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.
I think that when one's moral code and views are self determined, they become much more personal. Any one can tell you "Do this because is right, dont do this because its wrong". But when someone else tells you these things, they become very impersonal and detached from the one being told. I think that any moral descison that is first posed by some onelse is less valuable than one's personal morality. Or think of it this way, god has his views on morality, but what does that mean to me? Everybody and their brother has their own views on morality, but what does that mean to me? There may be certain aspects that i would agree with, or that my even be extremely similar to my own morality, but the fact that its someone elses preconcieved notion of what is right and wrong takes away almost all personal value.
tic_constant; I believe you have answered your own question. Above, in the last two lines you write, 'But in the absence of an absolute moral law these turn into preferences.' Preferences are Value Judgements. I do not agree with your statement 'Certainly everyone has the idea of good and bad.' You are stating perhaps accidentally, that there is only one idea of good and bad,' I would suggest there are many ideas of good and bad, formed via the milieu through which one passes, or in which one exists. It appears to me as if you were taught or came to the belief that a god idea came first, and perhaps it was an ipso facto thing, a prenatal belief implanted by a divine being. I differ, I believe humans went from basic instincts in an era when belief systems were incapaple of being thought. The words Gods and divine and so on, had not been invented, We realized that we got hungry, so we ate, which graduated to farming, and the killing of animals. Cannibalism existed, as we too are animals. Life was physically tough. It took a long time for thoughts of good and evil to arise. Then certain humans sought mental refuge from the hardship of life, and thoughts arose and we had and still have ideas (thoughts) of river gods, and mountain gods and tree gods and etc. Even the Greeks had gods that lived on Mount Olympus. When the specialities in belief arose, this created superiority ideas, and each religious system that was on the top of the heap, stole the ideas of so called morality and claimed they or their god created it. Religions stole more than Atheists and other non believers in religious thoughts, and have ever since, created more wars and horror and disgust than any Atheistic organization has done. Bhuddism is a godless belief system as you do not seek the benificence of a god, but a sense of place, such as nirvana.
I am not needed to carry the discussion farther because I believe you are capable of following threads yourself. However, I am glad you asked the question you asked, because it proves that you are a thinker. It also helps me, because I think to respond. Thus is life, in a value judgement of mine. I thank you.
From what you said in the last part of your post, I don't know if you will see my response. But I'll respond nonetheless. I also thank you for your post. It was a good metanarrative, if you will, of the history of morality in view of the atheistic worldview.
You believe there are many views of what is good and bad. Very well, I agree with you. But I posit that there is an absolute morality which is above any preference or value judgment. If there is no absolute, there is no morality really. Just pragmatism, emotive, utilitarianism with whcih we use to define what is good or evil.
Now I know this in no way is any proof for God's existence. That would be putting the cart before the horse. If there is no God, let's be honest about where this leads. Might makes right. Is there any way around this? Can't we look back into history and see the cmpensation we have received for this thinking? Agreed, it doesn't all end in disaster. So how is this different than a theist's worldview. Some theistic ideas and in disaster, as you have all been very good to point out. Some are beneficial and altruistic. So I see the major differences as being this: christianity (as understood correctly) posits an absolute morality of how we ought to interact with each other, not based on emotion or pragmatics or power. And it also says that those actions have meaning, in the sense that they have consequences (good or bad). There is an end result, a final accounting, for good or bad. You get something for your actions (I speak in a very gross christian point of view). There is more to something having meaning than merely consequences, but i would say it is not any less than that. Here is a questoin I have for you, which I have been thinking about for a while and haven't been able to get a grasp on; there are two actually. Is there any ultimate meaning for actions coming from an atheistic worldview? Secondly, Dr. William Provine, an atheist, states that in the atheistic worldview there can be no free will. I don't understand this claim or how he arrived at it. If you agree or disagree with this comment, why? I'd like to understand this.
