The Free Talk Live BBS
Free Talk Live => General => Topic started by: Diogenes The Cynic on December 27, 2009, 04:52:54 AM
-
Do ethics matter?
If so, why?
-
Do ethics matter?
If so, why?
You are your own god. You need to live with yourself. My ethics are not absolute, but they work for me. And they're better than most peoples. (relatively speaking, the slime that hurts others, sues people, calls cops on neighbors, etc)
I can sleep at night knowing I have lived up to my personal beliefs. I am not bothered by my actions.
My question is, why is this directed at athiests? Do you actually believe the religious are not flawed, or their behaviors are ethical without question? There are levels of belief, you know, and one of the first things people learn to rationally mistrust and/or disrespect is those who do not "practice what they preach". If I had to define "unethical" it would begin, right off the bat, with people who hypocritically hold others to a faith-standard that they themselves do not employ.
Morality (from the Latin moralitas "manner, character, proper behavior") has three principal meanings.
In its first, descriptive usage, morality means a code of conduct or a set of beliefs distinguishing between right and wrong behaviors. In its descriptive use, morals are arbitrarily and subjectively created by philosophy, religion, and/or individual conscience.
Theres more in there about rational personal behavior than religion, me boy. The sky-wizard is not a necessary component. I won't catapult straight into religion causing more damage than its done good, because I don't want to turn this into an immediate insult-fest. But that is an ethical and moral extension that is worthy of consideration, meaning the purposeful perpetuation of a practice that divides people and causes unrest between groups. Personally, I don't condone that shit being out of the house. If the public organized practice of your beliefs effect others negatively, perhaps they are unethical practices. I know my life would probably be very different if there wasn't a clash between religions happening in the world around me. You may be peaceful, and thats good, but you're still a part of it. And I'll tell ya, I don't appreciate it very fuckin' much when this shit effects me.
Be that as it may, there is still personal philosophy and conscience to contend with. 2/3rds is the bigger half. So a vaunted perspective of religion is inappropriate in the construct of moral and ethical behavior, bring it down to earth with the pagans, walk among us, you'll be better for it.
I hate to shit the whole thing up by quoting George Carlin, but he does a piece where he boils the ten commandments down into two, I think. Don't kill, and don't steal. Maybe three, don't lie, but sometimes lies are necessary, so he may have wiggled out of that one. The rest is condensed into those two. Its all I've ever really lived by, and I don't need a god or a comedian to tell me that. We can all agree thats some important shit there. The rest is subjective, sometimes its necessary to do stuff. But more importantly, and all encompassing, THOU SHALT NOT EFFECT OTHERS. That is your big and absolute moral. Its like the safety seal on the package of cookies. Once you open the bag of THOU SHALT NOT EFFECT OTHERS, you're in. And it better be some goddamn win. You better be sticking cookies in the bag, or saving your own ass from a whole pile of fuck.
-
My question is, why is this directed at athiests? Do you actually believe the religious are not flawed, or their behaviors are ethical without question?
This. Morally, the only real difference between atheists and theists is that atheists are more likely to acknowledge that they choose their morality.
-
I have not noticed a great deal of ethics among believers in god. The prisons are full of Christians.
-
Yes, very much so.
Individual reputation in the context of a moral system based on the pursuit of empirical economic benefit for the human civilization as a whole (evolutionary pragmatism).
-
Yes, very much so.
Individual reputation in the context of a moral system based on the pursuit of empirical economic benefit for the human civilization as a whole (evolutionary pragmatism).
Individual reputation in the context of a moral system based on the pursuit of benefit for the human civilization as a whole. That and it makes my personal life better.
-
1.You are your own god.
2.You need to live with yourself. My ethics are not absolute, but they work for me. And they're better than most peoples.
3.I can sleep at night knowing I have lived up to my personal beliefs. I am not bothered by my actions.
4.My question is, why is this directed at athiests?
5.Do you actually believe the religious are not flawed, or their behaviors are ethical without question?
6. If I had to define "unethical" it would begin, right off the bat, with people who hypocritically hold others to a faith-standard that they themselves do not employ.
7.Morality (from the Latin moralitas "manner, character, proper behavior") has three principal meanings.
In its first, descriptive usage, morality means a code of conduct or a set of beliefs distinguishing between right and wrong behaviors. In its descriptive use, morals are arbitrarily and subjectively created by philosophy, religion, and/or individual conscience.
8. You may be peaceful, and thats good, but you're still a part of it. And I'll tell ya, I don't appreciate it very fuckin' much when this shit effects me.
9.Be that as it may, there is still personal philosophy and conscience to contend with. 2/3rds is the bigger half. So a vaunted perspective of religion is inappropriate in the construct of moral and ethical behavior, bring it down to earth with the pagans, walk among us, you'll be better for it.
1. I don't understand this.
2. Your ethics couldn't be absolute. Maybe we will touch on this later.
My question is, why have ethics at all? This ties into point (3) but I don't understand why an atheist would have a conscience about anything. Given a simple cost/benefit analysis, you stand to gain more from not having personal scruples because limiting yourself comes at a disadvantage, while not having those limits produces benefit.
4. Atheists don't have what I would consider a compelling reason to behave in a manner that isn't entirely selfish. An atheist could be selfish, and live without ethics, and for them, there wouldn't be a moral dilemma involved with this.
5. I believe that religious people can be flawed. But that entire discussion is irrelevant, and its funny how defensive you are in that respect. The second part of the question I will answer, if you reask me.
6. You claim hypocrisy to be unethical. No argument there.
7. Right. Why have any if you could live without them?
8. I have your approval? Thanks man! Newsflash dude, not all religious people are the same, and I bet the majority don't care enough to change you. Aside from that, you're being hostile, and for no real discernible reason.
9. If you're choosing your own morality, why would it be one that is to your own detriment?
-
I recommend
Universally Preferable Behavior by Stefan Molyneux.
http://www.freedomainradio.com/Books/UniversallyPreferableBehaviourEthics.aspx
*Awaiting Shitstorm from the Usual Suspects*
-
Are ethics important to believers because of the fear of hell or promise of heaven?
As an atheist, I believe I'm living the only life I'll ever experience. So, because this is it, it's proper for me to be the best person, father, friend that I can possibly be- for my personal benefit as well as everyone else. There is no reward for my good behavior upon death (and very little reward during life), so to me this is an even more pure form of "righteous living" because I'm doing so according to my personal moral code, as opposed to instructions from someone else based on a reward system.
If I should choose to harm someone, it's because someone has harmed me first. There are no demons to blame, no one to repent to, and no "God's plan" to hold accountable- just me.
What is hard to comprehend in Drifter's "You are your own god." ?
-
I have not noticed a great deal of ethics among believers in god. The prisons are full of Christians.
In all fairness, a lot of people DO seem to "find" Jesus there....
....often shortly before parole hearings....
-
As a non-atheist, I'm gonna say that I don't think I get my ethics from religion, but that I think that my religion reflects the ethics that I believe are good anyways.
-
I recommend
Universally Preferable Behavior by Stefan Molyneux.
http://www.freedomainradio.com/Books/UniversallyPreferableBehaviourEthics.aspx
*Awaiting Shitstorm from the Usual Suspects*
If you mailed me a copy, I would read it.
-
I have not noticed a great deal of ethics among believers in god. The prisons are full of Christians.
In all fairness, a lot of people DO seem to "find" Jesus there....
....often shortly before parole hearings....
The majority of prison conversions are because people want to be included in a group, and religious groups are often the least violent.
In all fairness, maybe you should stop putting non-violent people there.
-
I recommend
Universally Preferable Behavior by Stefan Molyneux.
http://www.freedomainradio.com/Books/UniversallyPreferableBehaviourEthics.aspx
*Awaiting Shitstorm from the Usual Suspects*
If you mailed me a copy, I would read it.
You can download the PDF right from that page. It's free. There's also a link to the audiobook.
-
*Awaiting Shitstorm from the Usual Suspects*
Nah. Molybomb target is damaged. Commence with landing sequence, Alpha-2. You are go.
-
I listened to the podcast and found it very insightful. I think highly of Stephan's work. I'm not a philosophy expert by any means (if such a thing truly exists), but his "universally preferably behavior theory" sings of common sense. Here is a youtube summary :
[youtube=425,350] <object width="660" height="525"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/CueDiner6t0&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x234900&color2=0x4e9e00&border=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/CueDiner6t0&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x234900&color2=0x4e9e00&border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="660" height="525"></embed></object>[/youtube]
-
The majority of prison conversions are because people want to be included in a group, and religious groups are often the least violent.
That, and it occasionally helps them get out faster. If Oklahoma's Christian prison (http://www.tulsaworld.com/site/printerfriendlystory.aspx?articleid=20091102_18_A1_WAKITA319539&loc=interstitialskip) gets off the ground, I'd sure rather be there than a regular prison.
-
The majority of prison conversions are because people want to be included in a group, and religious groups are often the least violent.
Most of those in prison (as with society at large) hold to some belief in God prior to their arrest. It's just that Christianity is so wonderfully flexible. You can commit some horrible crime, and then have the guilt of it magically erased via divine forgiveness. "I once was lost, but now I'm saved."
-
I listened to the podcast and found it very insightful. I think highly of Stephan's work. I'm not a philosophy expert by any means (if such a thing truly exists), but his "universally preferably behavior theory" sings of common sense. Here is a youtube summary :
[youtube=425,350] <object width="660" height="525"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/CueDiner6t0&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x234900&color2=0x4e9e00&border=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/CueDiner6t0&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x234900&color2=0x4e9e00&border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="660" height="525"></embed></object>[/youtube]
I listened to the entire youtube post, and it occurred to me. The moral theory he proposes is similar to Immanuel Kant's Categorical Imperative. It has the same problems as well because Molyneux proposes a moral system based on a universal understanding of ethics. While it may be great at he universal level, its best for the individual to now follow the system, and thereby benefit from the rewards, but not its costs. For the universal good, its preferable for everyone to be honest, but for the individual good, its good for everyone ELSE to be honest.
-
I listened to the entire youtube post, and it occurred to me. The moral theory he proposes is similar to Immanuel Kant's Categorical Imperative. It has the same problems as well because Molyneux proposes a moral system based on a universal understanding of ethics. While it may be great at he universal level, its best for the individual to now follow the system, and thereby benefit from the rewards, but not its costs. For the universal good, its preferable for everyone to be honest, but for the individual good, its good for everyone ELSE to be honest.
You just described Prisoner's Dilemma (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma). And the indefinitely iterated version most akin to real-world interaction rewards individual cooperation, because dishonest people don't get repeat business.
-
Agreed. That's what I always note about the prisoner's dilemma. It assumes lack of communication between participants. There will always be exceptions and aberrations. However a rational person, capable of observation and acting in his own self interest, will learn that respecting the rights of others and operating (mostly) within societal norms will yield the most desirable results.
-
Of course ethics matter. But only in the context that one lives in a society. And society rewards ethical behavior in the long run.
If we were able to live our lives isolated from one and other, ethics would not even exist. At that point, the only rule would be for one to stay alive, no matter what it takes.
-
Agreed. That's what I always note about the prisoner's dilemma. It assumes lack of communication between participants. There will always be exceptions and aberrations. However a rational person, capable of observation and acting in his own self interest, will learn that respecting the rights of others and operating (mostly) within societal norms will yield the most desirable results.
Ethics help society function, agreed, but for a person who is entirely selfish, they would do all that they could thats unethical that wouldn't get them thrown into jail, or otherwise excluded. I also hold the notion that an extremely rational person would be self-absorbed, and selfish.
-
How does belief in a god affect your ethics Cynic?
-
How does belief in a god affect your ethics Cynic?
The ethical guide I live by is my understanding of what G-d expects from me.
-
How does belief in a god affect your ethics Cynic?
The ethical guide I live by is my understanding of what G-d expects from me.
Would you still behave the same way if the concepts of heaven and hell played absolutely no part in your religion?
-
How does belief in a god affect your ethics Cynic?
The ethical guide I live by is my understanding of what G-d expects from me.
Would you still behave the same way if the concepts of heaven and hell played absolutely no part in your religion?
Of course! I behave the way I do, not from the intangible punishments of hell, or rewards of heaven, but because I understand that what G-d expects me to do is my duty.
-
How does belief in a god affect your ethics Cynic?
The ethical guide I live by is my understanding of what G-d expects from me.
except all the shit the bible says god expects from you that you don't agree with, in which case non of that stuff actually applies.
All Christians/Jews pick and choose from the bible/Torah, shit there are so many contradictions its impossible not to.. Everyone picks their own morals, its just religionists pick an old book to back up the shit they like, and pretend they got them from a higher being.
-
Ethics help society function, agreed, but for a person who is entirely selfish, they would do all that they could thats unethical that wouldn't get them thrown into jail, or otherwise excluded. I also hold the notion that an extremely rational person would be self-absorbed, and selfish.
And, almost certainly, very very lonely. They probably couldn't pass on their selfish genes to many, if any, offspring.
-
Ethics help society function, agreed, but for a person who is entirely selfish, they would do all that they could thats unethical that wouldn't get them thrown into jail, or otherwise excluded. I also hold the notion that an extremely rational person would be self-absorbed, and selfish.
