Purpose
Matthijs
earth? So I spoke a woman in our local store. And she told me that she
believed that all our behaviour is based on the fact that we want to
make ourself happy. Personally I think this sounds like a very black
view on live. Still I could not give good evidence of behaviour
without personal benevit ;)
So to close the year with a big bang I ask to you once more: Do we
only act to make ourself happy?
I wish you all lots of love,
Matthijs
Alan Wostenberg
Depends on what one means by 'happy'. If the term has a purely
psychological meaning of contentment in getting what one desires, then
no, not everybody acts "to make oneself happy". But this psychological
meaning is in stark contrast to the ethical meaning of happiness,
described at http://www.thegreatideas.org/apd-happ.html
Matthijs
Always good to specify!
Slip Disc
preservation leads to feeling better, secure in knowing one is alive.
From that beginning all else follows.
It doesn't feel good to stand naked in a snowstorm but it feels good
to stand naked in front of an open fire basking in the warmth. There
is nothing dark or black about wanting to feel good, enjoy life and
have personal happiness.
One cannot share happiness in life if one is not feeling happy.
Matthijs
fundamental self preservation , and if this is the core were we act on
can this be proven? Or if self preservation is not our core how can
this be argued on? For example: If I give away money/help a sick
human, it makes me feel better. If I give love I do this because I
want to receive love.
L
that will benefit themselves, and that includes happiness. However,
there are various ways of making oneself happy, like my greatest
happiness is when other people are happy. I enjoy making my family
smile because, for whatever really odd reason, I feel their vibes, and
that makes me happy. So, when they're sad, I'm sad; when they're
happy, I'm happy; and when they're mad, I'm mad. Plus, not everyone
is so conceited they only do things for their sole benefit. That's
why there are people who give to charities, the poor, or just help
people in need. It's not necessarily for their benefit, but in a way
it is because it makes them feel good.
1CellOfMany
proposition: “We have evolved to feel good about doing things that
tend to promote the survival of the species.” Much research has been
done which has shown that some other species exhibit behavior that can
be classed as “altruistic”. On the other hand, I believe that one of
the capacities that we humans have developed, far beyond that of any
other species, is the the rational facility. The rational facility
allows us to “choose” actions and behaviors that may be contrary to
those dictated by our “instincts” (behavior that comes from
evolutionary forces) and our “programming” (refer to most literature
in classical behavioral psychology, like Pavlov's dogs).
IMHO, one is quite capable of living out out one's life without
deviating at all from instinct and programming, but, to the extent
that we *choose* our behavior based on other considerations, we
transcend our “animal” nature and begin to act like humans. (As a
side note, I think that the story of Adam and Eve gaining the
“knowledge of good and evil” is an allegory for our developing this
facility. Not so much a “bad” thing, but a stage in our spiritual
evolution.) If this proposition is true, then one may *choose* to do
something, not because it makes one happy, but because of some other
motivation, such as a rational decision or the belief that “this is
the *right* thing to do”.
Slip Disc
concern. You could not give away money nor help a sick person if you
did not provide and nurture yourself in order to be that someone with
the capability of giving. You eat, drink and maintain health, so it
gives you the ability to acquire money to give away. You can't do
anything prior to self preservation.
We can't give someone a ride if we don't maintain our vehicle.
I give love just to give it and I don't really expect any in return;
if it comes back that's a plus.
Slip Disc
altruism.
The rationale factor is formidable in examples of self sacrifice for
the sake of others, as in heroic feats resulting in loss of the self
for the gain of several others, a sacrifice of self to protect
offspring or any similar act based on choice. Of course this is
secondary to the fundamental basis of self preservation under normal
circumstances. We can go to the extreme in example with self
immolation as a display of rational choice, the right thing to do
according to the rationale of the person doing it. Here we reach the
great divide of the individual and collective mind. The individual
intention is primary considering that one dictator may resort to
genocide to increase the food supply and another dictator might pursue
actions resulting in social prosperity without such drastic measure.
iam deheretic
Allan
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group.
To post to this group, send email to mind...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to minds-eye+...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en.
