Myths About Atheism (Myspace Blog)
Gsus Rockz!!!
Atheism in an attempt to gain a bit of acceptance, at least in my local
community. (It has since had 60+ views, which is the most one of mine
has ever gotten.) Here's a link to it and the comments given:
http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=26223546&blogID=116991414&Mytoken=87F4AEE4-B02A-4429-B3A50ACCA9AFF4FA26134343
An individual named David has attempted to refute my assertions about
atheism and morality. I've done my best in response, but I believe that
you, the member of alt.atheism, can do a better job than I. (You are,
for the record, the "individuals who will put your supposed religious
knowledge to shame.") So I would like to see when you kind folks have
to say about morality. It'd be nice if you would register with Myspace
and actually post the comments, but I could also relay your statements
myself. Feel free to comment on the quality of the blog itself as well.
My only request (and I'm sure this goes without saying, but just in
case...) is that you do your best to avoid undoing my work. Please
don't behave ass-ishly and put atheists back into the hole that so many
are trying to climb out of. (I'm in south Texas, atheists are in a hole
down here.) Thanks so much, you guys are awesome whether or not you
respond.
ironcorona
Are you really persecuted? To the extent that you equate it to "Women
fought for respect one hundred years ago, blacks fought for respect
fifty years ago, homosexuals are still fighting for respect"?
It's incredible. Move to a European country. You'll not be bothered.
--
ironcorona
J Forbes
Gsus Rockz!!! wrote:
> It'd be nice if you would register with Myspace
> and actually post the comments, but I could also relay your statements
> myself. Feel free to comment on the quality of the blog itself as well.
I'll just post a few comments here, if that's ok with you?
1) you say: "They understand the sad truth that many people could not
behave if they weren't terrified of eternal suffering."
I think this is kind of unfair, I know I can behave without being
terrified of eternal sufferning, and I believe that most theists could
also behave without this fear. This is a very simplistic way of
looking at theism....especially since many religions don't do the
eternal damnation thing. You might want to think about this, and see
if maybe there are better reasons for theists being in the grip of
religion. One place to start is Pascal Boyer's book, "Religion
Explained"
7) you say: "I'm more skeptical, thoughtful, and happy. I don't wonder
if I'm lying to myself sometimes, I don't believe everything I hear,
and I don't accept "I don't know" as an answer."
I much prefer "I don't know" as an anwer, in lieu of "godidit".
Admitting you don't know is much more honest.
All in all, pretty good stuff....especially considering you're only 17.
I really had not thought this stuff out at that time in my life! keep
up the good work
Jim
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
>Hello, everyone. I recently posted a blog on Myspace titled Myths About
>Atheism in an attempt to gain a bit of acceptance, at least in my local
>community. (It has since had 60+ views, which is the most one of mine
>has ever gotten.) Here's a link to it and the comments given:
>http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=26223546&blogID=116991414&Mytoken=87F4AEE4-B02A-4429-B3A50ACCA9AFF4FA26134343
>
>An individual named David has attempted to refute my assertions about
>atheism and morality. I've done my best in response, but I believe that
>you, the member of alt.atheism, can do a better job than I. (You are,
>for the record, the "individuals who will put your supposed religious
>knowledge to shame.") So I would like to see when you kind folks have
>to say about morality. It'd be nice if you would register with Myspace
>and actually post the comments, but I could also relay your statements
>myself. Feel free to comment on the quality of the blog itself as well.
Atheism and morality? It's simple: we view right and wrong in terms of
the effect of our actions on others. Which is a better reason than
needing an imaginary alpha male to tell you what to do.
Morals are a societal construct. Different societies have different
morals, and they even vary within the same one by geography, income
and status.
Unfortunately there are those among us who need a threat/reward carrot
and stick to behave. They imagine that without it nobody can, which is
a projection telling us more about them than they'd really like us to
know. Those are the people who need a one-size-fits-all rule to
follow, that their religion provides and they often ignore when it
suits them.
They also think their morals are absolute and apply to everybody else.
The trouble with these simple rules is that they have exceptions.
The Golden rule sometimes fails because it puts you in the other guy's
shoes as yourself, not as the other other guy himself.
So "do as you would be done by" even works for the Marquis de Sade who
can justify causing pain to others because he wants it done to him.
And on a lesser scale, proselytisers imagine they would like to be
converted if they weren't already theist so we should like it too.
George Bernard Shaw summed it up when he wrote: "Do not do unto others
as you would have them do unto you: their tastes may not be the same".
All it takes to be atheist, is not being theist. There are hundreds of
different religions out there, with their various god-beliefs.
Somebody else's belief in one called "God" is not substantively
different from another's belief in one called "Mithras".
Gsus Rockz!!!
school years, but now that people are finding out about my beliefs, I'm
noticing some people consciously avoiding me. Some won't even make eye
contact with me. It's not in a hateful manner, but it's almost worse --
it's in a worthless manner. Like I'm not even worth looking at because
I'm unholy. I've been amazed at the lack of understanding and
acceptance, but I guess I expected too much from high school kids in a
small Texas town.
Gsus Rockz!!!
entire theistic community. But the idea that morality is impossible,
hence useless, without God is a pretty common one to my knowledge. I
don't know how many times I've heard theists talk about morality being
entirely dependent on God.
But again, I don't think it's an entirely universal belief. Some people
simply have that compassion in their hearts that won't allow them to do
conscious harm to others -- I know I do, and I assume that you do as
well.
Denis Loubet
"Gsus Rockz!!!" <rybr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1146765735.5...@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
If the god explains **why** immoral things are immoral, then fine. But if
you just follow a list of rules, like the supposed Ten Commandments, then
you're not being moral, you're just being obedient.
Morality and obedience are not the same thing.
--
Denis Loubet
dlo...@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
Chris Johnson
Gsus Rockz!!! wrote:
> Hello, everyone. I recently posted a blog on Myspace titled Myths About
> Atheism in an attempt to gain a bit of acceptance, at least in my local
> community. (It has since had 60+ views, which is the most one of mine
> has ever gotten.) Here's a link to it and the comments given:
> http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=26223546&blogID=116991414&Mytoken=87F4AEE4-B02A-4429-B3A50ACCA9AFF4FA26134343
Wow. That takes forever to load. I'm afraid I shan't be posting there,
since I don't plan to wait for it to load again.
A couple points with regard to the initial post.
#5 is a bit dangerous. Atheists have started wars. Atheists have been
immoral. What should be noted is that their wars and immoralities are
not in the name of atheism, whatever that would mean.
Regarding #7, I'm curious what you do when you find a question nobody
knows the answer to. I accept "I don't know" as an answer quite
regularly. What distinguishes me from the theist is that I don't turn
that into "God did it".
> An individual named David has attempted to refute my assertions about
> atheism and morality. I've done my best in response, but I believe that
> you, the member of alt.atheism, can do a better job than I. (You are,
> for the record, the "individuals who will put your supposed religious
> knowledge to shame.") So I would like to see when you kind folks have
> to say about morality. It'd be nice if you would register with Myspace
> and actually post the comments, but I could also relay your statements
> myself. Feel free to comment on the quality of the blog itself as well.
As to what David said, it's a little unfortunate that he is unable to
empathize and requires a set of rules written by ancient goatherders,
but to each his own. I encourage him to attend a liberal Christian
church and avoid reading his Bible. But his point is valid in that
there is no absolute standard of morality. Morality is a social
construct, and changes along with society. Up until 150 years ago,
slavery was still accepted, while today it's nearly universally
considered immoral. Even Christian morality evolves, and many of them
recognize it. By his logic, those Christians have no more reason for
morality than atheists do. Honestly, it seems to me that the
disagreement among moral absolutists is one of the strongest arguments
for moral relativism. Clearly all of these people cannot be tapped into
an absolute authority, or else they'd all be agreeing. (Sorry that
turned into a string of unrelated statements. I'm not feeling up to
tying them together.)
So where should we find our morality? I personally favor empathy and
pragmatism. Try to treat others as they wish to be treated, but don't
make the mistake of thinking there are hard and fast rules.
Chris H. Fleming
I'm a moral realist. In my view, slavery was wrong then and it is wrong
today.
I do not ignore the powerful effect of a culture to normalize
individuals to think of great evil as being mundane.
But cultural normalization does not change the fact that slavery hurt
people and thus was wrong.
I see moral relativism is a cop out. It is wrong to rape and kill a 12
year old girl and it will always be wrong. I don't believe any
relativist can say otherwise and be moral. I see basic humanistic
principles as being fundamental.
Phillip Brown
>
>
> I'm a moral realist. In my view, slavery was wrong then and it is wrong
> today.
>
> I do not ignore the powerful effect of a culture to normalize
> individuals to think of great evil as being mundane.
>
> But cultural normalization does not change the fact that slavery hurt
> people and thus was wrong.
>
> I see moral relativism is a cop out. It is wrong to rape and kill a 12
> year old girl and it will always be wrong. I don't believe any
> relativist can say otherwise and be moral. I see basic humanistic
> principles as being fundamental.
>
>
Suppose you lived in Sparta. You are saying that despite being raised in
a society that said it was ok to throw small children off a cliff if they
didn't measure up, you would still come to the conclusion that it was
actually wrong. How do you suppose that might happen?
--
phillip brown
"shit doesn't just happen. there is always an ass-hole involved"
Chris H. Fleming
No way I'm gonna get into a Myspace thing, I feel too old for that.
But here is a rough draft of some stuff I was just writing, you take
the arguments as you see fit.
(I) Godless ≠Immoral
Many religious people do not understand how a person can be ethical
without a religion to dictate to them what is ultimately right and
wrong. Many religious people equate godlessness with immorality and
religiosity with morality. This is a very common belief in America
where atheists are the most distrusted minority.[1]
America happens to be approximately 15% nonreligious and specifically
0.4% avowed atheist.[2] If nonreligious people really were immoral one
would expect a high proportion of atheist persons in prison, i.e.,
greater than 0.4%. But in fact the proportion of atheists in federal
prison is merely 0.2%.[3] And it gets even worse. The prison study gave
only one nonreligious choice, atheism. While the national poll
contained many other categories like agnostic, humanist, and secular
which can and do contain atheists. The 0.4% are only people who
identified themselves as atheists as opposed to agnostic, humanist,
secular, ... It is actually an underestimate of the number of true
atheists in America. The findings are bad for religiosity.
Naively it appears that religion makes people more immoral and lack of
religiosity makes people less immoral. But these figures do not
necessarily prove this. What also has to be taken into account is the
adjustment for poverty and lack of education. There is a correlation
between poverty, lack of education, and crime. People in a bad
environment with poor life-skills are more likely to commit crime.
There is also a correlation between education and lack of religiosity.
People who get an education are more likely to be less religious. This
places the atheist demographic naturally out of prison. Therefore the
numbers only prove that either atheists are less immoral than theists
or that factors like poverty and lack of education are far more
significant in determining the likelihood for a person to commit crime.
Either way, godlessness is off the hook. Godlessness does not
significantly cause or allow people to be immoral and America's
distrust of the secular person is without warrant.
1.http://www.ur.umn.edu/unsreleases/find.php?ID=2816&from=umnnews
2.http://adherents.com/rel_USA.html
3.http://holysmoke.org/icr-pri.htm
(II) Ethics are Religion Independent
If secular people are in general less immoral than religious people,
where does the belief come from that godlessness is immorality?
Religious people often believes that their religion absolutely defines
what is right and that without god, the secular person has no
compulsion to be good. This belief is mistaken.
A good person is not good to be rewarded. A good person is not good to
avoid punishment. That is the description of an obedient person. At
best, gods of carrots and sticks can make obedient people, but not good
people. A good person would be good regardless of god's existence.
There is no god that can make 1=0. There is no power that can make 1=0.
It is impossible. By the same token, there is no god that can make it
moral to rape and kill a 12 year old girl. It is also impossible. These
things are intrinsic and cannot be changed. Religions do not define
what is moral, they can at best point out what is moral. To say that a
godless person cannot be moral is like saying that a godless person
cannot be a good mathematician or that a godless person cannot be a
good scientist. It is an assertion without logical argument based upon
confusion.
(III) Fundamentalism is Immoral
The holy texts are filled with examples of the gods commanding man to
do evil. God's commandment to the Jews was to put witches, blasphemers,
homosexuals, and children that talk back to death. Fundamentalists make
one of three counter claims.
1. It's acceptable to kill a person for being gay, ...
2. These acts of evil were necessary because of the primitive level of
the culture or because of the harsh situation. God was somehow being
pragmatic.
This argument makes the fundamentalist a moral relativist. Killing a
person who is gay is evil today when it happens in Iran just as it was
evil then.
3. God is so perfect that if a man has any of these imperfections, then
God has the right to punish them at any level he desires.
This arguments makes god unjust. A just God punishes proportional to
the crime. Being unjust to the level of killing a person for being gay,
which harms no one, is evil. And if God is evil, then God is not
perfect. The claim is self-contradictory.
Fundamentalism asserts absolute truth in the face of obvious
contradiction. Instead of realizing what is blatantly evil, a
fundamentalist would rather argue around it to preserve their world
view. The fundamentalist's highest concern is not finding the truth but
defining the truth to be what he has found. The difference is epic.
When one thinks in this manner, anything immoral can be redefined as
moral. Fundamentalism is inherently immoral.
(IV) Arguing Morality from God is Inherently Dangerous
unfinished
Chris H. Fleming
I wouldn't want somebody to throw me off a cliff.
Phillip Brown
Hindsight is a wonderful thing.
Chris H. Fleming
> On Thu, 04 May 2006 19:24:00 -0700, Chris H. Fleming wrote:
>
> > Phillip Brown wrote:
> >> On Thu, 04 May 2006 19:07:33 -0700, Chris H. Fleming wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > I'm a moral realist. In my view, slavery was wrong then and it is wrong
> >> > today.
> >> >
> >> > I do not ignore the powerful effect of a culture to normalize
> >> > individuals to think of great evil as being mundane.