So what? So let that guy (let's call him Ebenezer) live his self-absorbed and selfish life. In your system, each of you will get your reward in the afterlife. In my system, the world I build for myself here is its own reward. Ebenezer has built his life for himself. Maybe it really sucks for him, maybe he is happy. Who are we to judge? If there is a god then that god will judge Ebenezer. I don't care. The beauty is that under either your "system" or mine, he gets what is coming to him.
I suppose I could be afraid that Ebenezer will be a total prick and somehow have a happy life anyway. Guess what. I will make myself (and possibly others) miserable looking for justice in this world by trying to make Ebenezer get what is "coming to him". This is where the Judeo-Christian view gets it screwed up. They spend so much effort trying to build God's kingdom here on Earth that they lose some of the joy of this fleeting existence.
Here is my recommendation for you humans: Enjoy this life and the gifts given to you by the Flying Spaghetti Monster (or whoever you worship) and try not to be an asshole while you are at it. That's where it is at. If you are doing wrong to your fellow man, he'll make you see the error of your ways pretty quickly. Make sure you can look yourself in the mirror at the end of each day and you will likely be okay with any just deity at the end of your all-too-short life.
-
How does belief in a god affect your ethics Cynic?
The ethical guide I live by is my understanding of what G-d expects from me.
except all the shit the bible says god expects from you that you don't agree with, in which case non of that stuff actually applies.
All Christians/Jews pick and choose from the bible/Torah, shit there are so many contradictions its impossible not to.. Everyone picks their own morals, its just religionists pick an old book to back up the shit they like, and pretend they got them from a higher being.
What the heck are you talking about?
Why are you trying to get us off topic?
-
Ethics help society function, agreed, but for a person who is entirely selfish, they would do all that they could thats unethical that wouldn't get them thrown into jail, or otherwise excluded. I also hold the notion that an extremely rational person would be self-absorbed, and selfish.
And, almost certainly, very very lonely. They probably couldn't pass on their selfish genes to many, if any, offspring.
A truly selfish person would wear a condom.
That way, they never have to take care of anyone else. Being selfish and all.
-
A truly selfish person would wear a condom.
That way, they never have to take care of anyone else. Being selfish and all.
I don't know; some of the most selfish people I've ever met have been mothers.
-
Ethics help society function, agreed, but for a person who is entirely selfish, they would do all that they could thats unethical that wouldn't get them thrown into jail, or otherwise excluded. I also hold the notion that an extremely rational person would be self-absorbed, and selfish.
And, almost certainly, very very lonely. They probably couldn't pass on their selfish genes to many, if any, offspring.
A truly selfish person would wear a condom.
That way, they never have to take care of anyone else. Being selfish and all.
But, who are they going to use the condom with?
Oh--I mean other than a prostitute.
-
How does belief in a god affect your ethics Cynic?
The ethical guide I live by is my understanding of what G-d expects from me.
except all the shit the bible says god expects from you that you don't agree with, in which case non of that stuff actually applies.
All Christians/Jews pick and choose from the bible/Torah, shit there are so many contradictions its impossible not to.. Everyone picks their own morals, its just religionists pick an old book to back up the shit they like, and pretend they got them from a higher being.
What the heck are you talking about?
Why are you trying to get us off topic?
No, we're talking about morality/ethics, you're saying that your ethics are based on what you think God expects from you, and now I'm saying that you don't follow everything god expects from you. (i.e. you pick and choose just like everyone else)
It clearly says in Leviticus you should put men who sleep with other men to death.
It says nothing about "only if they're jews living in israel" or whatever bullshit excuse you used last time i brought this up. You don't follow it because deep down you know its a bullshit ruling, but you can't bring yourself to say something in the Torah is wrong, so you just ignore it.
Hell, lets even say it only applies to Jews in Israel. Why aren't they doing what god expects them to do there? How would you feel if Israel decided they weren't going to punish murderers and thieves any more?
If people can use the "it was a different time and cultural background" to excuse why they don't kill gays, why can't they use it for murderers or kosher?
Classic pick and choosing. You pick the parts you like, and you disregard or disobey the parts you don't.
How about stoning unruly children?
How it being okay to beat slaves as long as you don't kill them? (please don't try to act that this was talking about voluntary servitude)
Do you follow all the rules on jerking off aswell? (http://www.biblestudytools.com/cjb/leviticus/15.html)
How about menstrual cycles? If a woman has a discharge, and the discharge from her body is blood, she will be in her state of niddah for seven days. Whoever touches her will be unclean until evening. 20 Everything she lies on or sits on in her state of niddah will be unclean. 21 Whoever touches her bed is to wash his clothes and bathe himself in water; he will be unclean until evening
Given the whole "unclean" thing is used against pork, shouldn't you take staying away from shit menstruating women touch aswell? How are you even supposed to know? Should you ask a woman if she's menstruated in the last 7 days before you take anything from her?
I don't see how more on topic I could be. I think if you understood that you choose your own ethics, just like atheists (except you choose some out of an old book). I'm sure theres ethical issues you have an opinion on that isn't covered in the Torah. Like cloning or genetic engineering. The people who wrote the Torah couldn't have possibly forseen GE, but no doubt you have an ethical stance on it, even if its "don't really care either way".
The same way you can have that ethical opinion on GE even though god doesn't tell you how to think about it, is the same way everyone else does it.
-
No, we're talking about morality/ethics, you're saying that your ethics are based on what you think God expects from you, and now I'm saying that you don't follow everything god expects from you. (i.e. you pick and choose just like everyone else)
It clearly says in Leviticus you should put men who sleep with other men to death.
It says nothing about "only if they're jews living in israel" or whatever bullshit excuse you used last time i brought this up. You don't follow it because deep down you know its a bullshit ruling, but you can't bring yourself to say something in the Torah is wrong, so you just ignore it.
Hell, lets even say it only applies to Jews in Israel. Why aren't they doing what god expects them to do there? How would you feel if Israel decided they weren't going to punish murderers and thieves any more?
If people can use the "it was a different time and cultural background" to excuse why they don't kill gays, why can't they use it for murderers or kosher?
Classic pick and choosing. You pick the parts you like, and you disregard or disobey the parts you don't.
How about stoning unruly children?
How it being okay to beat slaves as long as you don't kill them? (please don't try to act that this was talking about voluntary servitude)
Do you follow all the rules on jerking off aswell? (http://www.biblestudytools.com/cjb/leviticus/15.html)
How about menstrual cycles? If a woman has a discharge, and the discharge from her body is blood, she will be in her state of niddah for seven days. Whoever touches her will be unclean until evening. 20 Everything she lies on or sits on in her state of niddah will be unclean. 21 Whoever touches her bed is to wash his clothes and bathe himself in water; he will be unclean until evening
Given the whole "unclean" thing is used against pork, shouldn't you take staying away from shit menstruating women touch aswell? How are you even supposed to know? Should you ask a woman if she's menstruated in the last 7 days before you take anything from her?
I don't see how more on topic I could be. I think if you understood that you choose your own ethics, just like atheists (except you choose some out of an old book). I'm sure theres ethical issues you have an opinion on that isn't covered in the Torah. Like cloning or genetic engineering. The people who wrote the Torah couldn't have possibly forseen GE, but no doubt you have an ethical stance on it, even if its "don't really care either way".
The same way you can have that ethical opinion on GE even though god doesn't tell you how to think about it, is the same way everyone else does it.
Damnit fatcat, whats wrong with you?
I started a thread to ask a question about atheism, and not to have you bitch about religion. I don't know why you think its relevant, but you're coming across as a troll right now.
You know I am not an apologist for my faith, so even posting is an attempt to start an argument. Its like you're a chick thats trying to turn something into an argument when it wasn't before. Its obvious you don't want an explanation. You want an argument.
If you refer to anything in the Torah as bs again, I will delete your posts. I welcome discussion, not denigration.
So, I'll bite your red herring. I do everything G-d expects from me. The superfluous things you mentioned will be discussed.
To address the points you brought up in the Torah: You keep quoting the written Torah, and not its oral component, the Gemara. You can only understand the Torah in context if you have the Gemara. They are two halves of a whole. The Gemara discusses how "eye for an eye" means you pay for the value of a lost eye, and not take out someone elses eye. I explained this to you before, and you didn't listen.
Capital punishment can only be done in the presence of a Sanhedrin of 71 members. We don't have that today.
Israel doesn't follow Jewish law, and that's problematic, but its a democracy, so people can't be forced into anything.
The Gemara says that the case of the rebellious son will never happen. Its supposed to teach good parenting traits, which are found in the Gemara.
Where does it say its ok to beat slaves?
The unclean thing is not used for pork. Yet another thing you fail to understand.
Husbands cant drink out of cups their wives drink from when they're niddah. Its something thats practiced today. The wife tells the husband.
We don't pick and choose, we just do the things that are applicable today. You just have a failure to understand anything in context and mention things you're ignorant about as a defense for your (stupid) viewpoint. The funny thing is, you're too ignorant to even argue with because you don't know any of my actual viewpoints, and can only substitute what you think they are. While I learned a considerable amount of anthropology, and philosophy in college, and throughout my adult life, you don't know the basics of the religion you're arguing against. Ignorance isn't a good defense.
-
Damnit fatcat, whats wrong with you?
I started a thread to ask a question about atheism, and not to have you bitch about religion. I don't know why you think its relevant, but you're coming across as a troll right now.
In fairness to fatcat, asking why ethics should matter to atheists displays either an incredible epistemological blind spot or a deliberate insult.
-
"I don't pick and choose, I just follow what applies today."
Really? Really?? How is that not selective choosing?
I dont think the second amendment in the constitution applies today, nor the third commandment...so I'm just not going to follow them because this is a new day where they dont matter, but I follow the rest so its OK.
-
Damnit fatcat, whats wrong with you?
I started a thread to ask a question about atheism, and not to have you bitch about religion. I don't know why you think its relevant, but you're coming across as a troll right now.
In fairness to fatcat, asking why ethics should matter to atheists displays either an incredible epistemological blind spot or a deliberate insult.
It wasn't an insult. I wouldn't ask a question I knew the answer to. I wanted to see what other people thought.
-
"I don't pick and choose, I just follow what applies today."
Really? Really?? How is that not selective choosing?
I dont think the second amendment in the constitution applies today, nor the third commandment...so I'm just not going to follow them because this is a new day where they dont matter, but I follow the rest so its OK.
Many of the mitzvot are dependent on having the Temple in Jerusalem. Since it's not there, we can't do everything we are commanded to. Its not being selective as it would be impossible to do those things, because if we could, we would.
-
Damnit fatcat, whats wrong with you?
I started a thread to ask a question about atheism, and not to have you bitch about religion. I don't know why you think its relevant, but you're coming across as a troll right now.
In fairness to fatcat, asking why ethics should matter to atheists displays either an incredible epistemological blind spot or a deliberate insult.
I've been wondering the same thing. It does seem like the whole thing was phrased just to get a reaction from atheists. Ethics and morals aren't something foreign to atheists. The concept of good & evil - were around long before any bible.
I have conversations with my children all the time about making the right choices in how one treats others without ever quoting religious texts. In fact, with my one child who is showing a leaning toward Faith, I tell her - of course it's my daughter - the commandment "Thou shalt not steal" being added to the old testament isn't what makes stealing wrong; it was added to the o.t. because it was wrong. Some people need to be reminded, because they weren't able to figure that out for themselves.
-
I recommend
Universally Preferable Behavior by Stefan Molyneux.
http://www.freedomainradio.com/Books/UniversallyPreferableBehaviourEthics.aspx
*Awaiting Shitstorm from the Usual Suspects*
/Shitstorm?
If you have Google "auto fill" in your search recommendations, type in "moly", and see what your first suggestion is.
It might not work properly in the Kingdom.
-
You need to live with yourself. My ethics are not absolute, but they work for me. And they're better than most peoples. (relatively speaking, the slime that hurts others, sues people, calls cops on neighbors, etc)
I can sleep at night knowing I have lived up to my personal beliefs. I am not bothered by my actions.
I'm a Deist and that's basically how I feel. I don't believe in either a Universal Personification of Evil, nor in Divine Retribution/Judgment. At the end of the day, I have to live with my decisions and how they affect others, and being a scummy hypocritical fuckwit isn't 'kosher as Christmas' (to quote Lock, Stock & 2 Smoking Barrels).
Just as an anecdote (yea, I know, boring) the world makes ALOT more sense now that I ditched Christianity and its attendant Cognitive Dissonance.
-
Damnit fatcat, whats wrong with you?
I started a thread to ask a question about atheism, and not to have you bitch about religion. I don't know why you think its relevant, but you're coming across as a troll right now.
Atheism only means anything in the face of theism.
You were curious about where atheists stand on ethics.
You said you got your ethics from what you think god expects from you.
I disagreed and provided examples of what I believe is inconsistencies in this viewpoint.
I'll keep the rest of this quick.
Where does it say its ok to beat slaves?
(Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)
When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property.
Since you ripped my head off every time I made a mistake quoting the Torah, do I get to do the same since you apparently don't know the own book you get guidance from?
The Gemara says that the case of the rebellious son will never happen. Its supposed to teach good parenting traits, which are found in the Gemara.
huh? No jewish parents have rebllious children? Maybe no true jewish parents (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman)?
Leviticus 20:9 ESV
For anyone who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death; he has cursed his father or his mother; his blood is upon him.
Surely if jewish children would never be rebellious god wouldn't have felt the need to tell people to kill them?
