Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yes there are, but discussion of Philisophy is no longer proper to this forum. This is a Religion Forum which has become considerably a discussion (not to say contest) between Religion and atheism (Irreligion often staying on the sidelines, unsure which side they are on).
Discussion of Ethics will come into it just as discussion of Biology, Cosmology, Physics and archaeology, but this is not the forum for those matters.
If you want to discuss Ethics, there is a philosophy forum.
Here Morality and ethics has to be related to the topic of religion (or disbelief in it) or it is ruled off -topic.
Yes there are, but discussion of Philisophy is no longer proper to this forum. This is a Religion Forum which has become considerably a discussion (not to say contest) between Religion and atheism (Irreligion often staying on the sidelines, unsure which side they are on).
Discussion of Ethics will come into it just as discussion of Biology, Cosmology, Physics and archaeology, but this is not the forum for those matters.
If you want to discuss Ethics, there is a philosophy forum.
Here Morality and ethics has to be related to the topic of religion (or disbelief in it) or it is ruled off -topic.
Compartmentalization was a huge issue for some of the founders of U.S. universities who sought to have a curriculum solely dedicated to religion. Some actively seek to (micro)compartmentalize religion in order to hurriedly get to the us. vs them mentality, or to simply paint a distorted picture.
I am admittedly new to atheistic discussions. I am amused at how these convoluted strawmen “discussions” erupt in these forums. Why bring in terms loaded with religious connotations Such as Good and Evil when they are the most irrational opposites? Why even bother with evil, such Christian term?
I suppose one needs to know the enemy and i understand this obsession with all things religion. But are there not other ideas that are less lame?
The notion of good and evil may have religious connotations for you, but that is not true universally. My post is an inquiry aimed at the central thought processes of atheists, not the religious. The point of my inquiry is the non-theist definitions.
Sam Harris made as valiant an effort as anyone I've ever encountered (and I took my fair share of ethics courses as an erstwhile philosophy major) in attempting to situate good and evil in a 'next generation' 'theoretically quantifiable' utilitarian framework in his book 'The Moral Landscape', which I personally consider his best book, even as I was highly critical of it at the time of its publication (I pretty much read it on day one of availability). My criticism centered around the totalitarian implications of what is still ultimately a subjective (if ostensibly objective) moral framework. I think his effort is the best I've yet seen at 'an objective approach to morality', but the best effort at a logical impossibility is still necessarily doomed to failure, right?
I've always liked Peter Singer's formulation. It has to do with causing suffering. Among other things, he is known for his stance on animal rights, where he says the pivotal question is not whether a being can think but whether it can suffer.
Good versus Evil is a matter of morality.
. . .
MORALITY - conformity to the rules of right conduct; moral or virtuous conduct.
MORALITY SIMPLIFIED
Morality is simple - it is based on survival (the dead have no morality) - and it depends on which law you follow. There are two sets of laws:
• 1. Law of love, and
• 2. Law of the jungle.
● Under the law of love, harmless activity in support of one's "right to life" is moral / good. Harmful action is "bad". Self sacrifice is the “highest good.”
● Under the law of the jungle, predators are "good", and prey are "good to eat". Prey who fight back are "bad" - at least the predators think so. Sacrificing others for one’s own gain is the rule, not the exception, as self preservation is the highest goal.
Most civilized people assume that the law of love (harmless action) is moral. And defending one's person, liberty and property from predation is what mutual defense of rights (i.e. government) is all about. But a predator under the law of the jungle thinks of himself as moral, because it's kill or be killed, eat or be eaten.
So taking the property of another for one's own right to life is immoral under the law of love, but lawful under the law of the jungle.
Choose your law and accept the consequences.
Predator versus prey. Or harmless productivity.
There is no ambiguity.
I am admittedly new to atheistic discussions. I am amused at how these convoluted strawmen “discussions” erupt in these forums. Why bring in terms loaded with religious connotations Such as Good and Evil when they are the most irrational opposites? Why even bother with evil, such Christian term?
I suppose one needs to know the enemy and i understand this obsession with all things religion. But are there not other ideas that are less lame?
Most atheists base a large chunk of their morality on Christianity, however, they are unaware. So in a sense it is somewhat important to discuss this issue.
The notion of good and evil may have religious connotations for you, but that is not true universally. My post is an inquiry aimed at the central thought processes of atheists, not the religious. The point of my inquiry is the non-theist definitions.
Most atheists are unaware of the roots of their moral values. They somehow believe in morality ex-nihilo with no historical context.
I am admittedly new to atheistic discussions. I am amused at how these convoluted strawmen “discussions” erupt in these forums. Why bring in terms loaded with religious connotations Such as Good and Evil when they are the most irrational opposites? Why even bother with evil, such Christian term?
Good is not always a religious term, except when paired with the religious 'evil'. It has been discussed as a philosophical / morality concept before Christianity existed. The dual concept appear to derive from Zoroastrianism, which influenced Judaism, and therefore Christianity.
As for the term evil, it's origins may have been religious, but common use has changed it to mean something very bad, but without the religious connections.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cb2008
I suppose one needs to know the enemy and i understand this obsession with all things religion.
To use your phrase*, we are an enemy that you have created. Atheism is a simple response to theism, we do not believe your claims. Perhaps you should ask yourself why that makes us an enemy. What are you afraid of?
I can tell you why some parts of religion are an enemy for us, because of religious obsession. Fundamentalism such as religious terrorism or creationism. But that should be an enemy for any rational person. But the fact atheists exist is for some people a problem, even when we argue for freedom of religion. We do not want to live in a theology just as much as you (hopefully) do not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cb2008
But are there not other ideas that are less lame?
I do not understand what you mean by less lame, but there are other dangers than religion. My Grandfather was Greek until he became a German citizen, but we still have our Greek family name. My Grandmother is fluent with German, but still has a foreign accent. The rise of right extremism here in Germany is as much as a problem as the religious extremist who drove a lorry into a Christmas market a few days after my brother took his family there.
And I will fight both, because religion is not my enemy.
Yes there are, but discussion of Philisophy is no longer proper to this forum.
Philosophy: Defined as the pursuit of wisdom.
Is not appropriate in the atheism forum?????
Never thought I would see an atheist say that.
Quote:
This is a Religion Forum which has become considerably a discussion (not to say contest) between Religion and atheism (Irreligion often staying on the sidelines, unsure which side they are on).
Discussion of Ethics will come into it just as discussion of Biology, Cosmology, Physics and archaeology, but this is not the forum for those matters.
If you want to discuss Ethics, there is a philosophy forum.
Here Morality and ethics has to be related to the topic of religion (or disbelief in it) or it is ruled off -topic.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Good v Evil