> >> >
> >> > But cultural normalization does not change the fact that slavery hurt
> >> > people and thus was wrong.
> >> >
> >> > I see moral relativism is a cop out. It is wrong to rape and kill a 12
> >> > year old girl and it will always be wrong. I don't believe any
> >> > relativist can say otherwise and be moral. I see basic humanistic
> >> > principles as being fundamental.
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> Suppose you lived in Sparta. You are saying that despite being raised in
> >> a society that said it was ok to throw small children off a cliff if they
> >> didn't measure up, you would still come to the conclusion that it was
> >> actually wrong. How do you suppose that might happen?
> >
> >
> > I wouldn't want somebody to throw me off a cliff.
>
> Hindsight is a wonderful thing.
I don't deny that cultural normalization blinds people from seeing
clearly what is right and wrong.
But I don't think that is neccessarily a good argument against ethical
realism, but only the human ability to distinguish it.
Just because the throwers might not have felt badly about it and may
even enjoyed it doesn't change the fact that most of those kids were
probably crying their eyes out and didn't want to die.
Phillip Brown
If you asked the throwers if they were doing the right thing, they would
say yes, because they had a moral imperative to preserve the structure of
their society.
The only reason we don't do it now is because our values have changed. You
would probably argue that Peter Singer is wrong. There are others who
would argue he may not be 'right' but his arguments are worth considering.
If society as a whole came around to what Peter Singer advocates, who
would get to say who is right and who is wrong?
Santolina chamaecyparissus
Gsus Rockz!!! wrote:
> Hello, everyone. I recently posted a blog on Myspace titled Myths About
> Atheism in an attempt to gain a bit of acceptance, at least in my local
> community. (It has since had 60+ views, which is the most one of mine
> has ever gotten.) Here's a link to it and the comments given:
> http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=26223546&blogID=116991414&Mytoken=87F4AEE4-B02A-4429-B3A50ACCA9AFF4FA26134343
>
> An individual named David has attempted to refute my assertions about
> atheism and morality. I've done my best in response, but I believe that
> you, the member of alt.atheism, can do a better job than I. (You are,
> for the record, the "individuals who will put your supposed religious
> knowledge to shame.") So I would like to see when you kind folks have
> to say about morality.
Morality comes from the same place whether you are a theist or atheist.
This is so obvious that it *should* go without saying, but, oddly,
most theists fail to grasp this simple and obvious fact.
When a theist comes in here with the usual "if God does not exist then
there is no reason to act morally" crap they are asked why, and they
invariably can't answer the question sensibly. They proceed from a
tacit (and irrational) assumption that they don't even realize they are
making. Sorry I can't be more helpful.
ironcorona
> I'm sorry that you think it's unfair. I didn't intend to generalize the
> entire theistic community. But the idea that morality is impossible,
> hence useless, without God is a pretty common one to my knowledge. I
> don't know how many times I've heard theists talk about morality being
> entirely dependent on God.
Morality is dependent on cultural and social norms. For instance; in
Europe the majority of people are shocked at the idea of capital
punishment. In fact one of the necessities for joining the EU is that a
state cannot enforce capital punishment for any reason. And you can't
extradite a criminal to a country where capital punishment is even a
*possible* sentence for their crime. It is, in my opinion, considered
to be barbaric.
Yet, when (I use the example because he's an easy target) George W. Bush
who is, by all accounts, a deeply devout Christian, was governor of
Texas he was responsible for signing papers which put hundreds of
criminals to death.
In the modern European perspective what he is doing is completely amoral.
> But again, I don't think it's an entirely universal belief. Some people
> simply have that compassion in their hearts that won't allow them to do
> conscious harm to others
Take a country like Sweden where only 14% of the population will admit
to believing in God. It's hardly an
anarcho-communist-warmongering-bastion of vice. The people there
actually enjoy many benefits of the social, conservative, secular
government.
--
ironcorona
Robibnikoff
Don't feel bad. One of my daughter's Brownie leaders was babbling to me
about her daughter's upcoming first communion and asked when my daughter was
having hers. When I replied that we weren't doing that as we're not
religious, she actually got up without a word and walked away from me.
Nice! So, you're not alone ;)
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
Atheist Bastard Extraordinaire
#1557
Chris H. Fleming
Sure. But they're still murdering to do that. Ethical realism doesn't
mean everyone is going to intuitiviely know right from wrong. We can
only trust that evolution has given us some degree of perception so
that we don't completely destroy each other.
Would you let somebody throw your kid off a cliff? If you are really a
moral relstivist, then you would have to admit there would be certain
situations in which you would say yes. You would have to admit that
there are certain situations where it is acceptable to rape and murder
a 12 year old girl. Personally, I think that is cop-out.
> The only reason we don't do it now is because our values have changed.
I would say improved. And I would say they improved for a reason. And I
would say that given a stable environment they will continue to improve
for a reason. I would predict that if the economy holds together, then
gay people will one day get their rights in America, for a reason.
> You
> would probably argue that Peter Singer is wrong.
I am not very familiar with him, but are you talking about the humane
treatment of animals? If so, then he is probably right about some
things. I don't know much about that just as I don't know much about
crystalography. Crystalography is still real and true.
> There are others who
> would argue he may not be 'right' but his arguments are worth considering.
If he isn't right, then why are his arguments worth considering?
Seriously. I can't make sense of that at all.
> If society as a whole came around to what Peter Singer advocates, who
> would get to say who is right and who is wrong?
Everyone could just as easily be wrong. Ethical realism doesn't mean
there will be a prophet to tell right from wrong. Ethical realism means
there is a right and wrong, and it is for us to discover it.
ironcorona
That's truly incredible. Living in the same communities as people who
you've described, do you get any sense about what it is that scares (if
scares is the correct term) these people.
I'm sorry to keep going on about it but from the perspective of a person
living from Europe I've never seen, nor had to deal with this kind of
intolerance.
Is there no mutual understanding?
--
ironcorona
Gsus Rockz!!!
yesterday and noticed this: "By Phelps's own admission, he never dated,
and had no interest in members of the opposite sex." Then a bit later:
"The family's nanny, Margerie, is the only woman to whom Phelps has
ever been romantically linked..." My friend suggested that perhaps the
reason Phelps is so disgustingly strongly opposed to homosexuality is
because he fears that he himself may be homosexual. Maybe he wants to
destroy that which he fears? I mean really, how many straight men
(non-sociopaths) do you know who have said that they've "had no
interest in members of the opposite sex"?
What I'm suggesting is that a possible reason for so many people trying
to stomp out atheism is because atheism is all of the doubts about
religion they have ever experienced within the safe confines of their
mind put into reality. In the words of Mark Twain, "I cannot see how a
man of any large degree of humorous perception can ever be religious --
unless he purposely shut the eyes of his mind & keep them shut by
force." I don't think this is universal by any means, but I do think it
is very common. And I think that is what scares the believers in my
area away -- I am what they are not strong enough to be.
I understand a great deal about religion (mostly Christianity) because
I was a Christian for 15 years. I fully understand their feelings and
all of that. What I don't understand is why so many of them are
unwilling to try to understand me.
Robibnikoff
"ironcorona" <iron....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:445b...@quokka.wn.com.au...
> Robibnikoff wrote:
>> "Gsus Rockz!!!" <rybr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1146784490.2...@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>> Let's put it this way. I've been very well-liked throughout my high
>>> school years, but now that people are finding out about my beliefs, I'm
>>> noticing some people consciously avoiding me. Some won't even make eye
>>> contact with me. It's not in a hateful manner, but it's almost worse --
>>> it's in a worthless manner. Like I'm not even worth looking at because
>>> I'm unholy. I've been amazed at the lack of understanding and
>>> acceptance, but I guess I expected too much from high school kids in a
>>> small Texas town.
>>
>> Don't feel bad. One of my daughter's Brownie leaders was babbling to me
>> about her daughter's upcoming first communion and asked when my daughter
>> was having hers. When I replied that we weren't doing that as we're not
>> religious, she actually got up without a word and walked away from me.
>> Nice! So, you're not alone ;)
>
> That's truly incredible. Living in the same communities as people who
> you've described, do you get any sense about what it is that scares (if
> scares is the correct term) these people.
Not really. I was pretty surprised at her reaction. I like to think that
people are a bit more tolerant in my neck of the woods (northern NJ), but I
guess that's not entirely the case. My atheism really freaked out my
sis-in-laws (all Catholic) when they first met me because they honestly
couldn't comprehend anyone NOT believing in god. Once they got to know me
and realized I wasn't Satan spawn, everything was fine. We have had our ups
and downs on the topic, but we've been sticking to a "religion is NOT a
topic of discussion" policy, so everything's okay.
> I'm sorry to keep going on about it but from the perspective of a person
> living from Europe I've never seen, nor had to deal with this kind of
> intolerance.
Believe me, down in the southern parts of the US, it is SO much worse.
Fundie nutjobs were just one of several deciding factors in my decision to
leave that part of the country (lived in Florida for 6 years).
>
> Is there no mutual understanding?
Unfortunately, it's rare.
ironcorona
Is it common then to ask people about their beliefs? In the case of,
say, meeting friends of your friends for the first time at a bar (or
whatever) are people likely to ask about your religion?
Is the reaction towards atheism per say? What might the reaction be
like if you had told your daughter's brownie leader that your daughter
wouldn't be having a first communion ceremony because you were, in fact,
Hindu.
--
ironcorona
Robibnikoff
> Robibnikoff wrote:
>> "ironcorona" <iron....@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:445b...@quokka.wn.com.au...
snip
>>
>>> I'm sorry to keep going on about it but from the perspective of a person
>>> living from Europe I've never seen, nor had to deal with this kind of
>>> intolerance.
>>
>> Believe me, down in the southern parts of the US, it is SO much worse.
>> Fundie nutjobs were just one of several deciding factors in my decision
>> to leave that part of the country (lived in Florida for 6 years).
>>> Is there no mutual understanding?
>>
>> Unfortunately, it's rare.
>
> Is it common then to ask people about their beliefs?
Not at all.
In the case of,
> say, meeting friends of your friends for the first time at a bar (or
> whatever) are people likely to ask about your religion?
Nope, definitely not.
> Is the reaction towards atheism per say? What might the reaction be like
> if you had told your daughter's brownie leader that your daughter wouldn't
> be having a first communion ceremony because you were, in fact, Hindu.
LOL - She probably wouldn't have gotten up and walked away. One thing that
I have found out is that people are okay with you believing in "something",
even if it's not their particular religion. However, the idea of someone
not believing in a god at all is very disturbing. Keep in mind that these
people have been brainwashed since childhood.
ironcorona
> You know, a friend of mine was reading about Fred Phelps on wikipedia
> yesterday and noticed this: "By Phelps's own admission, he never dated,
> and had no interest in members of the opposite sex." Then a bit later:
> "The family's nanny, Margerie, is the only woman to whom Phelps has
> ever been romantically linked..." My friend suggested that perhaps the
> reason Phelps is so disgustingly strongly opposed to homosexuality is
> because he fears that he himself may be homosexual. Maybe he wants to
> destroy that which he fears? I mean really, how many straight men
> (non-sociopaths) do you know who have said that they've "had no
> interest in members of the opposite sex"?
I've heard that said before "such-and-such is so homophobic because
they're actually gay". I don't think that's necessarily true. It would
be like saying that Cold War Americans disliked communism so much
because they were afraid they were communists etc etc.
> What I'm suggesting is that a possible reason for so many people trying
> to stomp out atheism is because atheism is all of the doubts about
> religion they have ever experienced within the safe confines of their
> mind put into reality. In the words of Mark Twain, "I cannot see how a
> man of any large degree of humorous perception can ever be religious --
> unless he purposely shut the eyes of his mind & keep them shut by
> force." I don't think this is universal by any means, but I do think it
> is very common. And I think that is what scares the believers in my
> area away -- I am what they are not strong enough to be.
That's great. I'm glad you're not being pressured into a pretense of
religiosity.
> I understand a great deal about religion (mostly Christianity) because
> I was a Christian for 15 years. I fully understand their feelings and
> all of that. What I don't understand is why so many of them are
> unwilling to try to understand me.
I think it's more the modern American Christians. Being from Ireland
most everybody I know is Catholic but there's no pressure to conform.
No ridicule at not being in the club.
--
ironcorona
Gsus Rockz!!!
to ignorance. Most people I've met who are anti-atheist think that an
atheist is more or less goth. When I show up with brown hair, green
eyes, typical American teenage male clothing, and a smile,
"anti-Christ" is probably the last thing that comes to mind. I really
think most people in my area just assume that I'm a Christian because I
don't look like what *they* think an atheist looks like. And I don't
really like to bring up religion unless I'm in the mood to argue...or
end the conversation.
Most people in my area would probably be accepting of Hinduism. I would
still accept to be bombarded by questions like "Why aren't you a
Christian? Do you believe in Jesus?" I know when my friends found books
on Buddhism in my truck they asked me immediately "Are you Buddhist?"
Gsus Rockz!!!
like pony-tail length, but pretty long) and the beginnings of a beard,
and friends joked that I looked like Jesus -- and this was before they
knew I was atheist. Some friends of mine actually called me Jesus for a
while.
stoney
wrote in alt.atheism
>Hello, everyone. I recently posted a blog on Myspace titled Myths About
>Atheism in an attempt to gain a bit of acceptance, at least in my local
>community. (It has since had 60+ views, which is the most one of mine
>has ever gotten.) Here's a link to it and the comments given:
>http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=26223546&blogID=116991414&Mytoken=87F4AEE4-B02A-4429-B3A50ACCA9AFF4FA26134343
>
>An individual named David has attempted to refute my assertions about
>atheism and morality. I've done my best in response, but I believe that
>you, the member of alt.atheism, can do a better job than I. (You are,
>for the record, the "individuals who will put your supposed religious
>knowledge to shame.") So I would like to see when you kind folks have
>to say about morality. It'd be nice if you would register with Myspace
>and actually post the comments, but I could also relay your statements
>myself. Feel free to comment on the quality of the blog itself as well.