Maybe you mean children will never be killed because of something in the Gemara but I'm not sure.
The unclean thing is not used for pork. Yet another thing you fail to understand.
What?
Leviticus 11:7 And the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be clovenfooted, yet he cheweth not the cud; he [is] unclean to you.
Please tell me how I've got this one wrong.
We don't pick and choose, we just do the things that are applicable today.
Except all the outrageous shit like stoning women who aren't virgins on their wedding night, owning and beating slaves, executing homosexuals isn't applicable today, but the stuff that most sensible people don't care about, like what food you eat or not doing things on special days (i.e. the shit that doesn't involve executing non violent people), is still applicable applicable. funny eh?
There hasn't been a Sanhedrin for the majority of the last 2000 years. Doesn't that make every execution during that time unjust?
If you're really think you should do what god expects you to, why do you take such a laid back attitude? There are literally millions of people walking around in the USA who deserve to be put to death according with the rulings of the Torah.
Let alone all the faggers and non virgin brides walking around in Tel Aviv. If what you believe is representative of what most Jews perceive as Judaism, isn't it a massive failing for pretty much no place on earth to be run by the ethics god set out for you?
If everything god expects is ethical, then doesn't it follow that not following that is unethical? Doesn't that mean your being unethical by not trying to implement gods ethics?
If god didn't want homosexuals to be executed, why did he tell people he did? Why didn't he say "oh by the way, in 2000 years this won't be applicable, but don't worry about it, I'll have changed my mind by then"?
IF its not applicable, shouldn't you be working to make it applicable?. God didn't say men who sleep with men should be put to death, unless in a couple thousand years and you don't really have a jewish law system, then forget about it, I didn't really mean they deserve to be executed.
You can't throw the whole "ignorance" thing in my face. Yeah I don't know the Torah aswell as you, but I'm not making any outlandish claims that I don't have sources for. A couple of times I've mixed up passages from the Torah and New testament (seriously its not that hard to do, how many passages do you know of the Koran or Bhagavad Gita), but I've never been willfully ignorant on any passage.
Also, point of clarification, why exactly is it that god wouldn't want you to just get a gun and start mowing down people he says should be put to death? Is there a passage against vigilantism? What if you got the go ahead from a rabbi?
seems like a pretty fragile judicial institution if it requires a specific temple and a 71 member council to make any execution happen, especially considering the Jews didn't have a homeland for a long time, what where people meant to do before that if they wanted to execute murderers and such?
-
"While I learned a considerable amount of anthropology, and philosophy in college, and throughout my adult life, you don't know the basics of the religion you're arguing against."
Wat? Where did you go to college? Jerry Falwell's Liberty University?
-
I've been wondering the same thing. It does seem like the whole thing was phrased just to get a reaction from atheists. Ethics and morals aren't something foreign to atheists. The concept of good & evil - were around long before any bible.
I have conversations with my children all the time about making the right choices in how one treats others without ever quoting religious texts. In fact, with my one child who is showing a leaning toward Faith, I tell her - of course it's my daughter - the commandment "Thou shalt not steal" being added to the old testament isn't what makes stealing wrong; it was added to the o.t. because it was wrong. Some people need to be reminded, because they weren't able to figure that out for themselves.
How should I have asked?
I didn't say they were. I was wondering why a person wouldn't say "screw this" and just do what he/she wants. Y'all are just sensitive.
-
Atheism only means anything in the face of theism.
You were curious about where atheists stand on ethics.
You said you got your ethics from what you think god expects from you.
I disagreed and provided examples of what I believe is inconsistencies in this viewpoint.
I'll keep the rest of this quick.
Where does it say its ok to beat slaves?
(Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)
When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property.
Since you ripped my head off every time I made a mistake quoting the Torah, do I get to do the same since you apparently don't know the own book you get guidance from?
The Gemara says that the case of the rebellious son will never happen. Its supposed to teach good parenting traits, which are found in the Gemara.
huh? No jewish parents have rebllious children? Maybe no true jewish parents (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman)?
Maybe you mean children will never be killed because of something in the Gemara but I'm not sure.
The unclean thing is not used for pork. Yet another thing you fail to understand.
What?
Leviticus 11:7 And the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be clovenfooted, yet he cheweth not the cud; he [is] unclean to you.
Please tell me how I've got this one wrong.
We don't pick and choose, we just do the things that are applicable today.
There hasn't been a Sanhedrin for the majority of the last 2000 years. Doesn't that make every execution during that time unjust?
If you're really think you should do what god expects you to, why do you take such a laid back attitude? There are literally millions of people walking around in the USA who deserve to be put to death according with the rulings of the Torah.
Let alone all the faggers and non virgin brides walking around in Tel Aviv. If what you believe is representative of what most Jews perceive as Judaism, isn't it a massive failing for pretty much no place on earth to be run by the ethics god set out for you?
If everything god expects is ethical, then doesn't it follow that not following that is unethical? Doesn't that mean your being unethical by not trying to implement gods ethics?
If god didn't want homosexuals to be executed, why did he tell people he did? Why didn't he say "oh by the way, in 2000 years this won't be applicable, but don't worry about it, I'll have changed my mind by then"?
IF its not applicable, shouldn't you be working to make it applicable?. God didn't say men who sleep with men should be put to death, unless in a couple thousand years and you don't really have a jewish law system, then forget about it, I didn't really mean they deserve to be executed.
You can't throw the whole "ignorance" thing in my face. Yeah I don't know the Torah aswell as you, but I'm not making any outlandish claims that I don't have sources for. A couple of times I've mixed up passages from the Torah and New testament (seriously its not that hard to do, how many passages do you know of the Koran or Bhagavad Gita), but I've never been willfully ignorant on any passage.
Also, point of clarification, why exactly is it that god wouldn't want you to just get a gun and start mowing down people he says should be put to death? Is there a passage against vigilantism? What if you got the go ahead from a rabbi?
seems like a pretty fragile judicial institution if it requires a specific temple and a 71 member council to make any execution happen, especially considering the Jews didn't have a homeland for a long time, what where people meant to do before that if they wanted to execute murderers and such?
To your first point. Well, thats fair.
It seems to be telling us what the punishment is for beating a slave to death. Not to be misconstrued with encouraging the same. Its like if I were to point out that the court considers accidentally running someone over to be a misdemeanor (this is hypothetical). If I were to take this law out of context, it wouls seem to encourage running people over.
You get a free pass.
The "ben sorer u moreh" is the case you mentioned about a rebellious son. It can not and will not ever happen. It says so in the Gemara. You called that one.
http://www.dafyomi.co.il/nidah/backgrnd/ni-in-52.htm
Pigs. So, Leviticus translates to Vayikra. It says the pig is Tamei. I guess that would roughly translate to unclean, but not in the physical sense. It connotes spiritually unclean.
Stoning women who aren't virgins? Ok, yet another thing I've never heard of.
Goyim (thats the rest of you) are expected to make their own courts with their own laws. You guys don't have to follow Jewish law, because it doesn't apply to you, which is why a nonjew who commits a crime in a nonjewish area is punished under their jurisdiction.
My beliefs of Judaism are the correct ones, but they're also the minority in the overall Jewish world, because most people are unobservant. So, people who are Jewish and not observant are a failing on our part.
In terms of applicability, there isn't much we can or are expected to do about this. Israel doesn't run under religious law, and we couldn't implement capital punishment without rabbinical courts.
You can't just get the "go ahead" from a Rabbi to blast people away because thats wrong. The Torah allows justice only in the framework of a court system, and outside of the court system is whats called the "Bet Din Shel Maila" The heavenly court that punishes people via inconveniences they experience in their lives.
-
I've been thinking about this question a little bit tonight, and concluded that I personally seem to be hard-wired for ethics. For example: I don't think I could do state work, even if the job would still exist in a free market or perhaps even if it had significant monkey-wrenching potential, because I would be living in contradiction with my principles.
Generalizing a bit, I figure at least 75% of people (likely 95% or more) are similar. Penn Jillette has claimed he'd feel comfortable tossing keys to a random stranger with an explanation like "my wife's in labor, please park the Ferrari outside and I'll catch up with you later"... but would never ask for volunteers on the same task. I agree on both counts.
People are generally good—or at least well-intentioned—and many won't even do wrong when there's an undeniable personal benefit at stake (such as the opportunity to empty a lost wallet of its cash before returning it). Subjective rationalizations surely abound, but to me it feels deeper than that... an almost instinctual respect for other people. This kind of ethical behavior is probably merely an expression of the evolutionary advantage of cooperation within one's (subjective) group, but I feel comfortable in considering it to be stepping towards a better society through presumptive reciprocation.
In other words: I'm ethical emotionally because I feel compelled to abide by the golden rule, and intellectually because I know that unethical behavior fosters future negative consequences, both directly (through a bad reputation) and indirectly (through the encouragement of others in society to behave unethically).
Edit: And I trust those negative consequences enough to rely on them entirely for the minority of people that don't feel a strong enough emotional compulsion to do the right thing. Not that I have a choice anyway, as my principles preclude forcing anything upon them.
-
To your first point. Well, thats fair.
thank you
It seems to be telling us what the punishment is for beating a slave to death. Not to be misconstrued with encouraging the same. Its like if I were to point out that the court considers accidentally running someone over to be a misdemeanor (this is hypothetical). If I were to take this law out of context, it wouls seem to encourage running people over.
You get a free pass.
well its not entirely the same. If its saying you well get punished for beating a slave to death, doesn't that automatically imply that its okay to beat a slave as long as you don't kill them? Surely if it wasn't permissible to beat slaves, they'd just say, if you beat slave you get punished.
"If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. "
The whole "since its your property" seems to be justifying beatings as long as they aren't brutally savage.
The "ben sorer u moreh" is the case you mentioned about a rebellious son. It can not and will not ever happen. It says so in the Gemara. You called that one.
http://www.dafyomi.co.il/nidah/backgrnd/ni-in-52.htm
I'll give you that the Ben sorer moreh thing appears to be so complex an event that it rarely, if ever happens, however we're talking about separate passages. The ben sorer moreh is in (Devarim 21:18-21).
I was talking about "Leviticus 20:9 ESV
For anyone who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death; he has cursed his father or his mother; his blood is upon him."
Stoning women who aren't virgins? Ok, yet another thing I've never heard of.
"But if this charge is true (that she wasn't a virgin on her wedding night), and evidence of the girls virginity is not found, they shall bring the girl to the entrance of her fathers house and there her townsman shall stone her to death, because she committed a crime against Israel by her unchasteness in her father's house. Thus shall you purge the evil from your midst. (Deuteronomy 22:20-21 NAB)"
Goyim (thats the rest of you) are expected to make their own courts with their own laws. You guys don't have to follow Jewish law, because it doesn't apply to you, which is why a nonjew who commits a crime in a nonjewish area is punished under their jurisdiction.
I've heard this said by you other jewish people before. If ethics come from god, don't the same ethics apply to people whether they believe in god or not? Now I don't know enough about Judaism, so you're probably right about Jews not needing to enforce jewish law on non jews. If so, whats gods plan/ethics system for Non jews? Just wait till people die then judge them? If its okay for non jews to have non jewish courts, presumably they aren't going to be enforcing jewish (i.e. gods) ethics.
In terms of applicability, there isn't much we can or are expected to do about this. Israel doesn't run under religious law, and we couldn't implement capital punishment without rabbinical courts.
You can't just get the "go ahead" from a Rabbi to blast people away because thats wrong. The Torah allows justice only in the framework of a court system, and outside of the court system is whats called the "Bet Din Shel Maila" The heavenly court that punishes people via inconveniences they experience in their lives.
fair enough, thanks for clearing it up.
I still think its wrong to follow the ethics laid out in the Torah just because you think god has said it, I still don't think you've really addressed the fact that, if god thinks something is wrong, there must be a reason, and if so you don't need god to work out that reason, and that if it was possible for something in the Torah to be a lie or a mistranslation, that you should have your own rational.
However I do withdraw my accusation that you pick and choose, it seems you are one of the honest true believers (which is the way to be if you genuinely believe there is a god and that the Torah is the word of god), although I'm still unsure how important the Gemara is (i'm guessing not all jews agree its important), and that it might be a subconscious cop out.
but I guess you not wanting to impose it on the whole world is good enough, and thats a bigger argument for another time.
-
I was wondering why a person wouldn't say "screw this" and just do what he/she wants.
And I'm wondering why belief in God should make any difference in terms of one's answer to that question. After all, you're doing what you want, which is what you think God wants. If you didn't want to do what God wants, presumably you wouldn't.
-
"My question is, why have ethics at all? This ties into point (3) but I don't understand why an atheist would have a conscience about anything. Given a simple cost/benefit analysis, you stand to gain more from not having personal scruples because limiting yourself comes at a disadvantage, while not having those limits produces benefit."
What are 'ethics'? In my opinion, an ethical framework is a set of principles why which you try to live your life. The reason we need to live within such a framework is to maximize our relationship with others. Treat others well; tell them you respect them, and then you'll be able to work with others to mutual benefit.
Would you go into business with someone you don't trust? Many businesses are successfully run through a partnership. Throw away the respect and trust, and you become isolated from society which limits your options, and significantly impacts your cost/benefit analysis.
-
In any case, it's a moot point. The vast majority of Christians are atheistic when it comes to the other 999 gods out there. Yet, they don't consider their ethics diminished by NOT believing in all these other deities.