In closing, thank you for your honest and respectful post. It makes conversation much easier.
tic
If we look at countries with high percentages of atheist and review the crime statistics you will find very low crime rates. Richard Dawkins pointed this out in an interview on youtube. He related crime with morality and than pointed our countries like Iceland with the highest atheist rate (up to 73%) in Europe and boasting the lowest crime rate in Europe. The same was noted in Japan and several other areas of high concentrations of atheist. Seeing this data would make me think the roots of morality are not tied to religion, but rather to a strong secular system.
As a follow-up to your request, here is the info...
From "The Faith of an Atheist" by George Liles, MD, March, 1994, pages
59-64. Dr. Provine's Rules of Evolution
1. There are no gods or purposive forces in nature.
2. There are no inherent moral or ethical laws to guide human society.
3. Human beings are complex machines that become ethical beings by way of
heredity and environmental influences, with environment playing a
larger and hereditary a somewhat smaller role than is commonly
supposed.
4. There is no free will in the traditional sense of being able to make
uncoerced and unpredictable choices.
5. When we die, we die--finally and completely forever. (The idea we can
somehow survive death is a myth.)
6. This is what we are and all there is.BTW: Christians really dislike this man, and want him "off the air", or at the least unable to influence otherwise "thoughtless, info-less but trainable" minds of young university students. Trainable, one assumes, with their particular brand of dogma versus his.
To the point about "no free will", I'd say, seeing the full quote, no-one hasn't been corrupted or subliminally biased to blurt out their standard answers, conclusions or "truths" that accompany all believer's statements. This isn't a put down on my part. It's just that Christians, Muslims, atheists et al will always have a quick, ready answer to an honest inquiry or "how can that be?" sort of question. They have practiced, or practice here in these threads, the Christian-, Muslim or atheist-appropriate response, and hence can generally never come to completely open conclusions.
Of course, the good doctor may be wrong about that. Atheism is based on free will, IMHO.
To which I add my own quote:
"A person that cannot tolerate the presence or concepts of others that are not like him has a limited adaptation capability and therefore is limited when it comes to survival of himself, his ideals and his principles".
Happy Thanksgiving to you all! Peace, brothers.
Oh.. and PS: Remember, Thanksgiving is NOT a religious holiday or celebration! Let's keep it pleasant! Say Grace, Gracie!
To your earler question, tic, you asked "why do we resent or turn away from a playground bully's behavior"? Do you feel that we only do so because we've been previously instructed to dislike it? I think it's more likely because we'd been exposed to it in the past (as I and many other kids were) and we know what the victim's going through. We feel for him or her, and we're forced to live through our own past situation vicariously when we subsequently witness schoolyard bullying. We wouldn't wish the victim's situation on anyone 'ceptin' possibly the bully himself.
A good part of the teachings of the bible are just common sense, wrapped up in the security blanket of Christianity, but not limited to that branch of beliefs alone. In other words, in Sunday school my nice pleasant older-woman teacher might well have said "How would you like to be bullied? Pushed around the schoolyard by a nasty big muscular thug? That's just not nice, is it? Now Jesus, in such a situation, would say ...." and then off they go, attaching Jesus' philosophical outlooks to otherwise simple common-sense goodness and respect. A sort of hijacking of morals and standards, then posting it under the Christian side of the ledger when it's far simpler than that.
Actually, you also know of the wretched excesses of the Christian Church, as in the Spanish Inquisition, the Crusades, the burning of "witches", books, etc etc. Those examples clearly and firmly teach us that organized religion may offer an inappropriate lesson plan, that the human-frailties part of our characters can be corrupted under the guise of Christian goodness, to allow and perpetrate vast insideous evils. I'd be careful suggesting that only through acceptance of Christ into our lives can we see true goodness and altruistic love for our fellow man! It's hardly been the established example.