>
>My only request (and I'm sure this goes without saying, but just in
>case...) is that you do your best to avoid undoing my work. Please
>don't behave ass-ishly and put atheists back into the hole that so many
>are trying to climb out of. (I'm in south Texas, atheists are in a hole
>down here.) Thanks so much, you guys are awesome whether or not you
>respond.
Item 2
It's lack of belief not a 'belief.' Bald is a lack of hair, not a hair
colour. Furthermore, such a stance is a personal stance and doesn't
require 'defending.'
The proper term for religion is superstition. The nomenclature change
was to try to make the bronze age excrement smell better.
[It still stinks]
Item 3
Check Therion Ware's archived google posts on christian and atheist
morality.
Your sidenote;
What's worse is, according to the Christian superstition, is all are
mere actors hitting their marks and spouting their lines as they were
written eons ago when 'God' fervently 'polished his bishop' and farted
the universe into being. They've no choice but to follow the script and
yet are being blamed for their appointed roles.
Item 4
Don't forget when terms are effectively undefined [g-o-d, and the rest]
there's nothing to look for or consider.
Item 5
Some moron's going to bring up Stalin. Stalin went to Seminary and was
thrown out. In Seminary he would have learned how often the Church
formented and supported opposition to the State.
A lack of theism isn't a motivator for anything, but the knowledge about
the Church would be!
Item 6
A lot of theists aren't ethical *with* the empty threats that are
bandied about. Many focus on the empty promises of 'Jesus':
{Of course the lack of ethics was scripted in the first place}
Matthew 12:31-32
31 Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be
forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be
forgiven unto men.
32 And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be
forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall
not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to
come.
/quote
Life is. I don't need a 'purpose.' I can't help but laugh at theists
nattering about this fecal matter. What if their 'purpose' was as an
infant to puke all over someone and cause a momentary distraction in
someone else. By their 'logic,' there's no 'purpose' to their existance
past that point and they should quickly exit 'this' world to claim their
eternal 'reward.'
Note; Discrimmination, hatred, bigotry, ignorance, false witness, and
prejudice *are* Christian LoveŽ.
Item 7
Lack of belief as the situation isn't binary.
More intelligent person than before? Nah. You're now free to venture
where your slave chains would not allow you to.
You were maturing as you cast off the 'Societally correct adult [mental
toddler] {in}security blanket.'
All atheism is is the lack of the theism facet. That's it. I hope you
make some changes in your blog verbage.
I'll take a look at the responses and possibly comment on them in
another response in this thread.
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.
stoney
wrote in alt.atheism
>Hello, everyone. I recently posted a blog on Myspace titled Myths About
>Atheism in an attempt to gain a bit of acceptance, at least in my local
>community. (It has since had 60+ views, which is the most one of mine
>has ever gotten.) Here's a link to it and the comments given:
>http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=26223546&blogID=116991414&Mytoken=87F4AEE4-B02A-4429-B3A50ACCA9AFF4FA26134343
>
>An individual named David has attempted to refute my assertions about
>atheism and morality. I've done my best in response, but I believe that
>you, the member of alt.atheism, can do a better job than I. (You are,
>for the record, the "individuals who will put your supposed religious
>knowledge to shame.") So I would like to see when you kind folks have
>to say about morality. It'd be nice if you would register with Myspace
>and actually post the comments, but I could also relay your statements
>myself. Feel free to comment on the quality of the blog itself as well.
>
>My only request (and I'm sure this goes without saying, but just in
>case...) is that you do your best to avoid undoing my work. Please
>don't behave ass-ishly and put atheists back into the hole that so many
>are trying to climb out of. (I'm in south Texas, atheists are in a hole
>down here.) Thanks so much, you guys are awesome whether or not you
>respond.
[my stuff will be in brackets]
/David
"My mission today is to give you a brief, unbiased, honest look into
what atheism really is."
Bias is unavoidable. Bias isn't always bad, despite what most people
think. When you take a historiography course you'll see precisely what
I mean, but I'll explain this a little bit. When you write research
papers you have to choose which sources to use--this involves bias. If
you ignore important sources, you aren't merely biased, but you are
presenting a parochial (and most likely) false view.
[Atheism is merely the lack of theism.]
"In fact, many atheists will contend that they are in fact more moral
than theists because they do good deeds by their own free will, not
because they are afraid of eternal damnation or hoping to get a free
pass to paradise."
And this would prove that these atheists don't understand certain
religious views. There are certainly some religionists who do good
deeds to get rewards, but not all.
[Personally, I'd indicate most are motivated by 'rewards.' Those who
render assistance to be of assistance get a big 'thumbs up' in my view]
Take Calvinists, for example. They believe (briefly) that it doesn't
matter what you do--God has chosen who will go to Heaven and who won't.
Consequently, it doesn't matter how many old ladies you help across the
street, etc. There are many Christians who believe that you can't work
for your salvation (Eph. 2:8-9). There are some who whine about how the
book of James contradicts this, but I don't think it does. The whole
book discusses "true religion" and shows that "faith without works is
dead." You could apply this to anything. If you said that you were a
Muslim, for example, but you never pray to Allah, then obviously your
faith is dead, and shouldn't be calling yourself a muslim.
[Why not? A person's 'self-label' [Muslim/Christian for example] is
just that.]
"So why do atheists behave morally if there is no "law-giver"? The most
common reasons I've come across are a) they have a natural compassion
for human beings and b) morality is essential for survival. Think about
it: If human beings refused to get along and work together, where would
they be? Would a lone caveman have taken down a mammoth? Humans are not
the type of creatures that can operate optimally on their own."
Ah, this is what I hate about Atheism and Humanism the most.
[Hatred. :\ You get 'points' for honesty though]
I have a lot more respect for Nihilists, because imo, they actually
understand what it means to live in a world without a god.
[I, for one, do understand what it means to live in a world without an
imaginary buddy and so do a lot of others. I live in that world, and so
do you and everyone else.]
(I'm more of an agnostic than anything else at the moment, btw.)
[What is there to *know?*]
If there is no god then there is no absolute moral standard.
[With, or without, the imaginary buddy concept there is no absolute
moral standard.]
What this means is that you can't logically use the words "right" and
"wrong" because everyone has his own standard.
[And morality shifts within cultures over time]
It would then be logical for a person who is reasonably certain that
there is no god to only care about himself.
[or a person with an imaginary buddy]
He should not worry about whether the world will be destroyed after he
dies, he should not help anyone unless he gains something. After all,
we only have one life--shouldn't we live it to the fullest by caring
about ourselves instead of others?
[Many/most Christians act that way now]
That's how I see it, and if I were a nihilist, that's how I would act.
[San surprise]
I see no reason for atheists to act the way they act.
[How about no reason not to?]
And as for atheists saying they are more moral than x, that's
ridiculous.
[Not at all, depending on the atheist and what 'x' is. If
x=Christianity then it is accurate.]
Moral, immoral, right, wrong--these are all terms that have no meaning
if there is no god.
[or with said imaginary buddy.]
If words change their meaning depending on the person using them, then
those words have no meaning.
"Side note: It's believers (at least in Abrahamic religions) who worship
a god that condoned genocide, slavery, rape, and other despicable acts."
And by what standard are these acts despicable?
[by what many/most Christians of today say and they can support it via
Scripture-as can those who indicate the opposite]
You are presupposing that there is an absolute standard when their is
none. Or, at the very least, you are expecting your readers to have the
same standard you have.
"Atheists are not the cause of the world's problems. I'm unaware of any
wars that atheists have started. One religion (not naming any names) has
been known to use religion as justification for war, torture, and
genocide."
Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot were atheists who murdered thousands of people.
Stalin had more people murdered than Hitler (a man many seem to think
was a Christian, but I have found no evidence of that. I seriously
doubt that Jesus Christ, a Jew, would condone the murder of Jews.).
[Stalin went to Seminary [a theist act] where he would have learned how
often the Church formented and supported rebellion against the state.
Stalin utilized the well-known and accepted theistic pyramid format and
slid the state into the deity slot.
The lack of theism, unlike theism, isn't a motivator for anything.]
Posted by David on Thursday, May 04, 2006 at 10:14 AM
Cheers, David.
stoney
/David
[San surprise]
Hitler was RCC his whole life and the Vatican formented his rise to
power and supported him.]
Jos Flachs
wrote:
>I've heard that said before "such-and-such is so homophobic because
>they're actually gay". I don't think that's necessarily true. It would
>be like saying that Cold War Americans disliked communism so much
>because they were afraid they were communists etc etc.
I'm afraid you are wrong. Very wrong.
The worst percecutors of gays have more often than not been gays
themselves.
Some, like Freddy P, because they fear being homosexual. Or to be
precsie:they _know_ they are homosexual, but are fighting the
hormones. Others simply get a kick out of infliciting humiliation.
Michael Gray
wrote:
- Refer: <1146858817.0...@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>
Mmm...
You could be onto something here.
An atheist Jesus impersonator!
(And a hint: Could you please quote who you are responding to, in
future?)
--
Michael Gray
<god_fre...@yahoo.com> wrote:
- Refer: <s3kn52lbkikmd9r9b...@4ax.com>
>On Fri, 05 May 2006 02:15:34 +0800, ironcorona <iron....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Gsus Rockz!!! wrote:
>>> Hello, everyone. I recently posted a blog on Myspace titled Myths About
>>> Atheism in an attempt to gain a bit of acceptance, at least in my local
>>> community. (It has since had 60+ views, which is the most one of mine
>>> has ever gotten.) Here's a link to it and the comments given:
>>> http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=26223546&blogID=116991414&Mytoken=87F4AEE4-B02A-4429-B3A50ACCA9AFF4FA26134343
>>>
>>> An individual named David has attempted to refute my assertions about
>>> atheism and morality. I've done my best in response, but I believe that
>>> you, the member of alt.atheism, can do a better job than I. (You are,
>>> for the record, the "individuals who will put your supposed religious
>>> knowledge to shame.") So I would like to see when you kind folks have
>>> to say about morality. It'd be nice if you would register with Myspace
>>> and actually post the comments, but I could also relay your statements
>>> myself. Feel free to comment on the quality of the blog itself as well.
>>>
>>> My only request (and I'm sure this goes without saying, but just in
>>> case...) is that you do your best to avoid undoing my work. Please
>>> don't behave ass-ishly and put atheists back into the hole that so many
>>> are trying to climb out of. (I'm in south Texas, atheists are in a hole
>>> down here.) Thanks so much, you guys are awesome whether or not you
>>> respond.
>>
>>fought for respect one hundred years ago, blacks fought for respect
>>fifty years ago, homosexuals are still fighting for respect"?
>>
>>It's incredible. Move to a European country. You'll not be bothered.
>
>No problem in Australia.
No wukkas, Bazza!
--
Michael Gray
<god_fre...@yahoo.com> wrote:
- Refer: <j1kn529dtd5oi5nep...@4ax.com>
>On 4 May 2006 11:02:15 -0700, "Gsus Rockz!!!" <rybr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Hello, everyone. I recently posted a blog on Myspace titled Myths About
>>Atheism in an attempt to gain a bit of acceptance, at least in my local
>>community. (It has since had 60+ views, which is the most one of mine
>>has ever gotten.) Here's a link to it and the comments given:
>>http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=26223546&blogID=116991414&Mytoken=87F4AEE4-B02A-4429-B3A50ACCA9AFF4FA26134343
>>
>>An individual named David has attempted to refute my assertions about
>>atheism and morality. I've done my best in response, but I believe that
>>you, the member of alt.atheism, can do a better job than I. (You are,
>>for the record, the "individuals who will put your supposed religious
>>knowledge to shame.") So I would like to see when you kind folks have
>>to say about morality. It'd be nice if you would register with Myspace
>>and actually post the comments, but I could also relay your statements
>>myself. Feel free to comment on the quality of the blog itself as well.
>>
>>My only request (and I'm sure this goes without saying, but just in
>>case...) is that you do your best to avoid undoing my work. Please
>>don't behave ass-ishly and put atheists back into the hole that so many
>>are trying to climb out of. (I'm in south Texas, atheists are in a hole
>>down here.) Thanks so much, you guys are awesome whether or not you
>>respond.
>
>What use is an "absolute" morality if it condones such things as rape and torture?
And one that MANDATES murder for talking back to one's parents.
--
ironcorona
>>> Hello, everyone. I recently posted a blog on Myspace titled Myths About
>>> Atheism in an attempt to gain a bit of acceptance, at least in my local
>>> community. (It has since had 60+ views, which is the most one of mine
>>> has ever gotten.) Here's a link to it and the comments given:
>>> http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=26223546&blogID=116991414&Mytoken=87F4AEE4-B02A-4429-B3A50ACCA9AFF4FA26134343
>>>
>>> An individual named David has attempted to refute my assertions about
>>> atheism and morality. I've done my best in response, but I believe that
>>> you, the member of alt.atheism, can do a better job than I. (You are,
>>> for the record, the "individuals who will put your supposed religious
>>> knowledge to shame.") So I would like to see when you kind folks have
>>> to say about morality. It'd be nice if you would register with Myspace
>>> and actually post the comments, but I could also relay your statements
>>> myself. Feel free to comment on the quality of the blog itself as well.
>>>
>>> My only request (and I'm sure this goes without saying, but just in
>>> case...) is that you do your best to avoid undoing my work. Please
>>> don't behave ass-ishly and put atheists back into the hole that so many
>>> are trying to climb out of. (I'm in south Texas, atheists are in a hole
>>> down here.) Thanks so much, you guys are awesome whether or not you
>>> respond.
>> fought for respect one hundred years ago, blacks fought for respect
>> fifty years ago, homosexuals are still fighting for respect"?
>>
>> It's incredible. Move to a European country. You'll not be bothered.
>
> No problem in Australia.
Yeah. True. I've been living in WA for the last 6 months.
--
ironcorona
newbert
explain it in a reasonable, non-combative way, and then try to get some
more information so that you can respond to a critic with an informed
answer. That's very responsible, and reassuring to see.
