[quote]Zeb wrote:
You’re confusing religion with faith my friend.[/quote]
You’re absolutely correct. Thanks for correcting me.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
However, we can safely assume he was wrong, as the minds he chose to persecute were among the brightest in human history.[/quote]
And who were these bright minds?
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
In a society that does not have the resources to take care of the sickly, they will have to die one way or another if the condition is bad enough. Westernized societies are not such a place. A lot of research that goes into understanding diseases/disorders of the mentally challenged, sick, etc have a lot of importance in modernized society because taking care of them helps develop ideas and technologies that are useful for productive members of society. Not to mention that a lot of people who have medical conditions can still be productive, especially with the modern medicine we have. Additionally, the more we develop our medicine, the more we can make productive people out of persons that would otherwise be complete invalids.
For all practical purposes, we already have a genocide example on a mass scale in the contiguous 48 that did occur. The genocide of the Native Americans. And you know what? Hardly anyone thinks about it and very little has been given in reparations. If Hitler won the war, people might say later on down the road that it was terrible, but not really care that much about it after the fact. Would it still be a loss? I think so for the utilitarian reasons stated in my last post.
Remember that even in the Bible, God told the Israelites to kill every man, woman, and child of that one city (sorry I haven’t looked at old testament scripture in a while so I’m a bit shaky on details). God wanted an entire group of people and their culture erased from the face of the Earth. Not even the bible says it’s wrong to kill off an entire group of people.
I like the quote… but is it there for shits and giggles or are you linking it to something you mentioned in your post? I just wanna make sure I understand your post in its entirety.[/quote]
What’s wrong with the genocide of Native Americans? It has obviously opened the path for our modern Westernized society that is currently able to take care of the mentally retarded here and providing ground-breaking research throughout the world. If the United States did not push them off their land they would probably currently still be beating their tom-toms being useless contributions to the human race.
What’s wrong with this ‘God of the Bible’ commanding the extermination of a people? God is a false idea, propagated by the weaker of society to bring down the strong and able.
Obviously I do not really believe that, but I am assuming the stance of an atheist attempting to make a moral pronouncement that God commanding the genocide of a people is immoral based on… nothing.
The quote was included to further demonstrate that the atheist has his feet planted firmly in mid-air when he tries to moralize in an immoral universe.
Here is a parable that perfectly illustrates your predicament…
THE MADMAN----Have you not heard of that madman who lit a lantern in the bright morning hours, ran to the market place, and cried incessantly: “I seek God! I seek God!”—As many of those who did not believe in God were standing around just then, he provoked much laughter. Has he got lost? asked one. Did he lose his way like a child? asked another. Or is he hiding? Is he afraid of us? Has he gone on a voyage? emigrated?—Thus they yelled and laughed
The madman jumped into their midst and pierced them with his eyes. “Whither is God?” he cried; "I will tell you. We have killed him—you and I. All of us are his murderers. But how did we do this? How could we drink up the sea? Who gave us the sponge to wipe away the entire horizon? What were we doing when we unchained this earth from its sun? Whither is it moving now? Whither are we moving? Away from all suns? Are we not plunging continually? Backward, sideward, forward, in all directions? Is there still any up or down? Are we not straying, as through an infinite nothing? Do we not feel the breath of empty space? Has it not become colder? Is not night continually closing in on us? Do we not need to light lanterns in the morning? Do we hear nothing as yet of the noise of the gravediggers who are burying God? Do we smell nothing as yet of the divine decomposition? Gods, too, decompose. God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him.
“How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it? There has never been a greater deed; and whoever is born after us—for the sake of this deed he will belong to a higher history than all history hitherto.”
Here the madman fell silent and looked again at his listeners; and they, too, were silent and stared at him in astonishment. At last he threw his lantern on the ground, and it broke into pieces and went out. “I have come too early,” he said then; "my time is not yet. This tremendous event is still on its way, still wandering; it has not yet reached the ears of men. Lightning and thunder require time; the light of the stars requires time; deeds, though done, still require time to be seen and heard. This deed is still more distant from them than most distant stars—and yet they have done it themselves.