-
In my opinion, an ethical framework is a set of principles why which you try to live your life. The reason we need to live within such a framework is to maximize our relationship with others. Treat others well; tell them you respect them, and then you'll be able to work with others to mutual benefit.
When my kids ask me about religion, I point out that the basic rules of action in a community that are espoused in all the religions that I know of are very good rules.
The lessons have stood the test of time because they're good lessons. Leave the "gods" out of it.
Looking at the 10 Commandments that don't deal with "gods", we have "do not murder", "do not envy your neighbor's stuff, or spouse", "no trespassing", things like that.
I also notice that even though the idea of secular rulership is often rationalized, so is the idea that even a ruler can be a bad person and unworthy of rulership.
What's funny is the reaction in an atheist forum I received when I mentioned that I don't believe in the Cult of the Omnipotent State religion either. "Just because you're an anarchist you think you're a better atheist than I am???" etc.
-
Do ethics matter?
Yes.
If so, why?
Because unethical people suck.
Complete pragmatists, those for whom there are no underlying principles only the expediency of the moment, cannot be trusted. At all.
-
In my opinion, an ethical framework is a set of principles why which you try to live your life. The reason we need to live within such a framework is to maximize our relationship with others. Treat others well; tell them you respect them, and then you'll be able to work with others to mutual benefit.
When my kids ask me about religion, I point out that the basic rules of action in a community that are espoused in all the religions that I know of are very good rules.
The lessons have stood the test of time because they're good lessons. Leave the "gods" out of it.
Looking at the 10 Commandments that don't deal with "gods", we have "do not murder", "do not envy your neighbor's stuff, or spouse", "no trespassing", things like that.
I also notice that even though the idea of secular rulership is often rationalized, so is the idea that even a ruler can be a bad person and unworthy of rulership.
What's funny is the reaction in an atheist forum I received when I mentioned that I don't believe in the Cult of the Omnipotent State religion either. "Just because you're an anarchist you think you're a better atheist than I am???" etc.
I like these comments. In short, we all get the same conscience from our creator (except sociopaths, who seem just as likely to be theist as atheist.) Some just don't recognize the source.
-
In my opinion, an ethical framework is a set of principles why which you try to live your life. The reason we need to live within such a framework is to maximize our relationship with others. Treat others well; tell them you respect them, and then you'll be able to work with others to mutual benefit.
When my kids ask me about religion, I point out that the basic rules of action in a community that are espoused in all the religions that I know of are very good rules.
The lessons have stood the test of time because they're good lessons. Leave the "gods" out of it.
Looking at the 10 Commandments that don't deal with "gods", we have "do not murder", "do not envy your neighbor's stuff, or spouse", "no trespassing", things like that.
I also notice that even though the idea of secular rulership is often rationalized, so is the idea that even a ruler can be a bad person and unworthy of rulership.
What's funny is the reaction in an atheist forum I received when I mentioned that I don't believe in the Cult of the Omnipotent State religion either. "Just because you're an anarchist you think you're a better atheist than I am???" etc.
I like these comments. In short, we all get the same conscience from our creator (except sociopaths, who seem just as likely to be theist as atheist.) Some just don't recognize the source.
Is this a joke? (if so apologies for the following rant)
If you're talking about the judeo-christo-muslim abrahamic god, I definately DO NOT get my conscience from him.
I don't think its okay to murder gay people.
I don't think its okay to own slaves and beat them.
I don't think its okay to stone women for not being virgins on their wedding night.
I don't think its okay to kill children who curse their parents.
I don't think its okay to mercilessly kill entire towns full of people, including children who couldn't possibly be responsible for anything other towns people.
I don't think its okay to take sex slaves of the remaining virgins from said towns.
I don't think its okay to torture thieves, and people who disbelieve in god (Even if there was a god), for an infinite amount of time.
The reason why lots of religionists like to claim ethics cam from god is because its fairly universal, and its easy to give credit for universal things because often people don't have a good idea of where they come from.
Like the people who when pressed for evidence of god say, look all around you, trees, birds, clouds, where'd they come from? god did it. Cause they're the same dumbass hicks who have no idea where those things come from so like to abdicate any reasoning to blind faith.
Even if there was a god/creator, we know he didn't give us morals. Humans evolved morals just like they evolved language and use of tools. If anything religion was a major setback to the evolution of ethics because it taught people to be blindly obedient to higher powers rather than to figure out whats right and wrong for themselves.
Ethics have been around for millions of years in one form or another. . And the absolute best case you can make for a god, is that he started the big bang and hasn't done anything since, in which case he can't have inspired ethics.
If you pick a far enough common ancestor, you can find one where they have no system of justice and no concept of ethics. There's a clear path between less complex life, and more complex life with more complex communication and social abilities. Ethics are a part of that evolution.
There are lots of tribal animals out there, they have very rudimentary system of ethics by which other animals (family) are protected (to an extent).
Humans evolved to live in larger groups, and to be more co operative (division of labor is as old as humans as far as we can tell), so it makes sense for ethics to have evolved simultaneously to allow this larger group living.
Humans are just higher up on the path, with the added tweat that we simultaneous developed cognition and self awareness in order that we may better survive, make tools, solve problems etc. With that cognition we can also reason ethics, and not just do them on instinctive drive like other animals do.
A testament to the evolution of ethics is the fact that there are now places where most people don't think its okay to murder homosexual people, non believers or stone disobedient children anymore.
God has never told people that its wrong to murder someone just because they sleep with someone of the same sex (an act that harms no one), but yet we figured it out, even though for thousands of years most of the christian and muslim world believed the creator of the universe wanted gay people to be put to death.
Thats a hell of a bias to overcome, but we did it, because by and large we're fucking brilliant.
Religious ethics are bad precisely because they don't encourage people to reason and evolve ethics, but to stick to some handed on high set of rulings from a higher authority (sound like any bad ideas you know?).
The 10 Commandments are a great example. an incredibly dumb set of rules, the first 5 seeming to be from a petty and self obsessed asshole who only cares about worship from beings ostensibly infinitely less interesting and wise( itsalmost as if it was a fictional creation designed to inspire blind loyalty)
1.I am the Lord your God
2.You shall have no other gods before me
3.You shall not make for yourself an idol
4.You shall not make wrongful use of the name of your God
5.Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy
Shit, those are all definitely more important than murdering people.
The only 3 that are actually substantive ethics, are don't kill, don't steal, don't bear false witness. The others are only mildly good advice (don't be jealous and don't fuck someone elses wife).
wheres?
Thou Shalt not make people into slaves.
Thou shalt not initiate force.
Thou shalt not murder peaceful same sex couples.
Thou shalt not use force to censor others speech.
Thou would also be doing yourself a favor if you thought for yourself
Assuming this is the word of the "creator", and we all got our ethics from the same "creator", seems like he missed a trick by including mostly self absorbed bullshit about worshipping himself, and forgetting to mention that slavery is bad, aswell as some other pretty important ethics that are now common place.
huh, its almost as if the judeo-christian god was a fictional creation from backwards ass middle easterners who had mostly the same dumbass social-cultural views as most other people in that area at that time.
The 'source' of most peoples ethics is from the culture we're brought up in, and what we figure out from then on.
If you're going to give god credit for ethics, you might aswell give him credit for maths (he made the universe on which its based), music (he made the physics to make it possible), and pretty much everything else humans have been responsible for.
And then you can be a fucking subservient asshole who has no appreciation for the brilliance of human kind and wants to differ it all away to some higher power.
<close vent>
-
You're entitled to be wrong.
-
ALWAYS GOOD FOR A LAUGH!
[youtube=425,350]<object width="660" height="525"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/pkRYaMiP4K8&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x234900&color2=0x4e9e00&border=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/pkRYaMiP4K8&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x234900&color2=0x4e9e00&border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="660" height="525"></embed></object>[/youtube]
-
[youtube=425,350]<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/8YX-gqRdK_8&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/8YX-gqRdK_8&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>[/youtube]
...
-
By the way Diogenes The Cynic, are you unable to be skeptical or cynical about your jerkish-pessimistic religion?
-
By the way Diogenes The Cynic, are you unable to be skeptical or cynical about your jerkish-pessimistic religion?
Clearly he cannot.
-
By the way Diogenes The Cynic, are you unable to be skeptical or cynical about your jerkish-pessimistic religion?
Everyone is naturally biased about the personal beliefs they have, but as much as I am able to be, I do take a critical view of my own religion.
-
You're entitled to be wrong.
great reply, idiot.
-
You're entitled to be wrong.
great reply, idiot.
Your response was so long-winded and out in left-field, I'm happy just to let you be wrong and not wig out and call you an idiot.
-
You're entitled to be wrong.
great reply, idiot.
Your response was so long-winded and out in left-field, I'm happy just to let you be wrong and not wig out and call you an idiot.
@ Kenneth: Fatcat put time into a thoughtful rebuttal of your points and you put your fingers in your ears and start humming?
Your method= FAIL
You clearly don't care b/c you're "happy to let him be wrong". The problem is you refuse to explain why.
That also = FAIL
-
You're entitled to be wrong.
great reply, idiot.
Your response was so long-winded and out in left-field, I'm happy just to let you be wrong and not wig out and call you an idiot.
I've got infinitely more respect for someone like Diogenes, even though i think some of his views are highly misguided and perhaps even dangerous, because he actually acts like they matter and can talk with someone who vehemently opposes his beliefs, in a respectful and intelligent manner.
Which is why I flat out insulted you which is something I wouldn't do to Diogenes cause i think he means well, even though I probably actually agree with you more.
Usually when people do what you and tell someone they're wrong without the actual important part of discussion which is why, its because either they're too unsure in their beliefs to put it up to scrutiny, or they're just being an asshole.
I posted a litany of examples of how ethics is something humans have evolved, both as a biological consequence, as part of our communal culture, and as part of our individual cognition.
You don't want to take the time to read what I have to say and put together a cogent response, thats fine.
if you don't give a shit about what I have to say, or about explaining your beliefs then why bother telling me that I'm wrong? Surely it can't be for my benefit (since you give no explanation), and I can't see what enjoyment you'd get out of plainly stating someone was wrong.
The idea we get ethics from the same source, let alone a singular higher power is both incorrect, incongruous with reality, and detrimental to a cohesive understanding of ethics and social order.
Ethics surrounding race, religion, gender, sexuality, crime and justice have radically transformed pretty much all over the world except for a few minuscule backwaters.
If you're not willing to actually support your ideas, whats the point in telling other people that they're wrong (other than being a dick), or trying to win some imaginary point scoring.
If you don't care enough to back up what you believe, keep that shit to yourself.
-
fatcat seems to have his ducks in a row.. where is he wrong?
-
fatcat seems to have his ducks in a row.. where is he wrong?
-
fatcat seems to have his ducks in a row.. where is he wrong?
Where he has the "ENTITLEMENT TO BE WRONG"
Duh?
-
Assuming this is the word of the "creator", and we all got our ethics from the same "creator", seems like he missed a trick by including mostly self absorbed bullshit about worshipping himself, and forgetting to mention that slavery is bad, aswell as some other pretty important ethics that are now common place.
Unless, of course, as Creator of Man, God has designed that man's highest good comes from worshipping God. Then it would be in a man's self-interest to worship God. It's no use saying that God is unfair to require of man worship or anything else, since, as He is the creator of the universe and everything in it, He is also its owner, and has rights to dispose of His property as He wishes.
huh, its almost as if the judeo-christian god was a fictional creation from backwards ass middle easterners who had mostly the same dumbass social-cultural views as most other people in that area at that time.
My understanding of history is that middle-easterners in ancient times were 1. fairly sophisticated, for their time, in their social arrangements, legal system, scientific thought, etc.; and 2. polytheistic, with deities displaying human emotions and goals. It is interesting that the ancient Hebrews bucked the polytheistic culture they lived in in favor of monotheism that centered on a Holy God who did not share illicit human passions.
The 'source' of most peoples ethics is from the culture we're brought up in, and what we figure out from then on.
I would only add, to that last statement, "what we figure out through philosophical contemplation and from study of other's writings on the subject." No one really learns in a vacuum, I think.
If you're going to give god credit for ethics, you might aswell give him credit for maths (he made the universe on which its based), music (he made the physics to make it possible), and pretty much everything else humans have been responsible for.
If I write a computer program that uses artificial intelligence to discover a Unified Theory (or a fool-proof method for picking stocks, or whatever), I should think I deserve some credit.
And then you can be a fucking subservient asshole who has no appreciation for the brilliance of human kind and wants to differ it all away to some higher power.
<close vent>
I think that no one enjoys the process of human discovery, invention, and innovation more than God, since He created man with the abiliity discover, invent, and innovate. The most skeptical, atheistic scientist in the world glorifies God when he discovers some previously unknown knowledge about the workings of the universe.
-
The most skeptical, atheistic scientist in the world glorifies God when he discovers some previously unknown knowledge about the workings of the universe.
The idea of gods is wonderful poetry, well matched by your poetic idea here. It really is a beautiful way of putting things.
Each new discovery, each time the envelope of knowledge is pushed back, things that were attributed to "the will of god" and the like are found to be natural phenomena. When underlying forces are discerned, "the will of god" is pushed back further, remaining within the unknown.
