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.
She doesn't put me down for my beliefs and I do not put her down for her beliefs.
I apologize if I insulted either of you, that really wasn't my intention. I was trying to illuminate the philosophical and fundamental problems with subjectivism.
When someone says, "I'm and atheist, and I'm a good person", they are completely missing the point. What is good anyway?
If humans are just animals, the whole concept of good or bad becomes completely absurd. And makes as much sense as saying that a lion is "good", or that a lion is "moral".
The lion can only be moral, by first defining what morality is. And once you remove god from the equation, the only definition for moral or immoral, is only that behavior which serves the interests of society.
Basically, a moral lion, is a lion who's behavior benefits his community. And a moral human, is a human who's behavior benefits his community.
But what if you were thrown onto an island, completely alone. If there is no society, does morality even exist? And do all societies share the same interests? Basically, if morality is the behavior which benefits society. Then in a sense, aren't I just saying, morality is that behavior which benefits the government(and specifically, your government)?
Hasn't that been the standard for morality in every secular government?
Or in simplest terms, if your rights don't come from god, then you have no rights.
"Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep forever." - Thomas Jefferson
"Modern states have reached precisely this point. Christianity serves them only as a pretext or a phrase or as a means of deceiving the idle mob, for they pursue goals which have nothing to do with religious sentiments. The great statesmen of our days, the Palmerstons, the Muravievs, the Cavours, the Bismarcks, the Napoleons, had a good laugh when people took their religious pronouncements seriously. They laughed harder when people attributed humanitarian sentiments, considerations, and intentions to them, but they never made the mistake of treating these ideas in public as so much nonsense. Just what remains to constitute their morality? The interest of the State, and nothing else. From this point of view, which, incidentally, with very few exceptions, has been that of the statesmen, the strong men of all times and of all countries from this point of view, I say, whatever conduces to the preservation, the grandeur and the power of the State, no matter how sacrilegious or morally revolting it may seem, that is the good. And conversely, whatever opposes the State's interests, no matter how holy or just otherwise, that is evil. Such is the secular morality and practice of every State." - Mikhail Bakunin, 1873
Power rules this world. The only thing which can defeat power, is a greater power. And the only thing power wants, is more power. How then do you defeat power?
The only thing that can save this world, is god. Though, he doesn't seem interested.
I apologize if I insulted either of you, that really wasn't my intention. I was trying to illuminate the philosophical and fundamental problems with subjectivism.
When someone says, "I'm and atheist, and I'm a good person", they are completely missing the point. What is good anyway?
If humans are just animals, the whole concept of good or bad becomes completely absurd. And makes as much sense as saying that a lion is "good", or that a lion is "moral".
The lion can only be moral, by first defining what morality is. And once you remove god from the equation, the only definition for moral or immoral, is only that behavior which serves the interests of society.
Basically, a moral lion, is a lion who's behavior benefits his community. And a moral human, is a human who's behavior benefits his community.
But what if you were thrown onto an island, completely alone. If there is no society, does morality even exist? And do all societies share the same interests? Basically, if morality is the behavior which benefits society. Then in a sense, aren't I just saying, morality is that behavior which benefits the government(and specifically, your government)?
Hasn't that been the standard for morality in every secular government?
Or in simplest terms, if your rights don't come from god, then you have no rights.
"Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep forever." - Thomas Jefferson
"Modern states have reached precisely this point. Christianity serves them only as a pretext or a phrase or as a means of deceiving the idle mob, for they pursue goals which have nothing to do with religious sentiments. The great statesmen of our days, the Palmerstons, the Muravievs, the Cavours, the Bismarcks, the Napoleons, had a good laugh when people took their religious pronouncements seriously. They laughed harder when people attributed humanitarian sentiments, considerations, and intentions to them, but they never made the mistake of treating these ideas in public as so much nonsense. Just what remains to constitute their morality? The interest of the State, and nothing else. From this point of view, which, incidentally, with very few exceptions, has been that of the statesmen, the strong men of all times and of all countries from this point of view, I say, whatever conduces to the preservation, the grandeur and the power of the State, no matter how sacrilegious or morally revolting it may seem, that is the good. And conversely, whatever opposes the State's interests, no matter how holy or just otherwise, that is evil. Such is the secular morality and practice of every State." - Mikhail Bakunin, 1873
Power rules this world. The only thing which can defeat power, is a greater power. And the only thing power wants, is more power. How then do you defeat power?
The only thing that can save this world, is god. Though, he doesn't seem interested.
As much as I would like to accept your apology, you make it difficult when, immediately after tendering it, you return to the very behavior that gave offense in the first place: assuming I am unfamiliar with these arguments. I am not.
I don't want to get into an extended debate with you about this, but I would ask that you stop conflating comprehension with agreement.
Power rules this world. The only thing which can defeat power, is a greater power. And the only thing power wants, is more power. How then do you defeat power?
The only thing that can save this world, is god. Though, he doesn't seem interested.
You don't have anything to apologize for. We are not children and, like I stated before, I have been married to a Christian for 49 years.
As far as power ruling the world; I disagree. Human instinct rules the world and religion contributes to the hell we are creating. In India the Hindu population wants families to have four or more children so they can remain the majority over the Muslims. Muslims have the fastest growing religion because of numbers and religious practices where they have to recruit and cannot question. Go forth and procreate is killing our world. Pollution, poverty, starvation, disease, war is the future for humanity. We are fast approaching the maximum sustainable global population, by all accounts, of our experts. Babies, born today, could be the last generation before the axe falls.