It has been related further that on the same day the madman forced his way into several churches and there struck up his requiem aeternam deo. Led out and called to account, he is said always to have replied nothing but: “What after all are these churches now if they are not the tombs and sepulchers of God?”
Source: Friedrich Nietzsche, The Gay Science (1882, 1887) para. 125; Walter Kaufmann ed. (New York: Vintage, 1974), pp.181-82.]
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
A lot of research that goes into understanding diseases/disorders of the mentally challenged, sick, etc have a lot of importance in modernized society because taking care of them helps develop ideas and technologies that are useful for productive members of society. Not to mention that a lot of people who have medical conditions can still be productive, especially with the modern medicine we have. Additionally, the more we develop our medicine, the more we can make productive people out of persons that would otherwise be complete invalids.
[/quote]
I missed the ‘purpose’ that was packaged within the paragraph during my first pass…
You talk about ‘productive members.’
Let us use the economic definition for the sake of convenience…
Productive: -adj. producing or tending to produce goods and services having exchange value.
I am sure you have heard the illustration used by C.S Lewis, and his scenario of ships at sea.
How do you keep the ship from sinking? (personal ethics)
How do you keep from bumping into other ships? (social ethics)
Why is the ship out there in the first place? (purpose, meaning)
When you speak of ‘productive members of society’ it is implied within the statement that there is something that society is attempting to attain.
You also say we can make ‘more productive people out of invalids,’ as if these ‘productive people’ have more ‘value’ than an invalid.
Why does a non-invalid have more value than an invalid? Because they can do more stuff for society? Who cares? So the value of a person’s life is definitively defined by their ‘contribution’ to society? Who cares about society?
Societal good may be the ultimate determinative factor for you, but that is your opinion, nothing more, nothing less… for at the end of the day, we all die and become nothing but the food of worms.
Agreed. But I’ve gotta do something with my life. I might as well follow an ‘evolutionary ethic’. That is the continuation of life throughout eternity utilizing our own species capabilities. It’s a long-shot, but a person’s gotta live for something.
Also remember that extermination of the Native Americans was not the only option. In Latin America, there was more a fusion with the native inhabitants rather than a straight up extermination. At this point in the game, trying to figure out if the near extermination of North American natives was something that panned out to be a good or a bad thing for the humanity as a whole is purely speculation.
I should have been clearer about why I mentioned that the Christian God commanding the extermination of a group. The reason I mentioned it is that it’s not always clear what will be for the greater good and what won’t, even exterminating an entire people. It’s just extremely difficult to tell.
While I think it’s very difficult to tell if genocide in the past did good or bad, I don’t see a benefit for it in today’s world.
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
It’s a long-shot, but a person’s gotta live for something.[/quote]
Not necessarily.
Suicide is always an option.
Not advocating it, but for the atheist, suicide or life, it makes no difference in the end; and there is no moral reason for or against suicide.
Little excerpt taken from Ravi Zacharias’ talk at Harvard to students and faculty…
Hobart Mauer, who was no friend of Christianity, was one of the best known well stated Psychologist of his day. Mauer received his PhD from Johns Hopkins and was at onetime professor at Harvard, onetime professor at Yale, and onetime president of the American Psychological Association.. Mauer who was one of the most prolific psychologist of his day penned the following words in the American Psychologist on Sin and Psychology in response to letters regarding “Sin and Science”: -
"For several decades we psychologists have looked upon the whole matter of sin and moral accountability as a great incubus and we have acclaimed our freedom from it as epic making. But at length we have discovered to be free in this sense to have the excuse of being sick rather than being sinful is to also court the danger of also becoming lost. This danger is, I believe, betokened by the widespread interest of existentialism which we are presently witnessing, In becoming amoral, ethically neutral and free, we have cut the very roots of our being, lost our deepest sense of selfhood and identity. And with neurotics themselves, asking, “Who am I? What is my deepest destiny? And what does living really mean?”