The big questions, such as "what was before what we see as the universe existed", "why are the constants of the universe these constants and not some other constants", are easily answered by saying "the will of god". And they always have been, even when the big questions were, "why does bread rise" and "why was my father struck by lightning while tending his flock of sheep in the middle of an open field during a thunderstorm?"
People have made beautiful art out of this idea of the gods, they have written great books, come up with grand philosophies and techniques of torture, epic poetry and rationalizations for uncountable murders, all at the same time. It is the will of god that the white man should enslave the black and other lesser races, otherwise it wouldn't happen...right?
The "holy" books were written by people, translated by people, aliterated, selected, discarded, rhymed and rationalized, all by people. As such, they communicate subjective human history beautifully.
Anyone who makes more of those books than that is deluding themselves.
It is my opinion that the religious mind is so insecure that "I don't know" frightens them more than all the really awful images that religions use to compel obedience from their followers. That's why I enjoy Ian's harping on the idea of christians and their belief in Hella and her infernal torture chambers.
So much less elegant than karma, but even buddhism relies on the "punishment" of having to do it all over again, endlessly, eternally, until somehow one gets it "right" this time.
Logically, it's impossible to prove a negative. One cannot prove that the gods do not exist. The scientific mind, rather than assume "the gods" as an ultimate answer, is capable of the one leap that the religious mind is too terrified to make:
"I don't know...yet."
Look around, this is it. There are no gods. All we have is what we have right here, right now. We have each other, we have this world and any other worlds we can reach to work with. We can make it better, or worse, but that is our choice, as individuals.
-
There are plenty of people who believe in God (myself included) who are also involved in scientific research. I work with biochem and currently manufacture biological drugs/vaccines. I am also a Jew who is relatively observant. Where is the controversy? I've never seen one. Neither have any of my rabbis, and I never pass up the opportunity to argue with them on a variety of subjects.
-
We can make it better, or worse, but that is our choice, as individuals.
As an individual, you have almost no control.
http://cyber.eserver.org/unabom.txt
117. In any technologically advanced society the individual's fate
MUST depend on decisions that he personally cannot influence to any
great extent. A technological society cannot be broken down into
small, autonomous communities, because production depends on the
cooperation of very large numbers of people and machines. Such a
society MUST be highly organized and decisions HAVE TO be made that
affect very large numbers of people. When a decision affects, say, a
million people, then each of the affected individuals has, on the
average, only a one-millionth share in making the decision. What
usually happens in practice is that decisions are made by public
officials or corporation executives, or by technical specialists, but
even when the public votes on a decision the number of voters
ordinarily is too large for the vote of any one individual to be
significant. [17] Thus most individuals are unable to influence
measurably the major decisions that affect their lives. Their is no
conceivable way to remedy this in a technologically advanced society.
The system tries to "solve" this problem by using propaganda to make
people WANT the decisions that have been made for them, but even if
this "solution" were completely successful in making people feel
better, it would be demeaning.
118 Conservatives and some others advocate more "local autonomy."
Local communities once did have autonomy, but such autonomy becomes
less and less possible as local communities become more enmeshed with
and dependent on large-scale systems like public utilities, computer
networks, highway systems, the mass communications media, the modern
health care system. Also operating against autonomy is the fact that
technology applied in one location often affects people at other
locations far away. Thus pesticide or chemical use near a creek may
contaminate the water supply hundreds of miles downstream, and the
greenhouse effect affects the whole world.
119. The system does not and cannot exist to satisfy human needs.
Instead, it is human behavior that has to be modified to fit the needs
of the system. This has nothing to do with the political or social
ideology that may pretend to guide the technological system. It is the
fault of technology, because the system is guided not by ideology but
by technical necessity. [18] Of course the system does satisfy many
human needs, but generally speaking it does this only to the extent
that it is to the advantage of the system to do it. It is the needs of
the system that are paramount, not those of the human being. For
example, the system provides people with food because the system
couldn't function if everyone starved; it attends to people's
psychological needs whenever it can CONVENIENTLY do so, because it
couldn't function if too many people became depressed or rebellious.
But the system, for good, solid, practical reasons, must exert
constant pressure on people to mold their behavior to the needs of the
system. Too much waste accumulating? The government, the media, the
educational system, environmentalists, everyone inundates us with a
mass of propaganda about recycling. Need more technical personnel? A
chorus of voices exhorts kids to study science. No one stops to ask
whether it is inhumane to force adolescents to spend the bulk of their
time studying subjects most of them hate. When skilled workers are put
out of a job by technical advances and have to undergo "retraining,"
no one asks whether it is humiliating for them to be pushed around in
this way. It is simply taken for granted that everyone must bow to
technical necessity and for good reason: If human needs were put
before technical necessity there would be economic problems,
unemployment, shortages or worse. The concept of "mental health" in
our society is defined largely by the extent to which an individual
behaves in accord with the needs of the system and does so without
showing signs of stress.
120. Efforts to make room for a sense of purpose and for autonomy
within the system are no better than a joke. For example, one company,
instead of having each of its employees assemble only one section of a
catalogue, had each assemble a whole catalogue, and this was supposed
to give them a sense of purpose and achievement. Some companies have
tried to give their employees more autonomy in their work, but for
practical reasons this usually can be done only to a very limited
extent, and in any case employees are never given autonomy as to
ultimate goals -- their "autonomous" efforts can never be directed
toward goals that they select personally, but only toward their
employer's goals, such as the survival and growth of the company. Any
company would soon go out of business if it permitted its employees to
act otherwise. Similarly, in any enterprise within a socialist system,
workers must direct their efforts toward the goals of the enterprise,
otherwise the enterprise will not serve its purpose as part of the
system. Once again, for purely technical reasons it is not possible
for most individuals or small groups to have much autonomy in
industrial society. Even the small-business owner commonly has only
limited autonomy. Apart from the necessity of government regulation,
he is restricted by the fact that he must fit into the economic system
and conform to its requirements. For instance, when someone develops a
new technology, the small-business person often has to use that
technology whether he wants to or not, in order to remain competitive.
-
As an individual, you have almost no control.
Interesting. I seem to have complete control over myself.
Is there some definition of "control" that I don't know?
-
As an individual, you have almost no control.
Interesting. I seem to have complete control over myself.
Is there some definition of "control" that I don't know?
You have no control over "this world".
We have each other, we have this world and any other worlds we can reach to work with. We can make it better, or worse, but that is our choice, as individuals.
-
You have no control over "this world".
I have complete control over my portion of it, by definition.
There are plenty of people who believe in God (myself included) who are also involved in scientific research. ... Where is the controversy? I've never seen one.
Then you haven't had your observations violate your faith, as would someone who climbed to the top of their holy mountain and discovered no throne of the gods there.
It doesn't matter what you believe lies outside the envelope of experience. The only thing I object to is people who lie about what is inside that envelope in order to rationalize their own irrational "faith".
-
You have no control over "this world".
I have complete control over my portion of it, by definition.
:lol:
-
The idea of gods is wonderful poetry, well matched by your poetic idea here. It really is a beautiful way of putting things.
Thanks! It was rather good ;)
Each new discovery, each time the envelope of knowledge is pushed back, things that were attributed to "the will of god" and the like are found to be natural phenomena. When underlying forces are discerned, "the will of god" is pushed back further, remaining within the unknown.
Attributing things to the "will of God" and to the "workings of God" are two different things. Did you mean to say the latter, here? It is the will of God that we glorify Him, which we do when we work the way we're supposed to...creating and discovering--the old "subdue the earth, and keep it" mandate. When we engage in activity that hurts, wastes, and oppresses, then we show evidence of our broken nature, not of God's will and/or workings.
The big questions, such as "what was before what we see as the universe existed", "why are the constants of the universe these constants and not some other constants", are easily answered by saying "the will of god". And they always have been, even when the big questions were, "why does bread rise" and "why was my father struck by lightning while tending his flock of sheep in the middle of an open field during a thunderstorm?"
I take it that your answer to the above questions (the first two) are "We don't know...yet." But operational science (as opposed to historical science) is incapable of ever answering those questions since no one was present at the beginning, and time travel is probably impossible. We can use the principles of historical science to get a pretty good idea, but even there one is looking at evidence that must be interpreted according to some framework, and a Theistic framework can be as valid as a materialistic one, since both worldviews are essentially non-falsifiable.
People have made beautiful art out of this idea of the gods, they have written great books, come up with grand philosophies and techniques of torture, epic poetry and rationalizations for uncountable murders, all at the same time. It is the will of god that the white man should enslave the black and other lesser races, otherwise it wouldn't happen...right?
It's funny, but the abolitionist movement relied on the same Scriptures to argue that it was the will of God that the black man be freed...
The "holy" books were written by people, translated by people, aliterated, selected, discarded, rhymed and rationalized, all by people. As such, they communicate subjective human history beautifully.
Anyone who makes more of those books than that is deluding themselves.
I disagree. That's pretty much all I can say, since we will always be talking past each other in this argument. I believe that the materialistic worldview you seem to be endorsing is untenable, given such concepts as human emotions and ideas of consciousness. You might claim that "someday" we will have materialistic explanantions for these things; indeed, we have explanations now that I find unsatisfactory. When science has definitie evidence on how something like the process of metamorphosis "evolved", I might find their arguments for the evolved human consciousness more compelling.
It is my opinion that the religious mind is so insecure that "I don't know" frightens them more than all the really awful images that religions use to compel obedience from their followers. That's why I enjoy Ian's harping on the idea of christians and their belief in Hella and her infernal torture chambers.
So much less elegant than karma, but even buddhism relies on the "punishment" of having to do it all over again, endlessly, eternally, until somehow one gets it "right" this time.
Okay, I believe that the idea of karma and reincarnation are Hindu beliefs rather than Buddhist, but I could be wrong, and being a stupid Christian, I am incurious about whether I'm right or not.
Hell is more than eternal torment in flames. It is separation from God, who is the point of man's existence. Those who have rejected offers of redemption are technically in hell now, since they do not enjoy a relationship with their Creator--are indeed incapable of even desiring such a relationship.
Logically, it's impossible to prove a negative. One cannot prove that the gods do not exist. The scientific mind, rather than assume "the gods" as an ultimate answer, is capable of the one leap that the religious mind is too terrified to make:
"I don't know...yet."
Funny, when I read my stoopid Creationsist websites, whenever they are presented with scientific data that challenges their theory on how things work, they say essentially the same thing. www.answersingenesis.org
Look around, this is it. There are no gods. All we have is what we have right here, right now. We have each other, we have this world and any other worlds we can reach to work with. We can make it better, or worse, but that is our choice, as individuals.
Do you have any scientific evidence for this last statement? No, wait, you already said that there was none.
So I can either believe in a world that was set up by an Infinite Creator who speaks reality into existence; Who cares about me personally and wants the best for me, and at the end of my life promises carry me into a world of everlasting happiness.
Or I could take what you are offering, which, as far as I can tell, is a smug satisfaction that I am intellectually superior to the rubes of the world.
I wonder...I wonder...
-
I take it that your answer to the above questions (the first two) are "We don't know...yet." But operational science (as opposed to historical science) is incapable of ever answering those questions since no one was present at the beginning, and time travel is probably impossible. We can use the principles of historical science to get a pretty good idea, but even there one is looking at evidence that must be interpreted according to some framework, and a Theistic framework can be as valid as a materialistic one, since both worldviews are essentially non-falsifiable.
While technically true, a curious mind could examine the "meta-experiment" of the scientific method itself. Those who act on the assumption of a materialistic universe have far surpassed their competition in predictive ability. Do you believe that to be merely coincidental?
-
You're entitled to be wrong.
great reply, idiot.
Your response was so long-winded and out in left-field, I'm happy just to let you be wrong and not wig out and call you an idiot.
@ Kenneth: Fatcat put time into a thoughtful rebuttal of your points and you put your fingers in your ears and start humming?
Your method= FAIL
You clearly don't care b/c you're "happy to let him be wrong". The problem is you refuse to explain why.
That also = FAIL
He wildly over-responded with a straw-man argument to the little I said. He was fail.
As a reminder, this is exactly what I said:
I like these comments. In short, we all get the same conscience from our creator (except sociopaths, who seem just as likely to be theist as atheist.) Some just don't recognize the source.
His "response" was a diatribe addressed at something entirely different.
-
1) Identify the straw man.
2)Prove your point that " In short, we all get the same conscience from our creator (except sociopaths, who seem just as likely to be theist as atheist.) Some just don't recognize the source."
You are making the claim. Back it up or don't tell others they are wrong.
Simply stating it doesn't make it so.
-
You're entitled to be wrong.
great reply, idiot.
Your response was so long-winded and out in left-field, I'm happy just to let you be wrong and not wig out and call you an idiot.
@ Kenneth: Fatcat put time into a thoughtful rebuttal of your points and you put your fingers in your ears and start humming?
Your method= FAIL
You clearly don't care b/c you're "happy to let him be wrong". The problem is you refuse to explain why.
That also = FAIL
He wildly over-responded with a straw-man argument to the little I said. He was fail.
As a reminder, this is exactly what I said:
I like these comments. In short, 1.we all get the same conscience 2.from our creator (except sociopaths, who seem just as likely to be theist as atheist.) 3.Some just don't recognize the source.
His "response" was a diatribe addressed at something entirely different.
just cause you only wrote a line doesn't mean theres only a lines worth of response to be had.
its ironic you think I've wrote too much when you've wrote pretty much nothing to support your claim.