Unfortunately, you won't be able to expect that from the majority of
your critics.
That said, I thought to help you in your situation I'd share two quotes
with you from Noam Chomsky (from the book "Understanding Power: The
Indispensable Chomsky") that always help "center" me when I get
frustrated. The first is:
"...one has to begin with the understanding of the way the world works:
the world does not reward honesty and independence, it rewards
obedience and service. It's a world of concentrated power, and those
who have power are not going to reward people who question that power."
(p. 212)
And the second, which reinforces the first:
"...you should not expect an institution to say, 'Help me destroy
myself,'..." (p. 178)
To fearful, religious people, we atheists--whether we like or not,
whether we actively oppose religion or not--are by our very existence
threats to the institutions of theistic religion. We are living
denials of their claims. We are a walking "No" to theism. Again, we
don't have to DO anything. Once it's known what we believe, we are a
threat. An enemy.
And, ideologically, they're exactly right. Once one person unplugs
from (or never was part of) that system, it presents the possibility
that others will unplug from it as well. And this freaks the shit out
of religious people, most of whom cling to their religion to keep deep,
irrational fears at bay. See, if fiercely religious people are
confronted with the possibility that their religion is wrong, they
become terrified that their security blanket is going to be yanked away
from them and their irrational fears unleashed (usually expressed as
"Without religion there is chaos! Immorality! Rampant sin!"--as
though WITH religion these things AREN'T present?) We doubters--or any
group not of their persuasion--ARE a threat to them. Not the way they
portray it of course, but in the sense of the end of their institution.
So, while unfortunate, it's not surprising that theists respond to
atheists the way they do. Now the important question is: is there
anything atheists can do about it? Yes, and women's & civil rights
movements have provided blueprints for what to do. But we have to
expect condemnation and sometimes outright persecution (and in some
countries, such as fundamentalist Islamic regimes, possible death).
"It's hard to struggle for your rights," Noam Chomsky writes, "you
usually suffer." (p.187)
You may want to pick up a copy of "Freethinkers: A History of American
Secularism" by Susan Jacoby, which got rave reviews when it came out in
2004. You'll see how your struggle is one that has been present right
from the beginning of the American nation, how an entire aspect of
American history has been systematically left out, and how human
progress has almost always been the result of people who went AGAINST
the religions of their day. It also helps for those discussions in
which people still falsely believe that America is a Christian country
founded upon Christian principles.
Best of luck to you.
Chris Johnson
ironcorona
> On Sat, 06 May 2006 03:41:16 +0800, ironcorona <iron....@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I've heard that said before "such-and-such is so homophobic because
>> they're actually gay". I don't think that's necessarily true. It would
>> be like saying that Cold War Americans disliked communism so much
>> because they were afraid they were communists etc etc.
>
> I'm afraid you are wrong. Very wrong.
>
> The worst percecutors of gays have more often than not been gays
> themselves.
You're in danger of looking as if you're prejudiced here. If you could
point me to some hard facts on the subject I would love to read about it.
> Some, like Freddy P, because they fear being homosexual. Or to be
> precsie:they _know_ they are homosexual, but are fighting the
> hormones. Others simply get a kick out of infliciting humiliation.
While I have no idea who Freddy P is you can't just take one, or a
handful of cases and extrapolate the causes over an entire group of people.
By your logic Nazis were afraid of being Jewish. White Americans used
to be afraid that they were black. Chauvinists are afraid of *being*
women. Indian Hindus are afraid of being Muslim. China is afraid of
being Tibetan.
Doesn't that look ridiculous? Without backing up your points with facts
you *shouldn't* call me wrong. There is no objective definition of
"correct" unless we set one from outside sources.
--
ironcorona
ironcorona
> LOL - She probably wouldn't have gotten up and walked away. One thing that
> I have found out is that people are okay with you believing in "something",
> even if it's not their particular religion. However, the idea of someone
> not believing in a god at all is very disturbing. Keep in mind that these
> people have been brainwashed since childhood.
Ah, I see. So it's not so much "you have to be in our club" as it is
"you have to be in our affiliate programme"?
--
ironcorona
stoney
wrote in alt.atheism
>Robibnikoff wrote:
>> "Gsus Rockz!!!" <rybr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1146784490.2...@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>> Let's put it this way. I've been very well-liked throughout my high
>>> school years, but now that people are finding out about my beliefs, I'm
>>> noticing some people consciously avoiding me. Some won't even make eye
>>> contact with me. It's not in a hateful manner, but it's almost worse --
>>> it's in a worthless manner. Like I'm not even worth looking at because
>>> I'm unholy. I've been amazed at the lack of understanding and
>>> acceptance, but I guess I expected too much from high school kids in a
>>> small Texas town.
>>
>> Don't feel bad. One of my daughter's Brownie leaders was babbling to me
>> about her daughter's upcoming first communion and asked when my daughter was
>> having hers. When I replied that we weren't doing that as we're not
>> religious, she actually got up without a word and walked away from me.
>> Nice! So, you're not alone ;)
>
>That's truly incredible. Living in the same communities as people who
>you've described, do you get any sense about what it is that scares (if
>scares is the correct term) these people.
Terrifies is the correct term. You see, we're people who routinely
operate on our own, take credit for our own successes, and, generally,
take responsibility for our own screw-ups. We don't need the [cough]
'adult' {mental toddler} 'security blanket' of bronze-age superstition.
We routinely do things most Christians cannot.
Christians' own verbage "God-fearing" and the rest highlight their
mindset. In general, the 'Jesus' rubbish reduces their fear to the
point where they regain some functionality.
>I'm sorry to keep going on about it but from the perspective of a person
>living from Europe I've never seen, nor had to deal with this kind of
>intolerance.
No worries, it's quite understandable. Just think 'Amerikkkan Taliban.'
>Is there no mutual understanding?
Can't be on the, general, Christians part since they've no problem with
torture or eternal torture as long as they personally are not in the
metaphorical cross-hairs of their imaginary deity's 'largesse.'
stoney
wrote in alt.atheism
>You know, a friend of mine was reading about Fred Phelps on wikipedia
>yesterday and noticed this: "By Phelps's own admission, he never dated,
>and had no interest in members of the opposite sex." Then a bit later:
>"The family's nanny, Margerie, is the only woman to whom Phelps has
>ever been romantically linked..." My friend suggested that perhaps the
>reason Phelps is so disgustingly strongly opposed to homosexuality is
>because he fears that he himself may be homosexual. Maybe he wants to
>destroy that which he fears? I mean really, how many straight men
>(non-sociopaths) do you know who have said that they've "had no
>interest in members of the opposite sex"?
Phelps *is* a closeted homosexual.
>What I'm suggesting is that a possible reason for so many people trying
>to stomp out atheism is because atheism is all of the doubts about
>religion they have ever experienced within the safe confines of their
>mind put into reality.
That too.
> In the words of Mark Twain, "I cannot see how a
>man of any large degree of humorous perception can ever be religious --
>unless he purposely shut the eyes of his mind & keep them shut by
>force." I don't think this is universal by any means, but I do think it
>is very common. And I think that is what scares the believers in my
>area away -- I am what they are not strong enough to be.
>
>I understand a great deal about religion (mostly Christianity) because
>I was a Christian for 15 years. I fully understand their feelings and
>all of that. What I don't understand is why so many of them are
>unwilling to try to understand me.
Terror. That we are walking objective evidence their superstition isn't
necessary terrifies them as it also hints/suggests there isn't any
'Eternal LifeŽ'
stoney
wrote in alt.atheism
>Gsus Rockz!!! wrote:
>> You know, a friend of mine was reading about Fred Phelps on wikipedia
>> yesterday and noticed this: "By Phelps's own admission, he never dated,
>> and had no interest in members of the opposite sex." Then a bit later:
>> "The family's nanny, Margerie, is the only woman to whom Phelps has
>> ever been romantically linked..." My friend suggested that perhaps the
>> reason Phelps is so disgustingly strongly opposed to homosexuality is
>> because he fears that he himself may be homosexual. Maybe he wants to
>> destroy that which he fears? I mean really, how many straight men
>> (non-sociopaths) do you know who have said that they've "had no
>> interest in members of the opposite sex"?
>
>I've heard that said before "such-and-such is so homophobic because
>they're actually gay". I don't think that's necessarily true.
Not necessarily, no.
> It would be like saying that Cold War Americans disliked communism so much
>because they were afraid they were communists etc etc.
They were. Christianity is communistic.
>> What I'm suggesting is that a possible reason for so many people trying
>> to stomp out atheism is because atheism is all of the doubts about
>> religion they have ever experienced within the safe confines of their
>> mind put into reality. In the words of Mark Twain, "I cannot see how a
>> man of any large degree of humorous perception can ever be religious --
>> unless he purposely shut the eyes of his mind & keep them shut by
>> force." I don't think this is universal by any means, but I do think it
>> is very common. And I think that is what scares the believers in my
>> area away -- I am what they are not strong enough to be.
>
>That's great. I'm glad you're not being pressured into a pretense of
>religiosity.
>
>> I understand a great deal about religion (mostly Christianity) because
>> I was a Christian for 15 years. I fully understand their feelings and
>> all of that. What I don't understand is why so many of them are
>> unwilling to try to understand me.
>
>I think it's more the modern American Christians.
The 'inerrant' Babble bovine excrement. Such idiocy is its own failure,
but Christian cowardice and dishonesty is legion.
> Being from Ireland
>most everybody I know is Catholic but there's no pressure to conform.
>No ridicule at not being in the club.
Certes. Tis the private matter it should be.
I, myself, are ex-RCC and ex-Lutheran.
stoney
wrote in alt.atheism
>Robibnikoff wrote:
>> "ironcorona" <iron....@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:445b...@quokka.wn.com.au...
[]
>>> I'm sorry to keep going on about it but from the perspective of a person
>>> living from Europe I've never seen, nor had to deal with this kind of
>>> intolerance.
>>
>> Believe me, down in the southern parts of the US, it is SO much worse.
>> Fundie nutjobs were just one of several deciding factors in my decision to
>> leave that part of the country (lived in Florida for 6 years).
>>> Is there no mutual understanding?
>>
>> Unfortunately, it's rare.
>
>Is it common then to ask people about their beliefs?
Depends on where you are in the former USA and, even in the north, *who*
you come across. I've flat been asked what church I went to before.
Fortunately, I was still half-asleep and my wife recognized the
'triggers' and did all the talking. It became clear if I hadn't been
half-asleep and had answered, truthfully as is my wont, I would have
been booted and stomped. In the main, the assumption is you're a
Christian unless, for instance, wear the little cap common to Jews, have
a mideastern accent, etc..
> In the case of,
>say, meeting friends of your friends for the first time at a bar (or
>whatever) are people likely to ask about your religion?
>Is the reaction towards atheism per say?
In many places it can get you checked into the hospital if not the
graveyard. Small towns are often the worst.
>What might the reaction be
>like if you had told your daughter's brownie leader that your daughter
>wouldn't be having a first communion ceremony because you were, in fact,
>Hindu.
Other indicators;
George Bush Sr. (as a sitting VP campaigning for President) stated;
When asked if he recognized the equal citizenship and patriotism of
Americans who are Atheists, he replied:
"No, I don't know that Atheists should be considered as citizens, nor
should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."
Subject: Mississippi outlaws sex toys (Dan Abrams) {Damned
Superstitious inbred pig ignorance}
Message-ID: <nb81229u9h0ud15da...@4ax.com>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: God's Senator Who would Jesus vote for? Meet Sam Brownback
[hello theocracy]
Message-ID: <ldic12p1lff21dcm8...@4ax.com>
From: Brian Westley <west...@visi.com>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: atheist discrimination costs Boy Scouts 400,000 members
Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2006 16:00:05 -0000
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
Message-ID: <120on45...@corp.supernews.com>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Unmarried Couple Denied Right to Move In {Missouri Stupidity}
Message-ID: <loivv1lspl0pc1uvv...@4ax.com>
stoney
wrote in alt.atheism
>Robibnikoff wrote:
Exactly. However, that may generate efforts to get you 'right with the
Lard,' which means their particular sect.
stoney
wrote in alt.atheism
>Gsus Rockz!!! wrote:
>> I'm sorry that you think it's unfair. I didn't intend to generalize the
>> entire theistic community. But the idea that morality is impossible,
>> hence useless, without God is a pretty common one to my knowledge. I
>> don't know how many times I've heard theists talk about morality being
>> entirely dependent on God.
>
>Morality is dependent on cultural and social norms. For instance; in
>Europe the majority of people are shocked at the idea of capital
>punishment. In fact one of the necessities for joining the EU is that a
>state cannot enforce capital punishment for any reason. And you can't
>extradite a criminal to a country where capital punishment is even a
>*possible* sentence for their crime. It is, in my opinion, considered
>to be barbaric.
>
>Yet, when (I use the example because he's an easy target) George W. Bush
>who is, by all accounts, a deeply devout Christian, was governor of
>Texas he was responsible for signing papers which put hundreds of
>criminals to death.
Including at least one where he *knew* the person was innocent.
Further, as Texas Governor, he signed legislation which stated it was
legal to 'pull the plug' on people, including children, who's medical
insurance had run out.
>In the modern European perspective what he is doing is completely amoral.
>
>> But again, I don't think it's an entirely universal belief. Some people
>> simply have that compassion in their hearts that won't allow them to do
>> conscious harm to others
>
>Take a country like Sweden where only 14% of the population will admit
>to believing in God. It's hardly an
>anarcho-communist-warmongering-bastion of vice. The people there
>actually enjoy many benefits of the social, conservative, secular
>government.