--
(
)
I_D Allan
yar...@aol.com
On Dec 27, 12:42 am, iam deheretic <dehere...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I have read the responses after this one, I can not help but recall what
> the recent that biologically we have a preference to be good,
Really? Would that include Charles Manson, Pol Pot, Hitler,
Mussolini, Mao Zedong, Milosevic, prisons full of criminals who have
murdered and maimed people during the commission of their crimes?
Would you say that prostitutes that lure men away from their
commitment to their wives are good? Would you say that those men are
good in betraying their spouses? Would you say that the uni-bomber was
good? Would you say the shoe bomber was good? Would you say that Osama
Bin Laden is good? Would you say that all those who were involved in
the planning and execution of 9/11 were good? Would you say that all
the IEDs that were planted in Afghanistan and Iraq were good? Are all
those suicide bombers that have blown away people around them in
Pakistan and around Europe good? Yeah...I can see how you think that
all those people and millions more who engage in the type of lives
that I just described are driven by the biological imperative to be
good. Take off your rose colored glasses please and if not that...wake
up and smell the coffee. Humanity has a preference for mayhem. In
particular when they establish institutionalized atheism as is the
case of Mao Zedong. Can you imagine....responsible for the death of
over 70 million innocent human beings? What a disgusting butcher. So
next time you hear that religion is responsible for most bloodshed,
you know better...because you can't come up with 70million corpses
like you can with institutionalized atheism and I'm not even counting
Stalin. I am being generous to the opposition because reality is much
worse than I have painted it here in these few words.
Doesn't anyone want to latch onto reality anymore. Is everyone just
swimming in bogus beliefs that make them feel good about themselves
and their position rather than latching onto the truth of the matter
as it is apart from emotion laced partisanship?
fiddler
to be good not being true by naming the barest fraction of humanity.
Yes, there are deviants. Religion is a primary force of separation
between humans and their desires or imperatives to behave well.
Political "power" is another.
Prisons are generally full of people that saw no way to advance in
society or standing apart from criminal activity. Again you chose a
small percent, the violent, to justify your belief. The majority of
criminals are behind bars, especially here in America, for illegal
methods of creating wealth for themselves and drug usage.
As for Mao, his death count is in no way reflected on a lack of belief
or atheism, as is commonly said. He wanted his politics and his party
to be the god of the country. Every behaviour that he promoted was
exactly the behaviour of a church or religion. No religion gained into
wide acceptance without first murdering unbelievers in whatever region
they choose for themselves.
iam deheretic
Allan
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group.
To post to this group, send email to mind...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to minds-eye+...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en.
Lee
multipules of side reasons why I say this, it is a very big yes from
me.
Pat
On 26 Dec, 12:45, Matthijs <matthijs.dok...@gmail.com> wrote:
Well, we act in reaction to stimuli, as we are reactions to
reactions going back to the Big Bang. To know the specifics of any
individual's actions would require complete quantum-state knowledge of
the entire universe, which none of us will ever have. So, in the
absence of such knowledge, some of us 'guess' as to 'why' we do 'that
which we do'. As long as we act with consideration towards our
environment (which, naturally, includes all of humanity) we needn't
worry about the consequences. Besides, in a space-time continuum, all
the events are already extant in the whole, so there's nothing we can
change anyway. Rather, "what we do" is MAKE it (the universe) happen
in the way that it WILL happen. Whether or not we acknowledge that
fact is, yet, another story.
Where happiness fits into all that is, of course, very
subjective, as most of us shun pain--except the masochist. Which is
why if a masochist says to a sadist, "Beat me"; the TRUE sadist
replies, "No!"