If i just wrote one line back I'd have been wasting my time with the same pointless (you're wrong, you're fail) dick swinging that you think passes for discussion.
I've done much to prove
a) we don't all have the same system of ethics (addresses point 1)
b) ethics are the result of biological, cultural and personal evolution, not from a magic creator / ethics are not innate (addresses point 2)
c) I don't get my ethics from a higher power, and am grieved by the notion that i could since the majority of what people mean by "creator" is a sadistic monotheistic abraamic homophobic psychopath (addresses point 3), which is why i did "left field" discussion showing how many major religions have ethics that not only i don't share, but the majority of people in the world don't share, because of b)
The fact you can only re-iterate that you think I'm wrong, and don't address any of the points i raised just goes to show you have fuck all to fall back on.
-
tl;dr. This is why I didn't waste too much time in the beginning. What I said is very simple. You want big harry argument with someone. That would not be me.
-
The BIBLE = TL;DR
Sum it up for me.
-
The BIBLE = TL;DR
Sum it up for me.
Fine with me. I'm not selling bibles.
-
The BIBLE = TL;DR
Sum it up for me.
Fine with me. I'm not selling bibles.
What about salvation? You got any of that for sale?
-
The BIBLE = TL;DR
Sum it up for me.
Fine with me. I'm not selling bibles.
What about salvation? You got any of that for sale?
I'm a consumer, not a vendor.
-
Know any good vedors? I'm in the market if the price is REASONABLE and the services competitive.
-
Know any good vedors? I'm in the market if the price is REASONABLE and the services competitive.
I'm satisfied with mine but they don't have a marketing wing so you'll have to do the research on your own.
-
I was thinking about something "sporty" yet reliable. Plus 10% seems a little high. I'd like to negotiate that fee down to 5% plus amortize it into the life of my contract.
-
tl;dr. This is why I didn't waste too much time in the beginning. What I said is very simple. You want big harry argument with someone. That would not be me.
So you said i was wrong and that i was a fail without reading what i said? You don't want to waste time reading, yet you've replied to my posts multiple times without saying anything of any real substance.
Your time must be really valuable. You're definitely not wasting it with what you're doing.
-
People who think you need religion to be a good person scare me. They must think that w/o their religion they wouldn't be, which makes me think they're not.
-
tl;dr. This is why I didn't waste too much time in the beginning. What I said is very simple. You want big harry argument with someone. That would not be me.
So you said i was wrong and that i was a fail without reading what i said? You don't want to waste time reading, yet you've come back multiple times to pretty much just swing your dick without saying anything of substance.
Your time must be really valuable. You're definitely not wasting it with what you're doing.
I never claimed one's conscience was tied to Jewish rituals. I never even pointed to a religion. I responded to the universality of "basic rules of action;" things like "don't kill," "don't steal," "don't lie about people." You went right into Jewish law and equated that with conscience, and I stopped reading, and told you you're free to be wrong with your silly straw-man argument. Your problem may be that you're one of the sociopaths.
I'm not the Christo-fascist you're looking to attack.
-
People who think you need religion to be a good person scare me. They must think that w/o their religion they wouldn't be, which makes me think they're not.
Yes, that really bugs me, too.
"We need religion!"
"You mean you would be evil without a fear of hell?"
"No, not for me, for the other people!"
Same rationalization as for the State. There must be laws to restrain other people from doing evil.
-
tl;dr. This is why I didn't waste too much time in the beginning. What I said is very simple. You want big harry argument with someone. That would not be me.
So you said i was wrong and that i was a fail without reading what i said? You don't want to waste time reading, yet you've come back multiple times to pretty much just swing your dick without saying anything of substance.
Your time must be really valuable. You're definitely not wasting it with what you're doing.
I never claimed one's conscience was tied to Jewish rituals. I never even pointed to a religion. I responded to the universality of "basic rules of action;" things like "don't kill," "don't steal," "don't lie about people." You went right into Jewish law and equated that with conscience, and I stopped reading, and told you you're free to be wrong with your silly straw-man argument. Your problem may be that you're one of the sociopaths.
I'm not the Christo-fascist you're looking to attack.
I never attacked you about being a supporter of judeo-christo-muslim god, I attacked you for the idea that we all get ethics from the same place, and I went on to rail against the most commonly accepted definition of "creator" as immoral.
If you're talking about the judeo-christo-muslim abrahamic god, I definately DO NOT get my conscience from him.
Since you didn't mention which creator, I made the rational assumption that you mean the same one over 3 billion people mean when they say creator. I attacked the idea because its a bad idea, and because there are people on this board who DO believe in that god, whether you do or not, and since 3 billion people also believe in that god, I think its important to point out how despicable that set of ethics is, particularly in a thread about where ethics come from.
I attacked your belief that we all get the same ethics from a creator, and i attacked judeo christo ethics entirely separately.
What followed was a detailed break down of what ethics are, and how they are a product of biological, cultural and personal evolution.
Everything else I said still stands. Its still fucking ridiculous to believe even 75% of people have the same ethics, let alone everyone. And the weight of evidence I suggested that ethics are evolved, not given by a "creator".
Since you now seem to be interested in discussing your beliefs, heres some questions
1. When did the creator give us our conscience? Was it 100,000 years ago when the first humans speciated?
2. Wheres the evidence a creator gave humans a conscience?
3. How do you explain the billions of people who have different ethical views on sex, gender, crime,justice, eating meat, etc.
4. Explain how ethical views on sex, gender, crime and justice have changed massively over the last 6000 years, if we all get them from the sane creator.
A few examples would be how women where considered second class, how it wasnt considered possible to rape your own wife, how a huge percentage of the earths population was okay with owning slaves.
We're talking about hundreds of millions of people, so it can't be just sociopaths, and there are way too many disparate views on ethics for everyone to get their conscience from a single creator.
Obviously ethics/conscience/whatever you want to call it doesn't come from a single source, and obviously looking back on human history its something that has changed massively.
-
Ay.. you're neglecting your IDM thread.
-
Everything I said stands.
-
Everything I said stands.
all 7 lines of it?
All you've said is
In short, we all get the same conscience from our creator (except sociopaths, who seem just as likely to be theist as atheist.) Some just don't recognize the source.
You're entitled to be wrong.
Your response was so long-winded and out in left-field, I'm happy just to let you be wrong and not wig out and call you an idiot.
tl;dr. This is why I didn't waste too much time in the beginning. What I said is very simple. You want big harry argument with someone. That would not be me.
Nothing in there backs up your claim. You claim you don't want to debate it, and then you repeatedly come back to post and tell me that I'm wrong and you're right.
hint : it doesn't mean anything if you tell people they're wrong without telling them why.
You don't get to take the intellectual high ground, and tell people they're wrong and you don't want to talk about it, its one or the other.
you haven't even attempted to refute a single point I've made (unless you count YOU'RE WRONG), and you haven't done anything to back up what you said, which didn't stop you from pulling condescending bullshit like "you're entitled to be wrong".
Why you feel the need to keep responding when you haven't said anything of substance beyond your initial claim, I have no fucking idea.
Are you that desperate to let everyone know that you're right?
-
What's the frequency kennith?
Are you there?
Your bluff has been called.
What's in your hand?
I got an edumcated guess what you're holding.
A pair of Jokers, but too bad, they got left in the deck by accident (or did you put sneak them in?)
Regardless, they're not accepted at this table.
-
If god created people in his likeness, I want no part of the sick fucker.
-
If god created people in his likeness, I want no part of the sick fucker.
Instant classic! :lol:
-
I already commented on the straw man argument. Game over. You fucked up. I'm not the Christo-fascist you're looking for.
-
If god created people in his likeness, I want no part of the sick fucker.
..and why did he design our backs to have itchy spots where ones hands can't quite reach?
-
I could better serve the lord with 4 arms. Wait a minute. Why does the 'omni'-being need me to worship him anyway?
-
The thread is off-topic.
I intended for it to be a place where people discussed ethics from an atheists perspective.
-
If god created people in his likeness, I want no part of the sick fucker.
..and why did he design our backs to have itchy spots where ones hands can't quite reach?
That's why backscratchers were invented.
-
The thread is off-topic.
I intended for it to be a place where people discussed ethics from an atheists perspective.
In intended to jerk off on the atheist's face.
Instead you were jerked upon.
You're a fucking retard.
-
Funny that a retard can figure out magic men in the sky don't exist.
You begged a question , got answers you didn't like.
Stuck your fingers in your ears and called people names.
You are not a skeptic.
You are indeed a self-described jerk.
A big ole' religious/pompous jerk.
-
Funny that a retard can figure out magic men in the sky don't exist.
You begged a question , got answers you didn't like.
Stuck your fingers in your ears and called people names.
You are not a skeptic.
You are indeed a self-described jerk.
A big ole' religious/pompous jerk.
You are a fucking tard. Its confirmed now!
Begging the question means using circular logic, which I don't do. I also answer the questions asked, instead of resorting to ad hominems, and getting defensive of views I can't defend like some stupid Atheists do (not saying all Atheists are stupid, but some of the ones on FTL are) and I got very few intellectual answers.
I didn't call names, but others did plenty.
I am very skeptic. Asking questions is what made me religious.
Where an I a jerk on this thread?
-
Read what I wrote. I didn't say you are "begging the question" as in philosophical terms.
What I wrote was maybe a bad choice of words for saying you asked the question. You asked atheists the question
if ethics mattered to them. Posters gave great responses.
You didn't like the answers. You called everyone else dumb. You're mad because I (and others here) made fun of
your silly religion. You feel alone, but you shouldn't for you have god in your heart.
A mean, bitter, spiteful, arrogant, egotistical, cock sucker of a god. Is that from whom you get your ethics?
Good luck with that.
-
You are not a skeptic.
Agreed. Anyone who is a Christian cannot be a Skeptic. There is no way. Just read the insanity of the bible:
A talking serpent, right off the bat. Then later: more talking animals, a flood killing almost everyone and gathering of 2 of every animal, 42 boys being mauled to death by bears for making fun of someone, constant contradictions, god slaughtering many many people, necrophilia, rape, the treatment of women as less than animals, murder for completely pointless reasons by people held up as "good" in the bible, various atrocities undertaken with no purpose other than to do something disgusting, and finally, dare I say it, Jesus Christ acting like an asshole with mental issues. Lets not even go into God's insecurity and jealousy issues. The kid from Indian in the Cupboard did better than him.
You asked questions and came up with the fact that what this book says is true? REALLY????
Genesis 30:37-39 (English Standard Version) (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+30%3A37-39&version=ESV)
-
Read what I wrote. I didn't say you are "begging the question" as in philosophical terms.
What I wrote was maybe a bad choice of words for saying you asked the question. You asked atheists the question
if ethics mattered to them. Posters gave great responses.
You didn't like the answers. You called everyone else dumb. You're mad because I (and others here) made fun of
your silly religion. You feel alone, but you shouldn't for you have god in your heart.
A mean, bitter, spiteful, arrogant, egotistical, cock sucker of a god. Is that from whom you get your ethics?
Good luck with that.
I honestly hope someone rips your ugly head off, and shits down your neck.
-
Read what I wrote. I didn't say you are "begging the question" as in philosophical terms.
What I wrote was maybe a bad choice of words for saying you asked the question. You asked atheists the question
if ethics mattered to them. Posters gave great responses.
You didn't like the answers. You called everyone else dumb. You're mad because I (and others here) made fun of
your silly religion. You feel alone, but you shouldn't for you have god in your heart.
A mean, bitter, spiteful, arrogant, egotistical, cock sucker of a god. Is that from whom you get your ethics?
Good luck with that.
I honestly hope someone rips your ugly head off, and shits down your neck.
Dear Jerk,
I was right, you get your ethics from a bad, bad place. Your God made you in the spitting image of himself. I can tell b/c you are also spiteful, bitter, mean, arrogant, egotistical and possibly a cock-sucker. But that's cool, your god will forgive you. How fitting.
I wish you peace and happiness.
Love,
Atheist
-
Read what I wrote. I didn't say you are "begging the question" as in philosophical terms.
What I wrote was maybe a bad choice of words for saying you asked the question. You asked atheists the question
if ethics mattered to them. Posters gave great responses.
You didn't like the answers. You called everyone else dumb. You're mad because I (and others here) made fun of
your silly religion. You feel alone, but you shouldn't for you have god in your heart.
A mean, bitter, spiteful, arrogant, egotistical, cock sucker of a god. Is that from whom you get your ethics?
Good luck with that.
I honestly hope someone rips your ugly head off, and shits down your neck.
Dear Jerk,
I was right, you get your ethics from a bad, bad place. Your God made you in the spitting image of himself. I can tell b/c you are also spiteful, bitter, mean, arrogant, egotistical and possibly a cock-sucker. But that's cool, your god will forgive you. How fitting.
I wish you peace and happiness.
Love,
Atheist
I'm not in the mood to humor any tards at this hour.
My ethics are not the subject of this thread in the first place. What I wanted was some philosophy, and that isn't what I got. Instead a bunch of tards came out into this thread and inject their stupidity onto it.
-
I suppose I could get my ethics from the bible by purposely NOT following its example, and other times taking heed of its advice when I felt it was relevant. Oh, wait, we discussed that already. Picking and choosing like that is BS because it enables you do behave however you want, thus you are choosing your ethics in the same way as atheists.