I'm more than happy relying on my own carefully thought-out ethical standards, and I'm by no means unique in being a good person, a thoughtful, thankful and generous citizen of our society. The one thing I don't do that truly is "evil" is to try to force and coerce my ideals and beliefs off onto others who have thought it through and rejected some ideas, and accepted others. I tired of being told I'm lacking in ethics, value or brain-power because I've thoroughly rejected Christianity. I'm tired of that tiresome threat "But what if you're wrong? You have nothing to lose!" Bull! How about my free-will? My independant thinking? My personal freedom and sense of self-worth? In fact I gave it a lot of time, and listened to others' objections, pronouncements and evidence-free proselytizing. The continued onslaught of insults and fear-mongering, or of deflections to my honest and open inquiries, has, predictably, understandably and finally, turned me and many many others almost completely off to any possibility for "redemption" as you might define it.
(Chorus of supporting applause in the background..).
Well, ethically bad and selfish though I may be, I've got some flaky, delicious pies (carrot-cinnamon, crusty apple, and creamy pumpkin) to make for my guests tomorrow. With my 64-layered butter pie crust. Am I hoping they'll choke on them? I mean, having no valid ethical standards and all? We'll have to see, eh?
Enjoy your day tomorrow!
Last edited by rifleman; 11-26-2008 at 12:15 PM..
Reason: typos
I tired of being told I'm lacking in ethics, value or brain-power because I've thoroughly rejected Christianity. I'm tired of that tiresome threat "But what if you're wrong? You have nothing to lose!" Bull! How about my free-will? My independant thinking? My personal freedom and sense of self-worth? In fact I gave it a lot of time, and listened to others' objections, pronouncements and evidence-free proselytizing. The continued onslaught of insults and fear-mongering, or of deflections to my honest and open inquiries, has, predictably, understandably and finally, turned me and many many others almost completely off to any possibility for "redemption" as you might define it. (Chorus of supporting applause in the background..).
I will join that chorus . . . as I was where you are many years ago. I would ask that you look for the baby in that bath water you have thrown out . . . it isn't God's fault the people that choose to believe also seem willing to accept ridiculous rationales for doing so. It actually indicates an impetus (usually in experience and intuition) that is stronger than an indifferent logic or reason.
Well, ethically bad and selfish though I may be, I've got some flaky, delicious pies (carrot-cinnamon, crusty apple, and creamy pumpkin) to make for my guests tomorrow. With my 64-layered butter pie crust. Am I hoping they'll choke on them? I mean, having no valid ethical standards and all? We'll have to see, eh?
Enjoy your day tomorrow!
If I were God, rifleman, I'd have to let you into Heaven just for that.
Can you imagine the type of people Theists would be if they didn't have their wonderful books? Lets remind ourselves here that both George W. Bush and Osama Bin Laden are religious! Which Holy books are they reading for moral guidance?
From what you said in the last part of your post, I don't know if you will see my response. But I'll respond nonetheless. I also thank you for your post. It was a good metanarrative, if you will, of the history of morality in view of the atheistic worldview.
You believe there are many views of what is good and bad. Very well, I agree with you. But I posit that there is an absolute morality which is above any preference or value judgment. If there is no absolute, there is no morality really. Just pragmatism, emotive, utilitarianism with which we use to define what is good or evil.
Now I know this in no way is any proof for God's existence. That would be putting the cart before the horse. If there is no God, let's be honest about where this leads. Might makes right. Is there any way around this? Can't we look back into history and see the compensation we have received for this thinking? Agreed, it doesn't all end in disaster. So how is this different than a theist's worldview. Some theistic ideas and in disaster, as you have all been very good to point out. Some are beneficial and altruistic. So I see the major differences as being this: Christianity (as understood correctly) posits an absolute morality of how we ought to interact with each other, not based on emotion or pragmatics or power. And it also says that those actions have meaning, in the sense that they have consequences (good or bad). There is an end result, a final accounting, for good or bad. You get something for your actions (I speak in a very gross Christian point of view). There is more to something having meaning than merely consequences, but i would say it is not any less than that. Here is a question I have for you, which I have been thinking about for a while and haven't been able to get a grasp on; there are two actually. Is there any ultimate meaning for actions coming from an atheistic worldview? Secondly, Dr. William Provine, an atheist, states that in the atheistic worldview there can be no free will. I don't understand this claim or how he arrived at it. If you agree or disagree with this comment, why? I'd like to understand this.