frantheman
of Mao, Stalin, Hitler, et al. is a common one, Yar, but it doesn't
stand up to scrutiny. Atheism was not the prime motivation of any of
these monsters, rather ruthless megalomania. I can accept that the
actions of Mao, Stalin and Pol Pot took place within a notional
framework of a particular vector of Marxist-inspired ideology, which
posits that means justify ultimate ends - in this case the unfortunate
but (within the ideological framework) necessary suffering, terror and
death involved in the process of defeating the reactionary forces of
the bourgeois system on the way to the realisation of true humanism in
the context of the triumph of ultimate communism which would end
alienation and lead to the withering away of the state. But even
within this context, the basic motivation is not the hatred of
religion as such but rather the definition as religion as one
instrument of the inhuman forces of bourgeois reaction standing in
the way of the progress of humanity. In this sense, this particular
way of thinking (which doubtfully calls itself Marxist) resembles many
other chiliastic religious ideologies; the only difference being the
replacement of divinely revealed truth (whether through Jesus,
Muhammad, or others), through the inevitability of the secular
revelation contained in dialectical materialism. For the victims
throughout history, whether the millions slaughtered in the name of
the achievement of communism, or in the name of God, Allah, Jesus or
ethnic superiority, the result was the same. Moreover, it is doubtful
how much Stalin, Mao, etc. really believed the ideology within whose
framework they acted - their only real belief was in their own power
and the ruthlessness inspired by the fear that anyone might try to
take it away from them.
Francis
yar...@aol.com
On Dec 28, 5:10 pm, fiddler <kenandk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I am unsure of how you expect to make a point about a natural desire
> to be good not being true by naming the barest fraction of humanity.
> Yes, there are deviants. Religion is a primary force of separation
> between humans and their desires or imperatives to behave well.
> Political "power" is another.
> Prisons are generally full of people that saw no way to advance in
> society or standing apart from criminal activity. Again you chose a
> small percent, the violent, to justify your belief. The majority of
> criminals are behind bars, especially here in America, for illegal
> methods of creating wealth for themselves and drug usage.
> As for Mao, his death count is in no way reflected on a lack of belief
> or atheism, as is commonly said. He wanted his politics and his party
> to be the god of the country.
My understanding is that he was a devout atheist and his regime
reflected that devotion in the form of institutionalized atheism. Was
it not atheism that was promoted within his regime? As Dostoyevsky
stated, ""Anything is permissible if there is no God." While religions
have had their bloody seasons, to make a statement that they resulted
in the kind of body count that has been historically the case with
those who espouse the "there is no God" worldview, is a revisionist
view of history that has no basis in fact. Dostoyevsky was right. The
slaughter of the innocent is a natural appendage of the view that
there is no God...whereas such slaughter within the ranks of the
religious is an unnatural growth(cancer) that is quickly recognized
and cut out before it can do the kind of damage we see in regimes
based on the atheisitc worldview. This is why the greater danger lurks
in institutionalized atheism and this has been shown to be
historically so and can be quantified in the largest body counts.
ornamentalmind
reflected that devotion in the form of institutionalized atheism. Was
it not atheism that was promoted within his regime? As Dostoyevsky
stated, ""Anything is permissible if there is no God." While
religions
have had their bloody seasons, to make a statement that they resulted
in the kind of body count that has been historically the case with
those who espouse the "there is no God" worldview, is a revisionist
view of history that has no basis in fact. Dostoyevsky was right. The
slaughter of the innocent is a natural appendage of the view that
there is no God...whereas such slaughter within the ranks of the
religious is an unnatural growth(cancer) that is quickly recognized
and cut out before it can do the kind of damage we see in regimes
based on the atheisitc worldview. This is why the greater danger
lurks
in institutionalized atheism and this has been shown to be
Yar
Yar, conflating Dostoyevsky and Mao is problematic. Of course, many
today cling to a similar belief about Mao and atheism so your view is
understandable in the current milieu. Having lived during the entirety
of his reign of the PRC and having read his Red Book a few times, the
situation is much more complex than is often presented. A telling
entry found in chapter 21, “Self-Reliance and Arduous Struggle”, of
his Reb Book follows.
“There is an ancient Chinese fable called "The Foolish Old Man Who
Removed the Mountains". It tells of an old man who lived in northern
China long, long ago and was known as the Foolish Old Man of North
Mountain. His house faced south and beyond his doorway stood the two
great peaks, Taihang and Wangwu, obstructing the way. With great
determination, he led his sons in digging up these mountains hoe in
hand. Another graybeard, known as the Wise Old Man, saw them and said
derisively, "How silly of you to do this! It is quite impossible for
you few to dig up these two huge mountains." The Foolish Old Man
replied, "When I die, my sons will carry on; when they die, there will
be my grandsons, and then their sons and grandsons, and so on to
infinity. High as they are, the mountains cannot grow any higher and
with every bit we dig, they will be that much lower. Why can't we
clear them away?" Having refuted the Wise Old Man's wrong view, he
went on digging every day, unshaken in his conviction. This moved GOD,
and he sent down two angels, who carried the mountains away on their
backs. Today, two big mountains lie like a dead weight on the Chinese
people. One is imperialism and the other is feudalism. The Chinese
Communist Party has long made up its mind to dig them up. We must
persevere and work unceasingly, and we, too, will touch GOD's heart.