“At 3 I had a feeling of ambivalence toward my Brothers, and so it followed naturally that I poisoned all my Lovers, but now I’m happy I have learned the lesson that this has taught that everything I do that is wrong is someone else’s fault”
When his wife passed away, and he felt as if his children had no more need for him, he committed suicide at the age of 75.
As for Bertrand Russell… he also perpetually struggled with the notion of suicide… Bertrand Russell’s adolescence was very lonely, and he often contemplated suicide. He remarked in his autobiography that his keenest interests were in sex, religion and mathematics, and that only the wish to know more mathematics kept him from suicide. (The Autobiography of Bertrand Russell, p.38)
I hope this post is not overly depressing for anybody, and once again I am not a proponent of suicide, but in the end, atheism offers no hope as a comprehensive system of thought / morality.
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
While I think it’s very difficult to tell if genocide in the past did good or bad, I don’t see a benefit for it in today’s world. [/quote]
Things do not have to be beneficial in a world devoid of a moral law.
“DNA neither cares nor knows. DNA just is. And we dance to its music.” Dawkins, Richard. -River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life(1995), 133.
lol… this made me laugh.
“No I’m not racist, I just dislike your DNA.”
ROFL
I’m not saying moral law doesn’t exist, just that it exist in a relative sense. What was acceptable and beneficial 3000 years ago may not necessarily be the right thing today. What’s acceptable and beneficial in one society may not be that way in another. Not to mention that there can be more than one moral solution to the same problem.
You’re correct about atheism not being a system of thought. It is the rejection of a theist system of belief. The comprehensive system of thought for me stems from both secular belief systems and teachings (not belief system) of the bible. For me, it’s a type of evolutionary ethics heavily influenced by the system of ethics developed by a man named John David Garcia. He’s not a prophet by any means, but a lot of his ideas made a lot of sense to me. My ethics/morality are also heavily influenced by much of the new testament of the bible and to a much lesser extent the old testament. The reason for this is that many of the moral teachings have withstood the test of time and seem to work.
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
I’m not saying moral law doesn’t exist, just that it exist in a relative sense. What was acceptable and beneficial 3000 years ago may not necessarily be the right thing today. What’s acceptable and beneficial in one society may not be that way in another. Not to mention that there can be more than one moral solution to the same problem.
You’re correct about atheism not being a system of thought. It is the rejection of a theist system of belief. The comprehensive system of thought for me stems from both secular belief systems and teachings (not belief system) of the bible. For me, it’s a type of evolutionary ethics heavily influenced by the system of ethics developed by a man named John David Garcia. He’s not a prophet by any means, but a lot of his ideas made a lot of sense to me. My ethics/morality are also heavily influenced by much of the new testament of the bible and to a much lesser extent the old testament. The reason for this is that many of the moral teachings have withstood the test of time and seem to work.
[/quote]
Moral law + relative = contradiction.
Let us follow a simple line of reasoning and wrap it up for tonight…
Evil exists. Evil may be defined as an aberration of good.
Good exists. Good may be defined as right, proper, correct.
Moral law is based on Good vs Evil. Many people fall into dualism at this point… I would rather propose that evil cannot exist without good, for evil is the perversion of good, while good can exist without evil.
Without a God, or vertical moral law giver, we are left with situational / utilitarian ethics which is nothing more than the atheist’s attempt to infuse value into an overarching meaningless universe. (insert story of Sisyphus rolling the stone here)
Without a moral law giver, there is no good. For good is that which is proper. How can one know the proper purpose of something without having a creator to infuse it with true essence? Without good, there is no evil. Leading to the point that moral law does not exist, relative or objective, without a creator. We are left with moral preferences, but not law.
edit for quote-
“If God is dead, somebody is going to have to take his place. It will be megalomania or erotomania, the drive for power or the drive for pleasure, the clenched fist or the phallus, Hitler or Hugh Hefner.”
- Malcolm Muggeridge
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
However, we can safely assume he was wrong, as the minds he chose to persecute were among the brightest in human history.[/quote]
And who were these bright minds?[/quote]
Really?