Certainly. However, you're talking about a country (former USA) where
ignorance, bigotry, and prejudice are 'badges of pride.' :\
stoney
in alt.atheism
>
>"Gsus Rockz!!!" <rybr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:1146765735.5...@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> Hello, everyone. I recently posted a blog on Myspace titled Myths About
>> Atheism in an attempt to gain a bit of acceptance, at least in my local
>> community. (It has since had 60+ views, which is the most one of mine
>> has ever gotten.) Here's a link to it and the comments given:
>> http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=26223546&blogID=116991414&Mytoken=87F4AEE4-B02A-4429-B3A50ACCA9AFF4FA26134343
>>
>> An individual named David has attempted to refute my assertions about
>> atheism and morality. I've done my best in response, but I believe that
>> you, the member of alt.atheism, can do a better job than I. (You are,
>> for the record, the "individuals who will put your supposed religious
>> knowledge to shame.") So I would like to see when you kind folks have
>> to say about morality. It'd be nice if you would register with Myspace
>> and actually post the comments, but I could also relay your statements
>> myself. Feel free to comment on the quality of the blog itself as well.
>>
>> My only request (and I'm sure this goes without saying, but just in
>> case...) is that you do your best to avoid undoing my work. Please
>> don't behave ass-ishly and put atheists back into the hole that so many
>> are trying to climb out of. (I'm in south Texas, atheists are in a hole
>> down here.) Thanks so much, you guys are awesome whether or not you
>> respond.
>
>If the god explains **why** immoral things are immoral, then fine. But if
>you just follow a list of rules, like the supposed Ten Commandments, then
>you're not being moral, you're just being obedient.
Dog Training MoralityŽ. Said individual can't be trusted 'off-leash.'
>Morality and obedience are not the same thing.
Not in a sane world.
stoney
<chris_h...@yahoo.com> wrote in alt.atheism
>Phillip Brown wrote:
>> On Thu, 04 May 2006 19:24:00 -0700, Chris H. Fleming wrote:
>>
>> > Phillip Brown wrote:
>> >> On Thu, 04 May 2006 19:07:33 -0700, Chris H. Fleming wrote:
>> >> > I'm a moral realist. In my view, slavery was wrong then and it is wrong
>> >> > today.
>> >> >
>> >> > I do not ignore the powerful effect of a culture to normalize
>> >> > individuals to think of great evil as being mundane.
>> >> >
>> >> > But cultural normalization does not change the fact that slavery hurt
>> >> > people and thus was wrong.
>> >> >
>> >> > I see moral relativism is a cop out. It is wrong to rape and kill a 12
>> >> > year old girl and it will always be wrong. I don't believe any
>> >> > relativist can say otherwise and be moral. I see basic humanistic
>> >> > principles as being fundamental.
>> >> Suppose you lived in Sparta. You are saying that despite being raised in
>> >> a society that said it was ok to throw small children off a cliff if they
>> >> didn't measure up, you would still come to the conclusion that it was
>> >> actually wrong. How do you suppose that might happen?
>> > I wouldn't want somebody to throw me off a cliff.
>>
>> Hindsight is a wonderful thing.
>I don't deny that cultural normalization blinds people from seeing
>clearly what is right and wrong.
And you got caught in the cultural normalization trap. :)
/sparta inhabitant
Clearly it is right to throw small children off a cliff if they don't
measure up and wrong to not do so. Such puts the entire community into
danger.
/sparta
>But I don't think that is neccessarily a good argument against ethical
>realism, but only the human ability to distinguish it.
Ethics demanded the Sparta actions.
>Just because the throwers might not have felt badly about it and may
>even enjoyed it doesn't change the fact that most of those kids were
>probably crying their eyes out and didn't want to die.
So?
Phillip Brown
> Phillip Brown wrote:
>> On Thu, 04 May 2006 19:45:10 -0700, Chris H. Fleming wrote:
>>
>> > Phillip Brown wrote:
>> >> On Thu, 04 May 2006 19:24:00 -0700, Chris H. Fleming wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Phillip Brown wrote:
>> >> >> On Thu, 04 May 2006 19:07:33 -0700, Chris H. Fleming wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > I'm a moral realist. In my view, slavery was wrong then and it is
>> >> >> > wrong today.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > I do not ignore the powerful effect of a culture to normalize
>> >> >> > individuals to think of great evil as being mundane.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > But cultural normalization does not change the fact that slavery
>> >> >> > hurt people and thus was wrong.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > I see moral relativism is a cop out. It is wrong to rape and kill
>> >> >> > a 12 year old girl and it will always be wrong. I don't believe
>> >> >> > any relativist can say otherwise and be moral. I see basic
>> >> >> > humanistic principles as being fundamental.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> Suppose you lived in Sparta. You are saying that despite being
>> >> >> raised in a society that said it was ok to throw small children off
>> >> >> a cliff if they didn't measure up, you would still come to the
>> >> >> conclusion that it was actually wrong. How do you suppose that
>> >> >> might happen?
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > I wouldn't want somebody to throw me off a cliff.
>> >>
>> >> Hindsight is a wonderful thing.
>> >
>> >
>> > I don't deny that cultural normalization blinds people from seeing
>> > clearly what is right and wrong.
>> >
>> > But I don't think that is neccessarily a good argument against ethical
>> > realism, but only the human ability to distinguish it.
>> >
>> > Just because the throwers might not have felt badly about it and may
>> > even enjoyed it doesn't change the fact that most of those kids were
>> > probably crying their eyes out and didn't want to die.
>>
>> If you asked the throwers if they were doing the right thing, they would
>> say yes, because they had a moral imperative to preserve the structure of
>> their society.
>
>
> Sure. But they're still murdering to do that.
not from their POV
Ethical realism doesn't
> mean everyone is going to intuitiviely know right from wrong. We can
> only trust that evolution has given us some degree of perception so
> that we don't completely destroy each other.
>
> Would you let somebody throw your kid off a cliff? If you are really a
> moral relstivist, then you would have to admit there would be certain
> situations in which you would say yes. You would have to admit that
> there are certain situations where it is acceptable to rape and murder
> a 12 year old girl. Personally, I think that is cop-out.
Cannibalism is generally held to be a bad thing(TM). Tell that to the
survivors of the aircraft crash in the Andes in the '70s. What is your
'ethical realist' take on cannibalism?
>
>
>> The only reason we don't do it now is because our values have changed.
>
>
> I would say improved. And I would say they improved for a reason. And I
> would say that given a stable environment they will continue to improve
> for a reason. I would predict that if the economy holds together, then
> gay people will one day get their rights in America, for a reason.
I have an older brother who has been confined to a wheelchair for
over 50 years since birth with severe cerebral palsy. I sometime wonder
whether or not, in his case, our values have 'improved' over those of
the spartans
>
>
>> You
>> would probably argue that Peter Singer is wrong.
>
>
> I am not very familiar with him, but are you talking about the humane
> treatment of animals? If so, then he is probably right about some
> things. I don't know much about that just as I don't know much about
> crystalography. Crystalography is still real and true.
How often is the answer to a question about crystalography 'it depends'?
How often is the answer to a question about crystalography determined by
your upbringing, or the values of the society in which you live?
>
>
>> There are others who
>> would argue he may not be 'right' but his arguments are worth
>> considering.
>
>
> If he isn't right, then why are his arguments worth considering?
> Seriously. I can't make sense of that at all.
precisely because ethical considerations or moral or values or whatever
you call them are not black and white as you make them out to be. They are
a continuum. Peter Singer presents one extreme of the continuum that
challenges us to consider whether or not our current values actually
stand up to scrutiny.
>
>
>> If society as a whole came around to what Peter Singer advocates, who
>> would get to say who is right and who is wrong?
>
>
> Everyone could just as easily be wrong. Ethical realism doesn't mean
> there will be a prophet to tell right from wrong. Ethical realism means
> there is a right and wrong, and it is for us to discover it.
It still begs the question - who gets to say when the 'real right and
wrong' has been found?
AFAICT your 'ethical realism' = 'ethical absolutism'
--
phillip brown
"shit doesn't just happen. there is always an ass-hole involved"
Josh Miles
> You know, a friend of mine was reading about Fred Phelps on wikipedia
> yesterday and noticed this: "By Phelps's own admission, he never dated,
> and had no interest in members of the opposite sex." Then a bit later:
> "The family's nanny, Margerie, is the only woman to whom Phelps has
> ever been romantically linked..."
This is the first time I've heard of the nanny story. There's a Phelps
biography on the net called _Addicted to Hate_. The author had extensive
interviews with a couple of his 13 children (4 of them have left the
family and the church), about their childhood. They say that while
Phelps was in law school, he used amphetamines (which he eventually
became addicted to) to help study for long hours. When he wasn't
studying, he was demanding sex from his wife--several times a day. Maybe
he's gay, maybe he's not. Maybe he's bisexual.
> My friend suggested that perhaps the
> reason Phelps is so disgustingly strongly opposed to homosexuality is
> because he fears that he himself may be homosexual.
If he is, that fear is no doubt due to his religious beliefs. Perhaps
he's trying to convince himself that he isn't gay.
> Maybe he wants to destroy that which he fears? I mean really, how many straight men
Some people are asexual. It's quite rare, especially in men. Isaac
Newton is believed by some to have been asexual.
> (non-sociopaths) do you know who have said that they've "had no
> interest in members of the opposite sex"?
>
> What I'm suggesting is that a possible reason for so many people trying
> to stomp out atheism is because atheism is all of the doubts about
> religion they have ever experienced within the safe confines of their
> mind put into reality.
Perhaps. Many have also been ingrained with the ridiculous idea that
atheists are bad people.
It would be appreciated if you quoted the messages you're replying to.
Since you don't, it's often difficult to tell who and what you're
replying to. I see that you're using Google Groups, so here's how you do
it: Instead of clicking on "reply" at the bottom, click on "show
options." From there a menu will drop down. On that menu click on
"reply" and the text will be quoted for you. The brilliant folks at
Google went out of their way to make this as inconvenient as possible
for the users.
Chris H. Fleming
I'm not going to get into a semantic argument, but they are
intentionally killing a person that does not endanger their life. I
define that as murder.
> Ethical realism doesn't
> > mean everyone is going to intuitiviely know right from wrong. We can
> > only trust that evolution has given us some degree of perception so
> > that we don't completely destroy each other.
> >
> > Would you let somebody throw your kid off a cliff? If you are really a
> > moral relstivist, then you would have to admit there would be certain
> > situations in which you would say yes. You would have to admit that
> > there are certain situations where it is acceptable to rape and murder
> > a 12 year old girl. Personally, I think that is cop-out.
>
> Cannibalism is generally held to be a bad thing(TM). Tell that to the
> survivors of the aircraft crash in the Andes in the '70s. What is your
> 'ethical realist' take on cannibalism?
Eating brains provides a channel for certain viruses to propigate
through the species.
Other than that, I don't see anything wrong with it. It doesn't hurt
the dead.
Also, just because I am an ethical realist, doesn't mean my opinions
define what is right. It's the reasoning and the fundamental humanism,
that makes me an etical realist.
> >> The only reason we don't do it now is because our values have changed.
Sure. I don't contest that one bit. Cultures are often wrong. The
question is not what is acceptable but what actually harms and helps
people.
> > I would say improved. And I would say they improved for a reason. And I
> > would say that given a stable environment they will continue to improve
> > for a reason. I would predict that if the economy holds together, then
> > gay people will one day get their rights in America, for a reason.
>
> I have an older brother who has been confined to a wheelchair for
> over 50 years since birth with severe cerebral palsy. I sometime wonder
> whether or not, in his case, our values have 'improved' over those of
> the spartans
You are saying we should have thrown him from the cliff?
I would think that is a good idea for a fetus, but for a person with
complex feelings I do not agree.
> >> You
> >> would probably argue that Peter Singer is wrong.
> >
> >
> > I am not very familiar with him, but are you talking about the humane
> > treatment of animals? If so, then he is probably right about some
> > things. I don't know much about that just as I don't know much about
> > crystalography. Crystalography is still real and true.
>
> How often is the answer to a question about crystalography 'it depends'?
> How often is the answer to a question about crystalography determined by
> your upbringing, or the values of the society in which you live?
I have not given you any such answer.
Don't blame me for the fact that so many people are relavists to some
degree. That is irrevevant to my stance.
That's like saying Zeus is real because there are so many Zeus
believers.
> >> There are others who
> >> would argue he may not be 'right' but his arguments are worth
> >> considering.
> >
> >
> > If he isn't right, then why are his arguments worth considering?
> > Seriously. I can't make sense of that at all.
>
> precisely because ethical considerations or moral or values or whatever
> you call them are not black and white as you make them out to be. They are
> a continuum. Peter Singer presents one extreme of the continuum that
> challenges us to consider whether or not our current values actually
> stand up to scrutiny.
Your answer doesn't satisfy my question. Why challenge values? If you
are a relativist, what is the point of challenging values? (I am trying
to trick you here so be careful in your reply)
And what sense do you mean black and white? Complicated questions have
complicated answers. Physics is "black and white" in the objective
sense, but it gives rise to a very complex world. I am not claiming
like the religious fundamentalist that ethics is simple and can be
found in a holy book.
> >> If society as a whole came around to what Peter Singer advocates, who
> >> would get to say who is right and who is wrong?
> >
> >
> > Everyone could just as easily be wrong. Ethical realism doesn't mean
> > there will be a prophet to tell right from wrong. Ethical realism means
> > there is a right and wrong, and it is for us to discover it.
>
> It still begs the question - who gets to say when the 'real right and
> wrong' has been found?
You could ask the same question of science. The answer is that you
reason through the problem, show your work, then your peers check your
work. Just as in science, there is no 100% certainty of getting the
right answer, but it tends to.
You simply ask who does this help, who does this hurt, ...
For example with gays. There is no _reason_ to deny them equal rights.
It will not hurt people but help people.
> AFAICT your 'ethical realism' = 'ethical absolutism'
Realism means that right and wrong exist independent of our opinions.
Realism does not preclude ambiguity or inbetween states.
Chris H. Fleming
How did I fall in a trap? This has been my stance from the beginning.
And there is nothing contradictory about it.
> /sparta inhabitant
> Clearly it is right to throw small children off a cliff if they don't
> measure up and wrong to not do so. Such puts the entire community into
> danger.
> /sparta
>
> >But I don't think that is neccessarily a good argument against ethical
> >realism, but only the human ability to distinguish it.