In closing, thank you for your honest and respectful post. It makes conversation much easier.
tic
Hello tic constant:
Thanks for your response to some of my points in an earlier letter. I shall try and keep my comments short to make them interesting instead of boring. However, at times clarity needs space and words. I think a very important aspect of thought and conveying what is said, is always understanding when a thing is a guess, in other words a Value Judgment, (VJ) I ask out of curiosity what makes you think of absolutes? Is it even possible to know when a thing is an absolute? How does an absolute prove anything to you, a thing with a tiny life span on this planet, and maybe so tiny it is hardly noticeable in a forever existence. Remember a supposed absolute cannot change to agree or point out errors in a forever changing existence. It is pointed out by many smart thinkers, that the only thing that is constant in our existence, is the appearance of change. That is change of existence itself. In words it is only a (VJ), and an oxymoron to boot. But in observation, and the awareness of change, it appears to be true. The Cosmos, is a Universe of Universes, and humanity thinks (VJ) it has figured it out as a time machine, that it's existence might be a pulsating Cosmos, repeatedly contracting and expanding for ever. Forever is a long time, especially on anythings calendar. To assume with a (VJ) that amongst a forever period, there are many, or only one Absolute, has to be a most exaggerated thought. Only when you can prove an Absolute, can it be accepted as a fact. Until then it is fancy, dreaming, exactly the same as the thoughts of the existence of a God. ("Is the Absolute God?" If it is it is not a fact. Did your God create the Absolute, or did the Absolute create your God? The asking is a waste of time as neither has been proved.
Your use of Nietzsche's Quote, 'Might is right' is presented as a (VJ), alas, when it was written by Nietzsche, it was a fact.' We should be mindful of the old saying from Asian philosophy, which states, 'You can't ever look at the same river twice'.
One can get lost in thought. Many Hindus and Buddhists think our perceived existence is Maya, a (VJ) written in Sanskrit, and the word means illusion. It does not have to be written, just take note of G. Bush's Jr, and his actions and thoughts. You ask, 'Is there any Ultimate meaning for actions, coming from an Atheistic World View'. That type of question is foreign to the way I think. I can only speak from my milieu, and assume the rest. I think (VJ) all actions create actions, called reactions, not only in thoughts, but in physics too, as Newton proved in his physical world. This partly answers your second question. You were right in not being able to comprehend it. Regardless if a person is self taught, such as myself, or has Dr. as a title to advertise. I have not checked if your quotes are correct, but if a person writes or states, 'There can be no free will' it is a useless stupid statement. I have to assume what is actually meant, is, 'There can't be any Free Will.' In my world I can agree with many others, and I can disagree with many. It only means that our conclusions are different. As long as I do not think my conclusions are the only right and correct conclusions, that is fine. I can expose my conclusions, or hide them. This is the same for every individual. The problems arise when some individuals try to ramrod the conclusions down other people's throats, and expect them to live with those conclusions. I think you must concur it is the religious who seem to be most adapt at these happenings. We can only live in our worlds. However, we can adapt, and try to, or actually learn to live with other conclusions. It can be to some, very difficult. Perhaps this is the time to say that Obama, ran for election on a banner of change. In some very important ways there will not be much change if any at all,
This chap named Obama, claimed his mom taught him how to respect the rights of all individuals. Yet he will like others, be a liar. He will be sworn in with his hand on a book of fiction, (VJ) called a Christian bible, by a liar of a priest called the chief judge of the Superior Court. His hand should be on a copy of that Grand Constitution. He can be sworn in by his wife, or anyone he chooses, and he can affirm instead, if he wants to. All of the groveling is anathema to the Constitution of the United States. This groveling is an act of urinating on the first amendment to the Constitution.