REALLY?
[quote]chobothx wrote:
I hope this post is not overly depressing for anybody, and once again I am not a proponent of suicide, but in the end, atheism offers no hope as a comprehensive system of thought / morality.[/quote]
In the end, you are not an atheist, and probably the least qualified to make a statement like this.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
In the end, you are not an atheist, and probably the least qualified to make a statement like this.[/quote]
Because the moment I become an atheist I am suddenly endowed with objective views on all of life’s decisions. amirite?
Try harder dude.
[quote]chobothx wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
In the end, you are not an atheist, and probably the least qualified to make a statement like this.[/quote]
Because the moment I become an atheist I am suddenly endowed with objective views on all of life’s decisions. amirite?
Try harder dude.[/quote]
No, you are endowed with the view on how it actually is to be an atheist. It’s not my fault you use God to prop up your life to the extent that without that pillar you would kill yourself.
chobothx, so far you did make some pretty good points against utilitarianism, nihilism and moral relativism.
but you didn’t make a single point against atheism.
those concepts aren’t identical.
there is litteraly dozens of atheistic philosophies that are neither utilitarian, nor nihilist, nor relativist.
see epicurism, stoicism, spinozism, buddhism, to name a few.
ironically a good part of the Christian conception of morality came from Aristote, who was a practical atheist (the God of Aristote is a purely metaphysical prime mover, not a moral judge).
you apparently fail to understand the difference between moral and ethics i evoked in my previous post.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
However, we can safely assume he was wrong, as the minds he chose to persecute were among the brightest in human history.[/quote]
And who were these bright minds?[/quote]
Really?
REALLY?[/quote]
Humor me. Answer the question.
[quote]kamui wrote:
chobothx, so far you did make some pretty good points against utilitarianism, nihilism and moral relativism.
but you didn’t make a single point against atheism.
those concepts aren’t identical.
there is litteraly dozens of atheistic philosophies that are neither utilitarian, nor nihilist, nor relativist.
see epicurism, stoicism, spinozism, buddhism, to name a few.
ironically a good part of the Christian conception of morality came from Aristote, who was a practical atheist (the God of Aristote is a purely metaphysical prime mover, not a moral judge).
you apparently fail to understand the difference between moral and ethics i evoked in my previous post.
[/quote]
Not to mention a great deal of atheists who manage to live their lives without having to consult a philosopher.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
However, we can safely assume he was wrong, as the minds he chose to persecute were among the brightest in human history.[/quote]
And who were these bright minds?[/quote]
Really?
REALLY?[/quote]
Humor me. Answer the question.[/quote]
I heard that Einstein guy was pretty smart. Could be wrong though.
yes, but it doesn’t stop them from using philosophical concepts everyday of said lives.
and in this regard, i will concede that the “default” philosophy of a majority of atheists is indeed utilitarism.
it’s not my position.
in my eyes, each life (including embryo’s life) is absolutely unique and therefore possess an absolute and inestimable intrinsic value.
this conception is neither religious per se, nor utilitarian.
in many ways, i’m more akin with christian traditionnalists even if i follow a different and godless path to reach the same practical conclusions.
I think atheism has a got a bad name - For example Im technically atheist because i dont believe in any god. But “I contend we are all atheists” is a pretty good quote, as religious folk don’t believe in every “GOD”. SO how can atheist have any more or less moral values???
Also, I HATE it when religious people cite people like stalin, hitler etc - regardless of whether they were actually atheists, nothing they did was ever done in the name of atheism, the same, sadly can not be said for religion. These people did what they did because they are evil fuckers not because they are atheist.
One last thing - Imo religion isn’t “bad” because there is a lot of good work with sick/homeless ppl etc etc but i think too many religious ppl have had the wool pulled over there eyes. Ie just because we don’t (yet) fully understand how we got here it doesn’t mean we should just say, “fuck it, it was magic” …
Its bullshit anyway - Most people are religious because their parents force them into one religion, rather than showing them all the options and let them pick if they so choose.