>
> Ethics demanded the Sparta actions.
What I would call bad ethics. Like a crank with his bad science.
> >Just because the throwers might not have felt badly about it and may
> >even enjoyed it doesn't change the fact that most of those kids were
> >probably crying their eyes out and didn't want to die.
>
> So?
So you are a psychopath? I am serious, it's a real disorder.
za...@emphyrio.demon.co.uk
Chris H. Fleming wrote:
<snip>
> > >> > I'm a moral realist. In my view, slavery was wrong then and it is wrong
> > >> > today.
> > >> >
> > >> > I do not ignore the powerful effect of a culture to normalize
> > >> > individuals to think of great evil as being mundane.
> > >> >
> > >> > But cultural normalization does not change the fact that slavery hurt
> > >> > people and thus was wrong.
> > >> >
> > >> > I see moral relativism is a cop out. It is wrong to rape and kill a 12
> > >> > year old girl and it will always be wrong. I don't believe any
> > >> > relativist can say otherwise and be moral. I see basic humanistic
> > >> > principles as being fundamental.
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >> Suppose you lived in Sparta. You are saying that despite being raised in
> > >> a society that said it was ok to throw small children off a cliff if they
> > >> didn't measure up, you would still come to the conclusion that it was
> > >> actually wrong. How do you suppose that might happen?
> > >
> > >
> > > I wouldn't want somebody to throw me off a cliff.
> >
> > Hindsight is a wonderful thing.
>
>
> I don't deny that cultural normalization blinds people from seeing
> clearly what is right and wrong.
>
> But I don't think that is neccessarily a good argument against ethical
> realism, but only the human ability to distinguish it.
>
> Just because the throwers might not have felt badly about it and may
> even enjoyed it doesn't change the fact that most of those kids were
> probably crying their eyes out and didn't want to die.
I see that as irrelevant. The people doing the throwing would have
been perfectly happy about what they were doing, because the origin of
the practice was a percieved significant risk to their culture as a
whole if it was not done. They might have argued that such a risk was
too great *not* to do it, thus it would, in fact, be *immoral* not to.
In Britain in the Middle Ages it was perfectly acceptable to encourage
your 12 year old daughter to be married to a much older man, for
economic, social and/or political benefit (for both the parents and the
girl). Today we would probably prosecute the would-be groom, and the
parents as well. In the context of their own times, were they doing
"wrong"? By our modern mores, absolutely. But back then, the parents
would have been horrified at the notion that they couldn't improve
their daughter's future by such a simple expedient.
Is eating your relatives when they die "wrong"? If so why? There are
cultures who have done this (probably some still do), and strongly
believed that they dishonoured their relatives if they didn't do it.
Human life itself is necessarily relativistic, goverened by local
conditions, and it is impossible to divorce that from societal
constructs - which are, after all, all that "morals" are. However,
there are certain activites which have become taboo in most human
cultures primarily because of their societally destructive nature
-casual murder, for example. This does not make them absolutes,
however: when local conditions have been a certain way (19th Century US
frontier, for example) such behaviour may not be encouraged, but it
certainly is considered acceptable.
Steve
Chris H. Fleming
Then (not to be offensive) I see you as a unfeeling psychopath. And
having a discusion of morality with a psychopath is like having a
discussion of music with the deaf.
Do you really think it is ethically irrelevant to cause a person to
suffer and die? I think that is absolutely the most relevant thing.
> The people doing the throwing would have
> been perfectly happy about what they were doing, because the origin of
> the practice was a percieved significant risk to their culture as a
> whole if it was not done. They might have argued that such a risk was
> too great *not* to do it, thus it would, in fact, be *immoral* not to.
Certainly they did it for a reason.
Certainly it seemed ethical to them.
I never argued that this is not the case.
> In Britain in the Middle Ages it was perfectly acceptable to encourage
> your 12 year old daughter to be married to a much older man, for
> economic, social and/or political benefit (for both the parents and the
> girl). Today we would probably prosecute the would-be groom, and the
> parents as well. In the context of their own times, were they doing
> "wrong"? By our modern mores, absolutely. But back then, the parents
> would have been horrified at the notion that they couldn't improve
> their daughter's future by such a simple expedient.
If find today's situation to be overall *better*. And I can back that
up with reasons. When I look such behavior in Mormon, Hindu, and Moslem
cultures I judge it to be inferior to an egalitarian society where
women have equal rights.
I never said that there was no reason or advantage to such behavior.
I am finding it strange how much all of you are misunderstanding my
stance. Have you guys never met an ethical realist?
> Is eating your relatives when they die "wrong"? If so why? There are
> cultures who have done this (probably some still do), and strongly
> believed that they dishonoured their relatives if they didn't do it.
Other than the fact that eating brains of your own species provides a
channel to transmit viruses, I see nothing inherently wrong with it. It
doesn't hurt anyone.
> Human life itself is necessarily relativistic
Relativistic in what sense? Human life absolutely needs water, air,
food, ... to survive. There are many, many absolute statements that can
be said about human life.
>, goverened by local
> conditions, and it is impossible to divorce that from societal
> constructs -
There are many facts about human life that are culture independent. I
find your assertion to be extremely incorrect.
> which are, after all, all that "morals" are.
So you claim, and I disagree.
> However,
> there are certain activites which have become taboo in most human
> cultures primarily because of their societally destructive nature
> -casual murder, for example.
There is more reason for murder to be wrong than it's impact on
society. If you don't feel that, you might be a psychopath.
> This does not make them absolutes,
> however: when local conditions have been a certain way (19th Century US
> frontier, for example) such behaviour may not be encouraged, but it
> certainly is considered acceptable.
You think a father didn't cry when his wife and children were murdered
back then? You think the wife and children considered it acceptable to
be murdered? Let me check my calender, ok you can rape and murder me, I
don't mind this century.
Phillip Brown
You are applying 21st century western values to the situation. Your
values would not stand up in bronze-age Greece. They were intentionally
killing a 'person' (they probably didn't consider small children as useful
members of society) that they perceived to endanger their society.
Therefore it was not murder. Much the same as people nowadays justify
capital punishment (not that I accept capital punishment)
Cultures are neither right nor wrong. They just do what is required to
advance the culture. If at some point in the future raping and murdering
12 yr old girls is somehow shown to advance the culture (however
unlikely), then bring on the raping and murdering.
>> > I would say improved. And I would say they improved for a reason. And
>> > I would say that given a stable environment they will continue to
>> > improve for a reason. I would predict that if the economy holds
>> > together, then gay people will one day get their rights in America,
>> > for a reason.
>>
>> I have an older brother who has been confined to a wheelchair for over
>> 50 years since birth with severe cerebral palsy. I sometime wonder
>> whether or not, in his case, our values have 'improved' over those of
>> the spartans
>
>
> You are saying we should have thrown him from the cliff?
Not specifically, but he may have been better off if he had been
euthanased. Is euthanasia inherently right or wrong? According to your
definition of 'ethical realism' ("Ethical realism means there is a right
and wrong, and it is for us to discover it") it must be one or the other.
> I would think that is a good idea for a fetus, but for a person with
> complex feelings I do not agree.
he was only a few months old when diagnosed.
>> >> You
>> >> would probably argue that Peter Singer is wrong.
>> >
>> >
>> > I am not very familiar with him, but are you talking about the humane
>> > treatment of animals? If so, then he is probably right about some
>> > things. I don't know much about that just as I don't know much about
>> > crystalography. Crystalography is still real and true.
>>
>> How often is the answer to a question about crystalography 'it
>> depends'? How often is the answer to a question about crystalography
>> determined by your upbringing, or the values of the society in which
>> you live?
>
>
> I have not given you any such answer.
You compared something as nebulous as 'ethics' to a hard science. I took
that to mean that you consider that there are 'immutable values' which are
absolute.
> Don't blame me for the fact that so many people are relavists to some
> degree. That is irrevevant to my stance.
*Everyone* is a relavist to some degree. Even you. No matter how much you
try to argue around it, your values are a product of the society in which
you were raised.
> That's like saying Zeus is real because there are so many Zeus
> believers.
To the ancient greeks (and most americans), this was exactly the case. If
you said any different, you could be executed. We don't execute people
for blasphemy now because the values of society have changed. It has
nothing to do with whether people who beleive in god are right or wrong,
or whether or not gods actually exist. It's just that blasphemy is no
longer considered a hanging offense.
>
>> >> There are others who
>> >> would argue he may not be 'right' but his arguments are worth
>> >> considering.
>> >
>> >
>> > If he isn't right, then why are his arguments worth considering?
>> > Seriously. I can't make sense of that at all.
>>
>> precisely because ethical considerations or moral or values or whatever
>> you call them are not black and white as you make them out to be. They
>> are a continuum. Peter Singer presents one extreme of the continuum
>> that challenges us to consider whether or not our current values
>> actually stand up to scrutiny.
>
>
> Your answer doesn't satisfy my question. Why challenge values? If you
> are a relativist, what is the point of challenging values? (I am trying
> to trick you here so be careful in your reply)
I have one set of values. You have another set of values. I challenge
your values because I believe my values are right and your values are
wrong. You challenge my values for the same reason. Actually, neither of
us are inherently right or wrong. Either we agree to disagree, or
somewhere along the line each of our values change to accomodate the
other's. Sometime down the track circumstances will change which may mean
that our values are no longer appropriate. How can that be if there are
absolute values?
> And what sense do you mean black and white? Complicated questions have
> complicated answers. Physics is "black and white" in the objective
> sense, but it gives rise to a very complex world. I am not claiming like
> the religious fundamentalist that ethics is simple and can be found in a
> holy book.
but you are claiming that 'right and wrong exist independent of our
opinions' ie that morals exist objectively. I say that no such
objectivity exists and that values/moral/ethics will always be subjective
and formed around societal norms
>> >> If society as a whole came around to what Peter Singer advocates,
>> >> who would get to say who is right and who is wrong?
>> >
>> >
>> > Everyone could just as easily be wrong. Ethical realism doesn't mean
>> > there will be a prophet to tell right from wrong. Ethical realism
>> > means there is a right and wrong, and it is for us to discover it.
>>
>> It still begs the question - who gets to say when the 'real right and
>> wrong' has been found?
>
>
> You could ask the same question of science. The answer is that you
> reason through the problem, show your work, then your peers check your
> work. Just as in science, there is no 100% certainty of getting the
> right answer, but it tends to.
but science works from objectively verifiable evidence, and the assumption
of fixed physical laws. No such exists for ethics. What works in one
situation doesn't work in another situation.
> You simply ask who does this help, who does this hurt, ...
ask a spartan
> For example with gays. There is no _reason_ to deny them equal rights.
> It will not hurt people but help people.
>
>
>> AFAICT your 'ethical realism' = 'ethical absolutism'
>
>
> Realism means that right and wrong exist independent of our opinions.
still begging the question
> Realism does not preclude ambiguity or inbetween states.
That's not what you said previously. And how can there be an objective
right and wrong, but still be ambiguous? Surely the whole point of
objectivity is to remove ambiguity.
Chris H. Fleming
I believe that 21st century values are better values. As a moral
realist I judge some values to be better than others. As a moral
relativist you can't. You are merely observing the differences between
our stances.
> Your
> values would not stand up in bronze-age Greece. They were intentionally
> killing a 'person' (they probably didn't consider small children as useful
> members of society) that they perceived to endanger their society.
That's their reasoning yes, but I do not consider it to be fair. Just
because someone has a reason, doesn't mean it's a good reason.
> Therefore it was not murder. Much the same as people nowadays justify
> capital punishment (not that I accept capital punishment)
They were killing a person that was no threat to them. And to say that
the weaklings were endangering their society is bullshit, they could
simply exile them instead of killing them. They could be a little less
selfish.
Then I think you are a psychopath. And having a debate about ethics
with a psychopath is like having a conversation about music with the
deaf.
But I find it hard to believe you really mean that. You even couched
your statement with a "however unlikely".
And by the way, if you define "good" as what advances the culture, then
you are no longer a relativist. Not that you are necessarily doing
that, but you are getting mighty close.
> >> > I would say improved. And I would say they improved for a reason. And
> >> > I would say that given a stable environment they will continue to
> >> > improve for a reason. I would predict that if the economy holds
> >> > together, then gay people will one day get their rights in America,
> >> > for a reason.
> >>
> >> I have an older brother who has been confined to a wheelchair for over
> >> 50 years since birth with severe cerebral palsy. I sometime wonder
> >> whether or not, in his case, our values have 'improved' over those of
> >> the spartans
> >
> >
> > You are saying we should have thrown him from the cliff?
>
> Not specifically, but he may have been better off if he had been
> euthanased. Is euthanasia inherently right or wrong? According to your
> definition of 'ethical realism' ("Ethical realism means there is a right
> and wrong, and it is for us to discover it") it must be one or the other.
No. It means the morality of an action is independent of what we think
it is. Realism doesn't preclude moral ambiguity. Just like physical
realism doesn't preclude indeterminism.
> > I would think that is a good idea for a fetus, but for a person with
> > complex feelings I do not agree.
>
> he was only a few months old when diagnosed.
That definitely seems like a grey area to me. What's that comparable
to? Snuffing out a cat?
> >> >> You
> >> >> would probably argue that Peter Singer is wrong.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > I am not very familiar with him, but are you talking about the humane
> >> > treatment of animals? If so, then he is probably right about some
> >> > things. I don't know much about that just as I don't know much about
> >> > crystalography. Crystalography is still real and true.
> >>
> >> How often is the answer to a question about crystalography 'it
> >> depends'? How often is the answer to a question about crystalography
> >> determined by your upbringing, or the values of the society in which
> >> you live?
> >
> >
> > I have not given you any such answer.
>
> You compared something as nebulous as 'ethics' to a hard science. I took
> that to mean that you consider that there are 'immutable values' which are
> absolute.
The comparisson is as such: Science is based upon the philosophy of
realism. It doesn't matter if every one on the Earth believes in a 6
day creation and a global flood, it still didn't happen. This is
realism.