-
I suppose I could get my ethics from the bible by purposely NOT following its example, and other times taking heed of its advice when I felt it was relevant. Oh, wait, we discussed that already. Picking and choosing like that is BS because it enables you do behave however you want, thus you are choosing your ethics in the same way as atheists.
You wouldn't be so defensive if you could back up your shit, would you?
I'd be pissed too if I couldn't think of a way to prove what I think.
And I backed up my beliefs, even on a thread not meant for that.
I don't care about your choice of ethics, I want to know the why behind it.
You know what? You mail to me the best book you can think of on atheism, and I'll decide if its worth a damn. I'll give it a fair shave, and post a rebuttal. You want to why I can do that comfortably? Its because I am not some dumbass KEYBOARD WARRIOR, and I can think for myself.
-
I just did "back up my shit." Reread it.
-
I just did "back up my shit." Reread it.
Yeah. Thats why I shouldn't post when I'm out of my gourd.
-
oh i c
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=bored+out+of+my+gourd
-
I suppose I could get my ethics from the bible by purposely NOT following its example, and other times taking heed of its advice when I felt it was relevant. Oh, wait, we discussed that already. Picking and choosing like that is BS because it enables you do behave however you want, thus you are choosing your ethics in the same way as atheists.
You're not supposed to follow everything in the bible by example. Example: Worshiping a golden calf, that's a big no-no. Sending your top general into battle so that he would die and you can marry his wife, another big no-no. Of course there is twisted stuff in the Bible, you're supposed to learn from it that that is twisted and not to do it.
-
I honestly hope someone rips your ugly head off, and shits down your neck.
So much for the Christian "turn the other cheek."
Even a Wiccan or "law of attraction" believer would "put out" positive things, like "may you one day soon realize your mistake" or "I sincerely hope that you accept $DEITY in your life, he/she/they/it love you."
Maybe one of the more militant religions would fit your personality better than the generally proported "peace and brotherhood" of the New Testament. Many of the objections so far stated against the "Christian" bible are really against the raging misogyny and paranoia of the Old Testament. Have you considered Judeism?
Most religions, with minor exceptions like pure "What would Jesus do" Christianity, Zen Buddhism, Quakers, Wicca, generally accept bashing non-believers. So pick something really esoteric and then you won't be damning yourself by saying things like "I hope someone rips off your head..." etc.
-
I honestly hope someone rips your ugly head off, and shits down your neck.
So much for the Christian "turn the other cheek."
Even a Wiccan or "law of attraction" believer would "put out" positive things, like "may you one day soon realize your mistake" or "I sincerely hope that you accept $DEITY in your life, he/she/they/it love you."
Maybe one of the more militant religions would fit your personality better than the generally proported "peace and brotherhood" of the New Testament. Many of the objections so far stated against the "Christian" bible are really against the raging misogyny and paranoia of the Old Testament. Have you considered Judeism?
Most religions, with minor exceptions like pure "What would Jesus do" Christianity, Zen Buddhism, Quakers, Wicca, generally accept bashing non-believers. So pick something really esoteric and then you won't be damning yourself by saying things like "I hope someone rips off your head..." etc.
I'm not a Christian numbnuts. Haven't you ever paid attention to anything I have ever said? Turning the other cheek isn't a Jewish concept. I'm a practicing Orthodox Jew.
Last night it happens I was in a weird mood.
-
I suppose I could get my ethics from the bible by purposely NOT following its example, and other times taking heed of its advice when I felt it was relevant. Oh, wait, we discussed that already. Picking and choosing like that is BS because it enables you do behave however you want, thus you are choosing your ethics in the same way as atheists.
You're not supposed to follow everything in the bible by example. Example: Worshiping a golden calf, that's a big no-no. Sending your top general into battle so that he would die and you can marry his wife, another big no-no. Of course there is twisted stuff in the Bible, you're supposed to learn from it that that is twisted and not to do it.
And the story where Jesus damns a fig tree?
Or how about the one where god sends 2 bears out of the woods to slaughter 42 children?
Should I learn not to make fun of bald people, because like those children I may be mauled to death by bears? (Like 2 bears could really kill that many people, all they would have to do is flee and they wouldnt be all caught.)
-
Should I learn not to make fun of bald people, because like those children I may be mauled to death by bears? (Like 2 bears could really kill that many people, all they would have to do is flee and they wouldnt be all caught.)
Maybe the bears stalked the 42 children over a long period of time. Get a couple today, another one tomorrow, 3 on Thursday. These were not your average bears.
-
I suppose I could get my ethics from the bible by purposely NOT following its example, and other times taking heed of its advice when I felt it was relevant. Oh, wait, we discussed that already. Picking and choosing like that is BS because it enables you do behave however you want, thus you are choosing your ethics in the same way as atheists.
You're not supposed to follow everything in the bible by example. Example: Worshiping a golden calf, that's a big no-no. Sending your top general into battle so that he would die and you can marry his wife, another big no-no. Of course there is twisted stuff in the Bible, you're supposed to learn from it that that is twisted and not to do it.
And the story where Jesus damns a fig tree?
Or how about the one where god sends 2 bears out of the woods to slaughter 42 children?
Should I learn not to make fun of bald people, because like those children I may be mauled to death by bears? (Like 2 bears could really kill that many people, all they would have to do is flee and they wouldnt be all caught.)
I have no idea. I've only read small sections of the New Testament because I'm not a Christian. Don't ask me about Jesus damning a fig tree. Seems strange to me, besides, figs are good.
-
$DEITY
I like the way that looks.
...2 bears...
Were these the same two from the ark?
-
$DEITY
I like the way that looks.
...2 bears...
Were these the same two from the ark?
The very same two. Yogi and Booboo. They had a fondness for picinic baskets and mauling children.
-
:lol:
-
$DEITY
I like the way that looks.
...2 bears...
Were these the same two from the ark?
The very same two. Yogi and Booboo. They had a fondness for picinic baskets and mauling children.
Oh, you must be talking about the Evil Bear Ravaging Tahoe I posted about in General. He sure seems like an Evil Yogi
-
I'm not a Christian numbnuts. Haven't you ever paid attention to anything I have ever said?
Not really, it's not that interesting most of the time.
Turning the other cheek isn't a Jewish concept. I'm a practicing Orthodox Jew.
Well then being a vindictive asshole is just fine. Ignore the advice.
-
$DEITY
I like the way that looks.
It's a very old UNIX-hacker term, using an "environment variable" as it would be utilized in a shell script.
-
I recognized it as a variable, but saw the connect between church and it's *secondary motive $PROFIT!
*Core motive = $CONTROL!
-
I suppose I could get my ethics from the bible by purposely NOT following its example, and other times taking heed of its advice when I felt it was relevant. Oh, wait, we discussed that already. Picking and choosing like that is BS because it enables you do behave however you want, thus you are choosing your ethics in the same way as atheists.
You're not supposed to follow everything in the bible by example. Example: Worshiping a golden calf, that's a big no-no. Sending your top general into battle so that he would die and you can marry his wife, another big no-no. Of course there is twisted stuff in the Bible, you're supposed to learn from it that that is twisted and not to do it.
How do you explain stoning non virgin brides, executing gay people, slave beating rules, killing non believers, killing disbelievers, killing witches, executing adulterers?
I don't see any versions that are even slightly open to an interpretation where god doesn't want gay people to be executed (http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibh3.htm)
Non of that shit is tongue in cheek or even slightly metaphorical, they're straight out rulings.
The only thing you can learn by it is to not believe something is wrong just because it was written in an old book supposedly authored by a god.
funny how he decided to let humans write it down for him, instead of say etching it in 200ft letters on the moon, or coding it into all DNA or some other way that couldn't easily be mistaken for a work of fiction.
Or you know appearing on mass to all humans at regular intervals so there would be no doubt to his existence.
-
Or you know appearing on mass to all humans at regular intervals so there would be no doubt to his existence.
Or revealing some truth that we could not have figured out at the time (like complex math), leaving a few angels behind to perform various feats (we could still have this debate then, but it'd cancel out some religions), allow some people to still perform miracles, etc.
...2 bears...
Some dude in the bible was walking along minding his own business. A group of "little children" ran up to him and began teasing him about the lack of hair on his head. He cursed them in gods name. God sent 2 female bears to charge out of the woods and those bears managed to kill 42 of the kids (no mention of how many kids in total there were). Wonder if these (innocent?) kids went to heaven or hell after that. The dude continued on to his next destination after that.
Done by an artist who has no idea what bears look like:
(http://www.pitts.emory.edu/woodcuts/1712BiblA/00002416.jpg)
Theres only about a dozen kids in this one, but it more accurately represents the bears:
(http://www.creationism.org/images/DoreBibleIllus/h2Ki0223Dore_TheChildrenDestroyedByBears.jpg)
Don't ask me about Jesus damning a fig tree. Seems strange to me, besides, figs are good.
Jesus was actually fond of figs. In the story where he damned one (a specific one) he had walked all the way over to the tree to get its fruit because he was hungry. He found the tree covered in leaves and it was supposed to be bearing fruit, but for whatever reason (I blame god) there wasnt any. Jesus damned the tree in his anger for its insolence. It doesnt say whether god sent any forest creatures out to maul the tree, but I'd assume that he did.
Bonus verse:
Behold, I will rebuke your seed, and will spread dung upon your faces, even the dung of your feasts; and ye shall be taken away with it.
And here ends the lesson. 8)
-
...2 bears...
Some dude in the bible was walking along minding his own business. A group of "little children" ran up to him and began teasing him about the lack of hair on his head. He cursed them in gods name. God sent 2 female bears to charge out of the woods and those bears managed to kill 42 of the kids (no mention of how many kids in total there were). Wonder if these (innocent?) kids went to heaven or hell after that. The dude continued on to his next destination after that.
Done by an artist who has no idea what bears look like:
(http://www.pitts.emory.edu/woodcuts/1712BiblA/00002416.jpg)
Theres only about a dozen kids in this one, but it more accurately represents the bears:
(http://www.creationism.org/images/DoreBibleIllus/h2Ki0223Dore_TheChildrenDestroyedByBears.jpg)
Sounds like the lesson is to not taunt your elders. How is that a bad lesson? Because it's graphic and R-rated? Leave it to fatcat to take something way out of context.
-
The lesson is that god will kill large groups of children for petty things.
-
The lesson is that god will kill large groups of children for petty things.
I really don't think that's the lesson.
-
The lesson is that god will kill large groups of children for petty things.
I really don't think that's the lesson.
I think youre reading too deep into the bible.
-
If the lesson was not to taunt your elders, why couldn't the story be about kids who....don't taunt their elders? Or God showing up and saying "Hey kids, knock that off. That's not nice!"
Having them killed by bears is a sociopath's morality tale.
-
If the lesson was not to taunt your elders, why couldn't the story be about kids who....don't taunt their elders? Or God showing up and saying "Hey kids, knock that off. That's not nice!"
Having them killed by bears is a sociopath's morality tale.
Because it's a story. Perhaps an R rated story.
Or maybe it's because Jews like eating children who talk back to their elders!
-
It wasn't little children, it was a group of youths (really, you must start reading other translations than the King James),
NIV
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20kings%202:23-24&version=NIV
NAS
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20kings%202:23-24&version=NASB
Amplified Bible
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20kings%202:23-24&version=AMP
The point being that the "little children" were most likely teenage boys, which means they were considered full adults in Jewish culture. Plus, it is implied that they were accusing Elisha of murdering his master Elijah and faking his mourning (bald head).
http://www.tektonics.org/af/callahanproph.html#2kin223
-
Well, that IS interesting. So, if the KJV is so horrible which I've always suspected, when you go looking for different bibles do you choose one that includes or excludes books differently than the KJV or is the assumption that the choosing of the books to include was divinely inspired and just the translation that got all cocked up?
-
The Brothers Grim had some really horrific fables also. But they did not have Yogi and Booboo.
-
I wasn't aware of the bear thing till this thread.
Read about it in Me'am Lo'ez, and he says thus:
Elisha is walking along and sees "katanim naarim" which is a phrase that would seem to be repetitive. What it means is that the boys themselves were not good, and he saw through prophecy that they would grow up to be terrible people. G-d did fulfill Elishas decree but punished Elisha for it, by making him sick later on in life.
-
The Brothers Grim had some really horrific fables also. But they did not have Yogi and Booboo.
I don't recall anyone asserting that the Bros. Grim were writing some god's words, or were inspired by the gods, or are "The Truth", etc.
On a homeschooling mailing list for a xian based curriculum recently, I read someone asserting that the U.S. Constitution was "divinely inspired", and that's why the American "Way of Life" was OK to impose on everyone else by war.
No one contradicted her. After all, to contradict her "faith" in one old piece of paper being written by the gods would endanger the rest of their "faiths" in another old piece of paper.
Oh, great joke that was circulating by email some 15 years ago, "Orientation Day in Hell" or some title close to that. The opening line by the sorting demon was,
"Christians, line 2 please. Sorry, Jews were right."
Google search didn't help, I guess the joke has gone down the memory hole.
-
The point being that the "little children" were most likely teenage boys, which means they were considered full adults in Jewish culture. Plus, it is implied that they were accusing Elisha of murdering his master Elijah and faking his mourning (bald head).
http://www.tektonics.org/af/callahanproph.html#2kin223
Oh, that makes it perfectly all right to send bears to maul them to death! Issue resolved.