You can disagree all you want, but it is a matter of fact. Power has always ruled this world, because this is a Darwinian world. How do you think America defeated the Nazis, stole the land from the natives, and stopped the advance of the Soviet Union? Power.
The same logic applies to the British Empire, the Roman Empire, and every other empire in history.
"Right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must." - Thucydides
Quote:
Originally Posted by fisheye
Human instinct rules the world and religion contributes to the hell we are creating.
Human instinct is merely a response to the harsh realities of this world. Just like Tiger-instinct, and Bear-instinct, and Wolf-instinct. The strong survive.
In the case of humans, it is more-complex, because it isn't only a matter of strong individuals. In humans, strength comes primarily from numbers. You defeat your enemy by outnumbering him. And this is especially-true in the case of democracies, where the majority rules.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fisheye
In India the Hindu population wants families to have four or more children so they can remain the majority over the Muslims. Muslims have the fastest growing religion because of numbers and religious practices where they have to recruit and cannot question. Go forth and procreate is killing our world.
As for India, it really isn't about religion, it is about politics, and the struggle for power between the various groups. Religion is obviously a major dividing-line, but it isn't the only dividing line. The goal of each group in India, is either to keep power, to gain power, or to protect themselves from those in power.
If you think of this principle abstractly you'll see it used elsewhere, and for reasons which have nothing at all to do with religion. In America, many Mexicans want to "retake America" by becoming a majority of the population. The same basic idea is involved with White-Nationalists, and Black-Nationalists, Civic-Nationalists, etc.
Secular governments have regularly come into conflict with each other. And the conflict between Ukraine and Russia has nothing to do with religious sentiments. The Russians, who were a majority of the population in Eastern Ukraine, seceded, or are trying to secede from the rest of Ukraine. Which has led to other countries with large ethnic Russian populations to worry about the same happening to them.
The real problem with religion, is that it is a belief system which shapes your political views. And as such, people with different religions, will almost-invariably have different political views. Thus, religion perpetually divides humanity, and in ways insurmountable by governments.
Which is why the Marxists knew, and rightly, that the only way to have a one-world government, is to destroy religion, anywhere and everywhere in the world, but even that isn't sufficient. You must then "reeducate" the people, through indoctrination/propaganda, by a central authority, who can create an entire world of like-minded people. A world of a single culture, with the same values, views, morals, and laws.
The Marxists foolishly believe such a world would be "humanitarian". But knowing human-nature, why would any sane man actually believe it?
Pollution, poverty, starvation, disease, war is the future for humanity. We are fast approaching the maximum sustainable global population, by all accounts, of our experts. Babies, born today, could be the last generation before the axe falls.
It reminds me of several years back when I was an advocate for abortion. I went so far as to believe that poor women should be allowed to have an abortion, merely because I thought it was awful for a child to be raised in poverty.
The problem with this view, is that it has no historical context. What we think of as poverty today, really isn't poverty. All of our ancestors lived in poverty far more severe than anything we see today, but were their lives miserable?
Based on the assumption that money buys happiness, your ancestors must have been completely miserable. How did they not all kill themselves?
The truth is, human happiness has nothing to do with material possessions, or even comforts. And our ancestors were actually far happier than we are.
I don't know what to do about the world. There doesn't seem to be a way to fix it.
One thing is certain, you are going to die. Maybe you will die from war, or disease, or maybe you'll die from cancer. But you are still going to die.
Does it really matter? And what makes a life worth living anyway? What is the point?
Lets say you had never been born at all, or me. So what? Lets pretend we all die in a nuclear holocaust. So What?
It reminds me of several years back when I was an advocate for abortion. I went so far as to believe that poor women should be allowed to have an abortion, merely because I thought it was awful for a child to be raised in poverty.
The problem with this view, is that it has no historical context. What we think of as poverty today, really isn't poverty. All of our ancestors lived in poverty far more severe than anything we see today, but were their lives miserable?
Based on the assumption that money buys happiness, your ancestors must have been completely miserable. How did they not all kill themselves?
The truth is, human happiness has nothing to do with material possessions, or even comforts. And our ancestors were actually far happier than we are.
I don't know what to do about the world. There doesn't seem to be a way to fix it.
One thing is certain, you are going to die. Maybe you will die from war, or disease, or maybe you'll die from cancer. But you are still going to die.
Does it really matter? And what makes a life worth living anyway? What is the point?
Lets say you had never been born at all, or me. So what? Lets pretend we all die in a nuclear holocaust. So What?
It is obvious that you have changed over the years. It took me about 20 years of my life to come to believe what I believe today or don't believe in. See, to me; we have one shot at this and we try to make the world a better place. Even if it is a hopeless task; I still feel that it is better that we tried.
I link population control and religion together. Many of the scientist believe that our world will only sustain 9 to 10 billion people: How Many People Can Earth Support?. We are fast closing in on that number: World Population Clock: 7.5 Billion People (2017) - Worldometers. Religion divides humanity into groups and no group wants to be the minority. China once worried about over population and even they have dropped their birth restrictions.
I like to think of humanity like the contamination on a Petri dish. If you take a Petri dish, with the right agar and touch your finger to it, then incubate it at the right temperature and humidity; you will get bacteria colonies that consume all the food and then die. Our planet is our Petri dish. As the end of our reign approaches there are subjects that we should debate - but we cannot because of our religious beliefs. Euthanasia, abortion, mandatory birth control, sterilization - all of these subject and more should be on the table. I am not saying that any of these are right; but we should be discussing our future.
Would I vote for an atheist? Yes. Unfortunately, I would not have been able to vote for my favorite atheist because George Carlin is deceased
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.