> > Don't blame me for the fact that so many people are relavists to some
> > degree. That is irrevevant to my stance.
>
> *Everyone* is a relavist to some degree. Even you.
Prove it. You still don't understand my stance or you wouldn't say
that.
> No matter how much you
> try to argue around it, your values are a product of the society in which
> you were raised.
No doubt I have some values inhereted from a relativist ethics. But
that doesn't matter. My opinion does not define what is right and
wrong? You are missing the entire point of realism.
The exact same argument can be made with science. I used to believe
that vitamin C would cure colds. But scientific studies have not shown
that to be true. I was wrong. How does that discount the physical
realism of the ineffectiveness of vitamin C with colds? It doesn't.
> > That's like saying Zeus is real because there are so many Zeus
> > believers.
>
> To the ancient greeks (and most americans), this was exactly the case. If
> you said any different, you could be executed. We don't execute people
> for blasphemy now because the values of society have changed. It has
> nothing to do with whether people who beleive in god are right or wrong,
> or whether or not gods actually exist. It's just that blasphemy is no
> longer considered a hanging offense.
You miss my point. Even if I was put to death, that doesn't make Zeus
any more real. Zeus is a fiction and no matter how many people believe
in him, it doesn't change that.
> >> >> There are others who
> >> >> would argue he may not be 'right' but his arguments are worth
> >> >> considering.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > If he isn't right, then why are his arguments worth considering?
> >> > Seriously. I can't make sense of that at all.
> >>
> >> precisely because ethical considerations or moral or values or whatever
> >> you call them are not black and white as you make them out to be. They
> >> are a continuum. Peter Singer presents one extreme of the continuum
> >> that challenges us to consider whether or not our current values
> >> actually stand up to scrutiny.
> >
> >
> > Your answer doesn't satisfy my question. Why challenge values? If you
> > are a relativist, what is the point of challenging values? (I am trying
> > to trick you here so be careful in your reply)
>
> I have one set of values. You have another set of values. I challenge
> your values because I believe my values are right and your values are
> wrong.
Then I have lured you into my trap and cought you. And I even gave you
a warning at that!
If you really believe that your values are *better* than my values,
then you are not a moral relativist. You have hit a contradiction. By
definition, a moral relativist cannot judge one set of ethics to be
better than another.
> You challenge my values for the same reason.
Yes, and as a realist, I can do that without contradiction.
> Actually, neither of
> us are inherently right or wrong.
Now you back track. You have become slightly aware of your
contradiction. If you believe that neither of us are inherently right
or wrong, then you cannot believe that your values are better than
mine.
This is your contradiction to work out.
> Either we agree to disagree, or
> somewhere along the line each of our values change to accomodate the
> other's. Sometime down the track circumstances will change which may mean
> that our values are no longer appropriate. How can that be if there are
> absolute values?
I am not arguing for absolute values. I am arguing for realism. Realism
doesn't care if we ever find the truth. Imagine that physicists never
discover the grand theory of everyting. Does that imply there is no
grand theory of everything? No, it does not.
> > And what sense do you mean black and white? Complicated questions have
> > complicated answers. Physics is "black and white" in the objective
> > sense, but it gives rise to a very complex world. I am not claiming like
> > the religious fundamentalist that ethics is simple and can be found in a
> > holy book.
>
> but you are claiming that 'right and wrong exist independent of our
> opinions' ie that morals exist objectively. I say that no such
> objectivity exists and that values/moral/ethics will always be subjective
> and formed around societal norms
Exactly.
> >> >> If society as a whole came around to what Peter Singer advocates,
> >> >> who would get to say who is right and who is wrong?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Everyone could just as easily be wrong. Ethical realism doesn't mean
> >> > there will be a prophet to tell right from wrong. Ethical realism
> >> > means there is a right and wrong, and it is for us to discover it.
> >>
> >> It still begs the question - who gets to say when the 'real right and
> >> wrong' has been found?
> >
> >
> > You could ask the same question of science. The answer is that you
> > reason through the problem, show your work, then your peers check your
> > work. Just as in science, there is no 100% certainty of getting the
> > right answer, but it tends to.
>
> but science works from objectively verifiable evidence, and the assumption
> of fixed physical laws. No such exists for ethics. What works in one
> situation doesn't work in another situation.
Prove it.
At least I can state fundamental humanistic axioms, and work from
there.
You can only claim that it is not the case.
> > You simply ask who does this help, who does this hurt, ...
>
> ask a spartan
Okay. And then ask the child.
> > For example with gays. There is no _reason_ to deny them equal rights.
> > It will not hurt people but help people.
> >
> >
> >> AFAICT your 'ethical realism' = 'ethical absolutism'
> >
> >
> > Realism means that right and wrong exist independent of our opinions.
>
> still begging the question
I am making a definition, because you have misunderstood my stance. How
is that begging the question? It's not even an argument.
> > Realism does not preclude ambiguity or inbetween states.
>
> That's not what you said previously. And how can there be an objective
> right and wrong, but still be ambiguous? Surely the whole point of
> objectivity is to remove ambiguity.
No, and I do not believe I have, but if so I appoligize.
It is as such: there can be an inherent moral ambiguity that is
independent of our opinion. Some may think it is right, some may think
it is wrong, but it is inherently morally ambiguous.
Realism != Absolutism, just like Realism != Determinism in physics.
za...@emphyrio.demon.co.uk
Chris H. Fleming wrote:
<snip>
> > >
> > > Just because the throwers might not have felt badly about it and may
> > > even enjoyed it doesn't change the fact that most of those kids were
> > > probably crying their eyes out and didn't want to die.
> >
> > I see that as irrelevant.
>
>
> Then (not to be offensive) I see you as a unfeeling psychopath. And
> having a discusion of morality with a psychopath is like having a
> discussion of music with the deaf.
You are of course, entiltled to your opinion. Since you are not in
possession of sufficient data to make such a clinical determination, I
consider it of no moment, a bit like you telling me that you consider
my hair too blond. Incidentally, given the emotive nature of the words
"unfeeling psychopath" I have to say I strongly suspect disingenuity on
your part when you claim no wish to offend.
>
> Do you really think it is ethically irrelevant to cause a person to
> suffer and die? I think that is absolutely the most relevant thing.
>
No, it *is* ethically relevant. That's not what I'm arguing. My
contention is that *for those people* and *at that time*, they
considered it a morally correct thing to do. Prevailing mores and
cultural tradition overrode the human empathy which typically prevents
people from doing such things. This is particularly powerful in a
society such as ancient Sparta, where, it is held, doing the societally
expected thing is absolutely paramount. Would *I* do such things?
Absolutely not, they are repellent to me. But I don't live in the
Sparta of that time, and have no real understanding of the effect of
the cultural forces working on those people. Notwithstanding, I am
capable of understanding that other cultures and other times did not
think as I do, and examining their actions with some degree of
abstraction.
>
> > The people doing the throwing would have
> > been perfectly happy about what they were doing, because the origin of
> > the practice was a percieved significant risk to their culture as a
> > whole if it was not done. They might have argued that such a risk was
> > too great *not* to do it, thus it would, in fact, be *immoral* not to.
>
>
> Certainly they did it for a reason.
> Certainly it seemed ethical to them.
>
> I never argued that this is not the case.
>
Then what *are* you arguing? Perhaps I have misunderstood your
postion: I thought you were claiming a set of moral absolutes - is that
not the case?
>
> > In Britain in the Middle Ages it was perfectly acceptable to encourage
> > your 12 year old daughter to be married to a much older man, for
> > economic, social and/or political benefit (for both the parents and the
> > girl). Today we would probably prosecute the would-be groom, and the
> > parents as well. In the context of their own times, were they doing
> > "wrong"? By our modern mores, absolutely. But back then, the parents
> > would have been horrified at the notion that they couldn't improve
> > their daughter's future by such a simple expedient.
>
>
>
> If find today's situation to be overall *better*. And I can back that
> up with reasons. When I look such behavior in Mormon, Hindu, and Moslem
> cultures I judge it to be inferior to an egalitarian society where
> women have equal rights.
Again, I would suggest that your concept of rights is relative to the
culture in which you live and were brought up. In the UK, we have had
recent court cases where teenaged Muslim girls have independently
demanded from their schools the right to wear their culture's
traditional garments, which cover their bodies as far as possible and,
as they see it, promote modesty. This is in contravention of the
school's uniform rules, which are borne out of both health and safety
considerations, and a different cultural tradition. The girls
concerned have become very upset and angry that they are not being
permitted to do a thing which many people in the UK would consider to
be a mechanism for oppressing women, and thus immoral. Also, if a
non-muslim woman were to wear western clothing in some Muslim
countries, she would cause outrage and be considered immoral. Would
she be? Are those teenagers in the UK morally wrong to apparently
demand their own oppression? They fervently argue that it is, in fact,
our requirement that they wear more western-style clothing which is
interfering with their rights. Are they wrong?
>
> I never said that there was no reason or advantage to such behavior.
> I am finding it strange how much all of you are misunderstanding my
> stance. Have you guys never met an ethical realist?
>
No, I've not, although thanks to you I've now read something about
"Ethical Realism". It seems interesting, and appears to make a
presumption of universally recognised standards of "good" and "evil".
There is, I think, some correspondence with observed reality in the
notion that there are are certain precepts to which most historical
human societies have adhered, and to which most continue to adhere.
However, I would suggest that the assumption that such precepts are
absolutes, ultimately independent of human contemplation, is unproven.
It seems to me that the whole appears to appropriate the psychological
constructs of religion, but without a god.
>
> > Is eating your relatives when they die "wrong"? If so why? There are
> > cultures who have done this (probably some still do), and strongly
> > believed that they dishonoured their relatives if they didn't do it.
>
>
> Other than the fact that eating brains of your own species provides a
> channel to transmit viruses, I see nothing inherently wrong with it. It
> doesn't hurt anyone.
>
But most societies consider it "wrong". Why is that? What would
happen if my father died, and I chose to eat him, as a means to honour
him? And would you defend my right to do so? I would be upsetting
the feelings of the rest of my relatives, and thus causing "hurt",
wouldn't I?
>
> > Human life itself is necessarily relativistic
>
>
> Relativistic in what sense? Human life absolutely needs water, air,
> food, ... to survive. There are many, many absolute statements that can
> be said about human life.
>
Agreed. Does human life absolutely need music?
>
> >, goverened by local
> > conditions, and it is impossible to divorce that from societal
> > constructs -
>
>
> There are many facts about human life that are culture independent. I
> find your assertion to be extremely incorrect.
>
Biological facts, yes. But what I said was that societal constructs
are necessarily governed by local conditions. Are you suggesting
otherwise? I then argue that "morals" are societal constructs. Do
you disagree? If so, can you demonstrate how they are not?
>
> > which are, after all, all that "morals" are.
>
>
> So you claim, and I disagree.
>
Fair enough.
>
> > However,
> > there are certain activites which have become taboo in most human
> > cultures primarily because of their societally destructive nature
> > -casual murder, for example.
>
>
> There is more reason for murder to be wrong than it's impact on
> society. If you don't feel that, you might be a psychopath.
>
If this is to be an objective discussion, then what I feel is
irrelevant. I am not discussing how I live my life here. I am
discussing my observations of how human societies operate, in an
abstract way. You seem to wish to relate this to me as a person, and
to make a diagnosis of a pathological mental state on that basis. I
would strongly dispute that you have the evidence to do so.
>
> > This does not make them absolutes,
> > however: when local conditions have been a certain way (19th Century US
> > frontier, for example) such behaviour may not be encouraged, but it
> > certainly is considered acceptable.
>
>
> You think a father didn't cry when his wife and children were murdered
> back then? You think the wife and children considered it acceptable to
> be murdered? Let me check my calender, ok you can rape and murder me, I
> don't mind this century.
I think you are missing the point. Notions of what "ought" to be do
not relate to what actually *is* (or has been). Note that I am not
arguing that there will never be any rules about what is and is not
acceptable human behaviour, nor (from a personal point of view) that
there should not be, or that we should cause pain by our actions. I am
simply disputing the notion that such rules are derived from some
fundamental objective source, because human beings themselves are not
objective, by their very nature.
Steve
stoney
<chris_h...@yahoo.com> wrote in alt.atheism
Excuse me? I didn't say a single word about 'contradictory.'
I indicated the cultural normalization trap immediately following the
observation.
>> /sparta inhabitant
>> Clearly it is right to throw small children off a cliff if they don't
>> measure up and wrong to not do so. Such puts the entire community into
>> danger.
>> /sparta
>>
>> >But I don't think that is neccessarily a good argument against ethical
>> >realism, but only the human ability to distinguish it.
>>
>> Ethics demanded the Sparta actions.
>What I would call bad ethics. Like a crank with his bad science.
You would call it that based on *your cultural normalization.*
>> >Just because the throwers might not have felt badly about it and may
>> >even enjoyed it doesn't change the fact that most of those kids were
>> >probably crying their eyes out and didn't want to die.
>>
>> So?
>So you are a psychopath? I am serious, it's a real disorder.
You do love those strawmen.
I see thinking isn't your strong suit. I'll leave you be.
Chris H. Fleming
Why is it a trap? How did I fall into a trap? I asked for an
explaination and you've given me nothing.
> >> /sparta inhabitant
> >> Clearly it is right to throw small children off a cliff if they don't
> >> measure up and wrong to not do so. Such puts the entire community into
> >> danger.
> >> /sparta
> >>
> >> >But I don't think that is neccessarily a good argument against ethical
> >> >realism, but only the human ability to distinguish it.
> >>
> >> Ethics demanded the Sparta actions.
>
> >What I would call bad ethics. Like a crank with his bad science.
>
> You would call it that based on *your cultural normalization.*
That's your assertion. It's what _you_ believe.
To a great degree I am shaped by my culture. I don't disagree with
that. But I can also transcend my cultural values and I frequently do.
And given that I am not a moral relativist I judge some ethics to be
better than others and I judge 21st century ethics to be better than
Spartan ethics just as 21st century science is better than Spartan
science.