:roll:
-
The point being that the "little children" were most likely teenage boys, which means they were considered full adults in Jewish culture. Plus, it is implied that they were accusing Elisha of murdering his master Elijah and faking his mourning (bald head).
http://www.tektonics.org/af/callahanproph.html#2kin223
Oh, that makes it perfectly all right to send bears to maul them to death! Issue resolved.
:roll:
Problem being its factually incorrect. True a 13 year old becomes a man in the legal sense but he wouldn't be an adult in Jewish culture for years.
-
The point being that the "little children" were most likely teenage boys, which means they were considered full adults in Jewish culture. Plus, it is implied that they were accusing Elisha of murdering his master Elijah and faking his mourning (bald head).
http://www.tektonics.org/af/callahanproph.html#2kin223
Oh, that makes it perfectly all right to send bears to maul them to death! Issue resolved.
:roll:
God, as man's creator, is also the owner of man. If He chooses to kill some individual or group of individuals, of whatever age, it is no more an evil act than a farmer destroying some of his diseased livestock.
-
Going back to the opening question of this thread, "Do ethics matter?"
After all this discussion, I must admit to being highly sceptical of religious ethics. It seems that religions define their ethics arbitrarily and with a major focus to pragmatic issues of the moment.
This is not what I would call "ethics".
The Non Aggression Principle is at least consistant, and although it could be used to rationalize shooting IRS agents that still first requires the existence of IRS agents.
-
The Non Aggression Principle is at least consistant, and although it could be used to rationalize shooting IRS agents that still first requires the existence of IRS agents.
Even that can be resolved with a minimal/proportional response (http://bbs.freetalklive.com/index.php?topic=12650.msg227842#msg227842) restriction... but does not address Diogenes's root question (as I perceive it) of why one would choose to adopt any particular system of ethics.
-
The point being that the "little children" were most likely teenage boys, which means they were considered full adults in Jewish culture. Plus, it is implied that they were accusing Elisha of murdering his master Elijah and faking his mourning (bald head).
http://www.tektonics.org/af/callahanproph.html#2kin223
Oh, that makes it perfectly all right to send bears to maul them to death! Issue resolved.
:roll:
Problem being its factually incorrect. True a 13 year old becomes a man in the legal sense but he wouldn't be an adult in Jewish culture for years.
Umm, I think the problem is that sending bears to maul people for mocking a bald guy is sociopathic regardless of how old they are.
[youtube=425,350]<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Qzf8q9QHfhI&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Qzf8q9QHfhI&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/youtube]
-
If the lesson was not to taunt your elders, why couldn't the story be about kids who....don't taunt their elders? Or God showing up and saying "Hey kids, knock that off. That's not nice!"
Having them killed by bears is a sociopath's morality tale.
Because it's a story. Perhaps an R rated story.
Or maybe it's because Jews like eating children who talk back to their elders!
Can you explain how stoning non virgin brides and killing men who have sex with other men is just a story or a "twisted" thing you're meant to learn from?
-
The Non Aggression Principle is at least consistant, and although it could be used to rationalize shooting IRS agents that still first requires the existence of IRS agents.
Even that can be resolved with a minimal/proportional response (http://bbs.freetalklive.com/index.php?topic=12650.msg227842#msg227842) restriction... but does not address Diogenes's root question (as I perceive it) of why one would choose to adopt any particular system of ethics.
Indeed, I believe this is why we have both courts and reputation. Even someone who people think gets away with murder (OJ, for example) still has to deal with reputation.
Such a "propportionate response" issue is a social issue, since what constitutes an acceptable "proportionate" response depends upon using hindsight. For instance, when I lived in Massachusetts, the "social standard" there was to retreat. If someone was to come at you with a baseball bat, and you were physically incapable of retreating, only then was it deemed acceptable to defend yourself, but only with another blunt instrument. Actually shooting the perp was not "proportionate" unless they had a gun first.
...unless one was a cop, then shooting someone was just fine.
-
The point being that the "little children" were most likely teenage boys, which means they were considered full adults in Jewish culture. Plus, it is implied that they were accusing Elisha of murdering his master Elijah and faking his mourning (bald head).
http://www.tektonics.org/af/callahanproph.html#2kin223
IF what they meant was to talk about people that were old enough to be considered adults, they would have. And no, I dont think it matters what they were implying. It was still a terrible thing to do, whatever the "little children" were saying. Pretend it is 80 old men, cackling and making fun of him. Why would god grant Elisha's wish and do such a thing? Couldnt the bears have roared at them as a warning? Or some lightning struck down to scare them?
and he saw through prophecy that they would grow up to be terrible people.
Oh I see, so children are not innocent, and its OK for god to slaughter them because in the end they (that whole group of 42) would have grown up to be evil.
It seems that religions define their ethics arbitrarily and with a major focus to pragmatic issues of the moment.
BINGO!
-
Problem being its factually incorrect. True a 13 year old becomes a man in the legal sense but he wouldn't be an adult in Jewish culture for years.
Perhaps not in modern Jewish culture, but what of ancient Hebrew culture? What does the Talmud say about this?
It's not from the Talmud, but a rather longish commentary on ancient views of "adolescence" vs. today: http://www.daveblackonline.com/want_to_reform_your_youth_minist.htm
I found this, that doesn't relate to the question of how ancient Hebrews viewed a teenager's status as adult vs. child; but it has some interesting comments on the passage:
http://www.idrah.org/?page_id=77
-
People who think you need religion to be a good person scare me. They must think that w/o their religion they wouldn't be, which makes me think they're not.
Yes, that really bugs me, too.
"We need religion!"
"You mean you would be evil without a fear of hell?"
"No, not for me, for the other people!"
Same rationalization as for the State. There must be laws to restrain other people from doing evil.
Most religious people I know don't focus on the hell angle.
-
Perhaps not in modern Jewish culture, but what of ancient Hebrew culture? What does the Talmud say about this?
It's not from the Talmud, but a rather longish commentary on ancient views of "adolescence" vs. today: http://www.daveblackonline.com/want_to_reform_your_youth_minist.htm
I found this, that doesn't relate to the question of how ancient Hebrews viewed a teenager's status as adult vs. child; but it has some interesting comments on the passage:
http://www.idrah.org/?page_id=77
Actually, we have regressed on this a bit. The Gemara recommends a certain age for men and women to get married, and these days, its not uncommon for Chassidim to get married before that age.
Ancient Hebrew culture didn't value youth like American culture does today.
-
Most religious people I know don't focus on the hell angle.
Do you agree or disagree with the premise, that YOU would not harm others with or without religion?
Is your faith the only reason you don't harm others?
-
Didn't read the whole thread so my apologies if this has been brought up before.
That said, why do you ask this question only to atheists? No religion that I know of actually has a set of moral principles. All religion's ethical principles come down to "do A and don't do B because C told you to and he will do D to you if you don't do as C commands". I'm sorry, but this is not ethnics, this is just someone telling you what to do.
Ethics by definition are universal to all rational beings, otherwise they're just suggestions and commandments. Religious "morality" cannot logically be universal because no sane individual could apply such "ethical" commandments as "thou shall not kill" to God and not see him/her as a vile, mentally unstable monster who creates people that he knows will grow up to rape and kill people.
-
It is tiresome that two and a half thousand years since the Euthyphro people are still asking questions like this, as though morality is somehow dependent on God's will.
Does God will us to do X because it is moral, or is it moral to do X because God wills it? If the latter, then we clearly get the answer that anything could be moral dependent on the whims of the deity. We also get the question of why God's mere willing us to do X makes X moral - what are the causal relations? If the former, then doing X would clearly still be moral whether or not God willed it, for reasons entirely independent of the fact that he willed it, and in fact he wouldn't even need to exist for doing X to still be moral.
-
It is tiresome that two and a half thousand years since the Euthyphro people are still asking questions like this, as though morality is somehow dependent on God's will.
Does God will us to do X because it is moral, or is it moral to do X because God wills it? If the latter, then we clearly get the answer that anything could be moral dependent on the whims of the deity. We also get the question of why God's mere willing us to do X makes X moral - what are the causal relations? If the former, then doing X would clearly still be moral whether or not God willed it, for reasons entirely independent of the fact that he willed it, and in fact he wouldn't even need to exist for doing X to still be moral.
Important point.
I'd like to see Diogenes reply to this cause I believe I brought it up a while back and never got a direct response.
-
God can eat my un-shaved asshole.
-
God can eat my un-shaved asshole.
The G-d you don't believe in?
-
If "god" would toss my salad
I would beleive.
-
No religion that I know of actually has a set of moral principles.
You might want to search Google Tech Talks on YouTube and Google Video, for the Buddhist talks.
They may very well surprise you. Their directness and willingness to question everything, including their own precepts, is very refreshing.
-
Do ethics matter?
Yep.
If so, why?
Because other people can hurt you just as much as you can hurt them.
-
Do ethics matter?
Yep.
If so, why?
Because other people can hurt you just as much as you can hurt them.
Categorical imperative?
-
Do ethics matter?
Yep.
If so, why?
Because other people can hurt you just as much as you can hurt them.
Categorical imperative?
No?
-
its funny: http://www.hulu.com/watch/212844/the-colbert-report-thu-feb-3-2011#s-p1-so-i0
-
its funny: http://www.hulu.com/watch/212844/the-colbert-report-thu-feb-3-2011#s-p1-so-i0
Damn that was retarded, and grating. I watched 7 minutes, and don't understand how someone could think its worth a half hour of their life. First time too. Both Colbert, and O'Reilly.
If any Atheist wanted a straw-man, they have it in Bill O'Reilly. Thomas Aquinas, he is not.
-
I've got several wikipedia tabs opened in one window, and the mormon chat in another (http://mormon.org/chat/). This is proving to be interesting. So far they said their book was written over the course of 1000 years, said that Jesus knew about the people living in the American continents, and that "he visited the people here as well". When I pressured them on what that quoted statement meant they insisted that they only had a short amount of time online and wanted my phone number so they could call me later. I said "Is somebody preventing you from being on the computer?" and they never responded. Perhaps I pushed too hard?
I want to question them about their seer stones, the fact that the 1000 year old book of mormon was found buried in NY, and all the anachronisms in their book.
-
I've got several wikipedia tabs opened in one window, and the mormon chat in another (http://mormon.org/chat/). This is proving to be interesting. So far they said their book was written over the course of 1000 years, said that Jesus knew about the people living in the American continents, and that "he visited the people here as well". When I pressured them on what that quoted statement meant they insisted that they only had a short amount of time online and wanted my phone number so they could call me later. I said "Is somebody preventing you from being on the computer?" and they never responded. Perhaps I pushed too hard?
I want to question them about their seer stones, the fact that the 1000 year old book of mormon was found buried in NY, and all the anachronisms in their book.
Why bother asking them questions, for answers you already know are bunk?
-
I've got several wikipedia tabs opened in one window, and the mormon chat in another (http://mormon.org/chat/). This is proving to be interesting. So far they said their book was written over the course of 1000 years, said that Jesus knew about the people living in the American continents, and that "he visited the people here as well". When I pressured them on what that quoted statement meant they insisted that they only had a short amount of time online and wanted my phone number so they could call me later. I said "Is somebody preventing you from being on the computer?" and they never responded. Perhaps I pushed too hard?
I want to question them about their seer stones, the fact that the 1000 year old book of mormon was found buried in NY, and all the anachronisms in their book.
Why bother asking them questions, for answers you already know are bunk?
For the lolz.
-
I've got several wikipedia tabs opened in one window, and the mormon chat in another (http://mormon.org/chat/). This is proving to be interesting. So far they said their book was written over the course of 1000 years, said that Jesus knew about the people living in the American continents, and that "he visited the people here as well". When I pressured them on what that quoted statement meant they insisted that they only had a short amount of time online and wanted my phone number so they could call me later. I said "Is somebody preventing you from being on the computer?" and they never responded. Perhaps I pushed too hard?
I want to question them about their seer stones, the fact that the 1000 year old book of mormon was found buried in NY, and all the anachronisms in their book.
Why bother asking them questions, for answers you already know are bunk?
oh the irony.
-
I've got several wikipedia tabs opened in one window, and the mormon chat in another (http://mormon.org/chat/). This is proving to be interesting. So far they said their book was written over the course of 1000 years, said that Jesus knew about the people living in the American continents, and that "he visited the people here as well". When I pressured them on what that quoted statement meant they insisted that they only had a short amount of time online and wanted my phone number so they could call me later. I said "Is somebody preventing you from being on the computer?" and they never responded. Perhaps I pushed too hard?
I want to question them about their seer stones, the fact that the 1000 year old book of mormon was found buried in NY, and all the anachronisms in their book.
Why bother asking them questions, for answers you already know are bunk?
oh the irony.
Nice :)
-
Fuck you guys.
-
Fuck you guys.
remember to cut long ways...
BTW, I was Mormon once.
-
Fuck you guys.
remember to cut long ways...
BTW, I was Mormon once.
How'd you end up?
-
Fuck you guys.
remember to cut long ways...
BTW, I was Mormon once.
How'd you end up?
atheist
-
Fuck you guys.
remember to cut long ways...
BTW, I was Mormon once.
How'd you end up?
atheist
Hi 5!