That part of the laws dealing with the separation of Church and State.
Our Secular Federal Republic is now, and for a long time has been stolen from the people by Christians, by supposedly important members of our government called Judges. Like a lot of Arabs, we live in a Theocracy, and the 25 million Atheists, and Buddhists, and Independents, will ponder, where is the change that was promised. Cheers.
Hi Park Twain:
It has been some time since I read your article about belieifs and absolutes, but I have just read it again. I think when you originally wrote it, that it was shortened deliberately because you were responding to specific questions. It is written beautifully enough to respond that it succeeds, in response to the questions you mentioned, but it is also important enough to try and enlarge on What is a God? and What is an Absolute? to which it referred. I hope my rambling will be as clear as yours. To make it easier, I first start with Angels, as most believers I know are Christians, who believe Angels are mortals who became immortal, by being promoted, and now are helpers to Their God. I don't know why an all powerful perfect god would need helpers. Most of my Christian friends think Angels are all females. This comes about because they don't remember some of the places where male Angels are mentioned in their bible. They only recognise that they were taught that Satan was a male Angel whom god booted out. So if you ask did their god make a mistake when he created Satan in the first place, with an eternal damnation and a fire. Usually a response is not forthcomimng. To an Atheist, to write about angels and gods is a waste of time, because it also means a wasted time of thinking. If a sensible response can not be given to the question about Angels, then questions about god or gods, are not required.
Absolutes are slightly different. Christian dictionaries have a slew of definitions, which means monks who invented, wrote and edited for the Oxford Dictionary, were not quite sure of the definition of the word, and as time passed, other definitions were added, and maybe some were scrubbed out. Most definitions say an Absolute is perfect, and independent, and minor ideals from those two, but usually being long winded. Those first two words seem to cover everything. Perfect is the definition believers give to their god. Add the word independent, and that means a stand alone without a god. So the first two contradict each other. If god is perfect, an aboslute is not needed. If Absolute is something that doesn't need a god, then God is not needed. How come those mean spirited monks didn't see the contradiction when they wrote the dictionary? I mean those monks at Oxford, wrote atheist and stated it should always be lower case, which meant a sentence could not be started with the word Atheist. They defined it as such because they said it would belittle their god. Now if a god is perfect how can a perfection be belittled?
Did the god create the absolute?, or the absolute create god? Now we have a mess when christians who supposedly think, see these three words together. We do away with the word god, and doing away with a deity, means the word atheist is automatically done away with as well. Without a deity there isn't any Deist. We are now left with an Absolute, which must have created god(s), but if I play differently as a joke perhaps, and do away with the word Absolute, then a god(s) created the absolute, and we play with the word Atheist. Now we can't do away with the Atheists, because they are facts, which means they exist. The word God(s) can be done away with because they are not facts, but we can define god, or gods to be something or some one, who thinks they are a god, because they are mentally incapable enough to believe they are. However, we are told we are in a God(s) image and likeness, but this nonsense can be done away with because it can't be proven. The word Absolute is actually the most difficult word to destroy, because the word is not defined as a god, so on Tuesday I can with honesty state and believe absolutely, that the previous day was Monday. However, the word Absolute has nothing to do with gods, in fact it can't , it can only be associated with facts. So, why do religious philosphers and the non thinking believers steal the word and even have some Atheists willingly use the word absolute when discussing myths? When believers in gods use the word Absolute in faith arguments or discussions, they are once again proving their incompetence.
Last edited by Snaefell; 02-16-2009 at 01:20 PM..
Reason: Spelling
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.
Koom Bay Yah
We'll have to see, eh?
Believers and misbelief.