This is the difference in our stances.
> >> >Just because the throwers might not have felt badly about it and may
> >> >even enjoyed it doesn't change the fact that most of those kids were
> >> >probably crying their eyes out and didn't want to die.
> >>
> >> So?
>
> >So you are a psychopath? I am serious, it's a real disorder.
>
> You do love those strawmen.
> I see thinking isn't your strong suit. I'll leave you be.
Do you not know what a psychopath is?
Your responce to "most of those kids were probably crying their eyes
out and didn't want to die" was "So?".
That is the responce of either a person that isn't serious or a
psychopath.
If that is a strawman, then it's a strawman you built. Don't blame me
for knocking it down.
If you don't think psychopathy is a real disorder, then that's another
discussion.
Chris H. Fleming
> Hi Chris,
>
> Chris H. Fleming wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > > >
> > > > Just because the throwers might not have felt badly about it and may
> > > > even enjoyed it doesn't change the fact that most of those kids were
> > > > probably crying their eyes out and didn't want to die.
> > >
> > > I see that as irrelevant.
> >
> > Then (not to be offensive) I see you as a unfeeling psychopath. And
> > having a discusion of morality with a psychopath is like having a
> > discussion of music with the deaf.
>
> You are of course, entiltled to your opinion. Since you are not in
> possession of sufficient data to make such a clinical determination, I
> consider it of no moment, a bit like you telling me that you consider
> my hair too blond. Incidentally, given the emotive nature of the words
> "unfeeling psychopath" I have to say I strongly suspect disingenuity on
> your part when you claim no wish to offend.
I wasn't being disingenuous at all. I was totally serious. (nor was I
trying to be nasty) My responce comes later when this comes up again.
> > Do you really think it is ethically irrelevant to cause a person to
> > suffer and die? I think that is absolutely the most relevant thing.
> >
>
> No, it *is* ethically relevant.
Well I hope you could see that it was really confusing when you said "I
see that as irrelevant".
> That's not what I'm arguing. My
> contention is that *for those people* and *at that time*, they
> considered it a morally correct thing to do.
I agree.
> Prevailing mores and
> cultural tradition overrode the human empathy which typically prevents
> people from doing such things. This is particularly powerful in a
> society such as ancient Sparta, where, it is held, doing the societally
> expected thing is absolutely paramount.
I agree.
> Would *I* do such things?
> Absolutely not, they are repellent to me. But I don't live in the
> Sparta of that time, and have no real understanding of the effect of
> the cultural forces working on those people. Notwithstanding, I am
> capable of understanding that other cultures and other times did not
> think as I do, and examining their actions with some degree of
> abstraction.
>
> >
> > > The people doing the throwing would have
> > > been perfectly happy about what they were doing, because the origin of
> > > the practice was a percieved significant risk to their culture as a
> > > whole if it was not done. They might have argued that such a risk was
> > > too great *not* to do it, thus it would, in fact, be *immoral* not to.
> >
> >
> > Certainly they did it for a reason.
> > Certainly it seemed ethical to them.
> >
> > I never argued that this is not the case.
> >
>
> Then what *are* you arguing? Perhaps I have misunderstood your
> postion: I thought you were claiming a set of moral absolutes - is that
> not the case?
Wow, all 3 repsonces think I am a moral absolutist and all 3 responces
come off as psychopaths to me. Something is going wrong in this
discussion both ways.
I am a moral or ethical realist. That is my stance. Moral realism and
moral absolutism are not the same thing. Though they do have
similarities. And they can be, but are not necessarily compatible.
What does this mean? Let's look a physical realism first. Physical
realism means that no matter how many people believe the universe was
created in 6 days, it wasn't.
Ethical realism is much like this. Ethical realism means that it
doesn't matter if I, you, or the Spartan _think_ it's good or bad to
sacrifice the child, the morality of that action is independent of our
opinions. That is a very rough definition, it actually is slightly more
complicated than that. (And I don't want to go into it unless it comes
up)
Realism is not the same as believing in moral absolutes. You can
imagine actions that are inherently morally ambiguous independent of
our opinions. Believing in black, white, and grey is independent of
realism.
Realism (like absolutism) is ultimately contrary to relativism. A moral
relativist can't say that one culture's values are better than another.
A moral relativist says that judgements of good are relative. As a
realist, I can judge one set of values to be better than another, but I
don't necessarily know that I am right. (other realists may be more
arrogant than that)
> > > In Britain in the Middle Ages it was perfectly acceptable to encourage
> > > your 12 year old daughter to be married to a much older man, for
> > > economic, social and/or political benefit (for both the parents and the
> > > girl). Today we would probably prosecute the would-be groom, and the
> > > parents as well. In the context of their own times, were they doing
> > > "wrong"? By our modern mores, absolutely. But back then, the parents
> > > would have been horrified at the notion that they couldn't improve
> > > their daughter's future by such a simple expedient.
> >
> >
> >
> > If find today's situation to be overall *better*. And I can back that
> > up with reasons. When I look such behavior in Mormon, Hindu, and Moslem
> > cultures I judge it to be inferior to an egalitarian society where
> > women have equal rights.
>
> Again, I would suggest that your concept of rights is relative to the
> culture in which you live and were brought up.
And that's your stance as a relativist.
I do not deny that I am shaped by my culture. Realism doesn't care if
people are relativists. Everybody could be a relativist and realism
could still be true.
> In the UK, we have had
> recent court cases where teenaged Muslim girls have independently
> demanded from their schools the right to wear their culture's
> traditional garments, which cover their bodies as far as possible and,
> as they see it, promote modesty. This is in contravention of the
> school's uniform rules, which are borne out of both health and safety
> considerations, and a different cultural tradition. The girls
> concerned have become very upset and angry that they are not being
> permitted to do a thing which many people in the UK would consider to
> be a mechanism for oppressing women, and thus immoral. Also, if a
> non-muslim woman were to wear western clothing in some Muslim
> countries, she would cause outrage and be considered immoral. Would
> she be? Are those teenagers in the UK morally wrong to apparently
> demand their own oppression? They fervently argue that it is, in fact,
> our requirement that they wear more western-style clothing which is
> interfering with their rights. Are they wrong?
Being a realist doesn't necessarily mean that I can give you a straight
answer or that there is a straight answer. Being a realist means that
whatever the truth is about good/bad/inbetween, that truth is
independent of our opinions (roughly).
> > I never said that there was no reason or advantage to such behavior.
> > I am finding it strange how much all of you are misunderstanding my
> > stance. Have you guys never met an ethical realist?
> >
>
> No, I've not, although thanks to you I've now read something about
> "Ethical Realism".
Cool.
> It seems interesting, and appears to make a
> presumption of universally recognised standards of "good" and "evil".
Kind of, but you have to be really careful with your words so that you
don't confuse realism with absolutism.
Realism does posits that there is some objective measure. But it could
be really complicated and not black and white at all. It can also be
context dependent (but still objective).
Absolutism ususally posits an absolute right or wrong regardless of
context.
Realism doesn't posit an absolute 100% right or wrong in every or any
situation nor full context independence.
All absolutists are realists but not all realists are absolutists. I am
a realist, but I am not a context independent, black and white
absolutist.
> There is, I think, some correspondence with observed reality in the
> notion that there are are certain precepts to which most historical
> human societies have adhered, and to which most continue to adhere.
> However, I would suggest that the assumption that such precepts are
> absolutes, ultimately independent of human contemplation, is unproven.
> It seems to me that the whole appears to appropriate the psychological
> constructs of religion, but without a god.
That's where I would take the stance of a humanist (which is compatible
with realism). I would say that the whole point of a humanism is to
look for such fundamental precepts and they are basically help and not
hurt.
I would agree that they aren't necessarily found as absolutes in all
culture. Although I think progressing societies work towards them,
though that is a tautology.
As for is my humanism a godless religion? I disagree for me personally,
but I could see that as being true for somebody. I base my humanism off
of what it is to be a person. I know what it is to sense pleasure and
sense pain. I know that most other people are also like me in this
regards. I take ethics like the golden rule to be assertions of
universality. I don't see anything immediately dogmatic in my thinking.
> > > Is eating your relatives when they die "wrong"? If so why? There are
> > > cultures who have done this (probably some still do), and strongly
> > > believed that they dishonoured their relatives if they didn't do it.
> >
> >
> > Other than the fact that eating brains of your own species provides a
> > channel to transmit viruses, I see nothing inherently wrong with it. It
> > doesn't hurt anyone.
> >
>
> But most societies consider it "wrong". Why is that?
As this is alt.atheism, you probably know some other things that most
societies believe in. Does the atheist _have_ to answer why most people
believe in god? Certainly there should be a reason. I could try to
throw together some reasonable argument having to do with brain viruses
or cannibal murderers. But I don't think I should be required to.
> What would
> happen if my father died, and I chose to eat him, as a means to honour
> him?
If you really believed that, I would think it's cool. I would try human
meat if it was legal and humanely obtained.
> And would you defend my right to do so?
Absolutely.
> I would be upsetting
> the feelings of the rest of my relatives, and thus causing "hurt",
> wouldn't I?
And you also might be offended if you aren't allowed to eat the corpse.
You might be from a culture that does this normally.
But nobody is going to be hurt like getting stabbed with a knife. This
is offense at another person's beliefs and rituals. Why isn't nudism
legal for example? Because it will offend somebody's taste. What's more
important? I say the nudists rights.
In your case though, I don't see an easy resolution. Maybe you could
eat half the corpse and they could bury the other half ;)
> > > Human life itself is necessarily relativistic
> >
> >
> > Relativistic in what sense? Human life absolutely needs water, air,
> > food, ... to survive. There are many, many absolute statements that can
> > be said about human life.
> >
>
> Agreed. Does human life absolutely need music?
My life is certainly much more enjoyable for it.
> > >, goverened by local
> > > conditions, and it is impossible to divorce that from societal
> > > constructs -
> >
> >
> > There are many facts about human life that are culture independent. I
> > find your assertion to be extremely incorrect.
> >
>
> Biological facts, yes. But what I said was that societal constructs
> are necessarily governed by local conditions. Are you suggesting
> otherwise?
To a certain degree I agree with that. But I don't care as much about
what values a society has as much as what values a society should have.
As a humanist I am concerned with the impact on the individuals. Is the
society hurting or helping them and can it be improved. For a moral
relativist there is ultimately no such thing as improvement. This is
the greatest difference between a realist and a relativist.
> I then argue that "morals" are societal constructs. Do
> you disagree? If so, can you demonstrate how they are not?
Yes and no.
I'm not going to argue that cultural values don't change or that any
particular cultural values are necessarily right. And I'm not going to
argue that context doesn't matter.
I would argue that the values people hold are largely some combination
of social construct and their own empathy. And that there is some
interaction between these things. In this sense I would agree with you
to a point.
But I would also argue that some values are simply better than other
values. And they are better for a reason. And that reason is based upon
some kind of humanistic principles, which are based upon what it is to
be human: pleasure and pain.
For example, I would argue that women are treated better in the West
than in Saudi Arabia. I would go about demonstrating that with some
measure of quality of life, happiness, ...
Now the last step, which is demonstrating why quality of life,
happiness,... is important. I and other humanists, take that to be
almost axiomatic, based upon what it is to be human. I can't prove it,
I can only feel it and reason towards it as being the most fundamental
thing I can come up with as of yet. But many people: neurologists,
philsosophers, humanists, are trying to give some attempt.
> > > which are, after all, all that "morals" are.
> >
> > So you claim, and I disagree.
> >
>
> Fair enough.
>
> >
> > > However,
> > > there are certain activites which have become taboo in most human
> > > cultures primarily because of their societally destructive nature
> > > -casual murder, for example.
> >
> > There is more reason for murder to be wrong than it's impact on
> > society. If you don't feel that, you might be a psychopath.
> >
>
> If this is to be an objective discussion, then what I feel is
> irrelevant. I am not discussing how I live my life here. I am
> discussing my observations of how human societies operate, in an
> abstract way. You seem to wish to relate this to me as a person, and
> to make a diagnosis of a pathological mental state on that basis. I
> would strongly dispute that you have the evidence to do so.
Well I think we are having two different discussions then. You are
having a discussion about how societies operate. That has become clear.
But I wasn't. In this sense I care little more about how societies
operate than a scientist is conserned with the scientific knowledge of
the masses. You guys misunderstood my stance, and perhaps that made me
misunderstand your stances.
So maybe you guys were just saying that societies can operate in a
manner that is psychopathic. I don't disagree with that at all.
> > > This does not make them absolutes,
> > > however: when local conditions have been a certain way (19th Century US
> > > frontier, for example) such behaviour may not be encouraged, but it
> > > certainly is considered acceptable.
> >
> >
> > You think a father didn't cry when his wife and children were murdered
> > back then? You think the wife and children considered it acceptable to
> > be murdered? Let me check my calender, ok you can rape and murder me, I
> > don't mind this century.
>
> I think you are missing the point. Notions of what "ought" to be do
> not relate to what actually *is* (or has been).
I don't think I have made an is-ought fallacy. I don't think I have
argued that the way something is is the way something ought to be?
At this point I am pretty sure that I have been having a conversation
about ought and you guys have been having a conversation about is. I
think this and you guys confusing me for a moral absolutist is all of
our collective confusion.
> Note that I am not
> arguing that there will never be any rules about what is and is not
> acceptable human behaviour, nor (from a personal point of view) that
> there should not be, or that we should cause pain by our actions.
Now I am confused. You aren't one of the moral relativists disagreeing
with me?
> I am
> simply disputing the notion that such rules are derived from some
> fundamental objective source, because human beings themselves are not
> objective, by their very nature.
To your first statement I agree in some sense. To your second
statement, I agree in some sense and disagree in another. I won't argue
that any cultural values are necessarily right, nor that any
individuals are necessarily right.
Chris H. Fleming
On second thought, I am wrong here. An absolutist could define good as
what God/Pharoah deems good and that entity could change it's mind. So
not all absolutists are realists. I was wrong.