perhaps to a superpower scale), then it would be moral to take those resources?
The problem I’m seeing is that as long as a group could increase it’s survival, the means would be justified. If slaughtering the puny group next door actually does enrich your group, then you’ve acted ‘good.’ If remaining peaceful, or if not subjugating yourself to an oppressive invader, gets your group slaughtered, then it’s ‘evil’ that has been vanquished and the ‘good’ have triumphed. Pure tooth and claw natural selection morality. Whatever works for your ‘group.’
Let’s entertain that morality is written upon our DNA, expressed as empathy and altruism. Well, again, these things vary. Morality could stop with myself, or my family, or my neighborhood, or my city, and so on. If Joe Thug’s morality ends with his gang, and he robs and kills someone outside of that gang without much if any remorse, then he’s acted morally.