Our GOD is none other than the masses of the Chinese people. If they
stand up and dig together with us, why can't these two mountains be
cleared away?” – “The Foolish Old Man Who Removed the Mountains” (June
11, 1945), Selected Works, Vol. III. P. 322
His poetry is interesting too:
“Winds flap the sail, tortoise and snake are silent, a great plan
looms. A bridge will fly over this moat dug by HEAVEN and be a road
from north to south. We will make a stone wall against the upper river
to the west and hold back steamy clouds and rain of Wu peaks. Over
tall chasms will be a calm lake, and if the GODDESS of these mountains
is not dead she will marvel at the changed world.” - The Poems of Mao
Tse-tung, Harper & Row June 1956
“The GODS on the death of his wife Yang Kai-hui I lost my proud poplar
and you your willow As poplar and willow they soar straight up into
the ninth heaven and ask the prisoner of the moon, Wu Kang' what is
there. He offers them wine from the cassia tree. The lonely lady on
the moon, Chang 0, spreads her vast sleeves and dances for these good
SOULS in the unending sky. Down on earth a sudden report of the
tiger's defeat. Tears fly down from a great upturned bowl of rain.” -
The Poems of Mao Tse-tung, Harper & Row May 11, 1957
“Saying Good-bye to the GOD of Disease (2) Thousands of willow
branches in a spring wind. Six hundred million of China, land of the
GODS, and exemplary like the emperors Shun and Yao. A scarlet rain of
peach blossoms turned into waves and emerald mountains into bridges.
Summits touch the sky. We dig with silver shovels and iron arms shake
the earth and the Three Rivers. GOD of plagues, where are you going?
We burn paper boats and bright candles to light his way to HEAVEN.” -
The Poems of Mao Tse-tung, Harper & Row July I, 1958
“Saying Good-bye to the GOD of Disease (1) Mauve waters and green
mountains are nothing when the great ancient doctor Hua To could not
defeat a tiny worm. A thousand villages collapsed, were choked with
weeds, men were lost arrows. GHOSTS sang in the doorway of a few
desolate houses. Yet now in a day we leap around the earth or explore
a thousand Milky Ways. And if the cowherd who lives on a star asks
about the GOD of plagues, tell him, happy or sad, the GOD is gone,
washed away in the waters.” - The Poems of Mao Tse-tung, Harper & Row
July 1, 1958
Overall, I invite you to study Mao’s works in depth. They are in fact
filled with idealism. Some even associate him with Taoism.
http://taoism21cen.com/Englishchat/essay4.html
His entire Red Book is found here:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/1959695/Mao-Zedong-the-little-red-book
Nowhere in it is the term atheism found, by the way.
And, I am aware that none of this says much in detail about the man
nor atheism in particular. I merely present it to help support other
entries about the complexity of the political realities involved as
well as to put a little of the man’s words on the page.
Pictures: http://voyage.typepad.com/lfc_images/Chairman_Mao_Visit_Guangdong_Country.jpg
One resource:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mao_Zedong
frantheman
On 29 Dez., 18:00, "yarr...@aol.com" <yarr...@aol.com> wrote:
This is why the greater danger lurks
> in institutionalized atheism and this has been shown to be
> historically so and can be quantified in the largest body counts.
The size of the body counts have more to do with the fact that the
latest crop of tyrants, like Mao, Stalin, Hitler, et al, (where such
tyrants were not motivated by religious ideology) ruled during the
20th. Century, the period where world population density and the
technical possibilities enabled a larger body count than in earlier
times. Raskolnikov's premiss is contradicted daily by the hundreds of
thousands of agnostics and atheists who find non-religious motivations
to live and act morally. The corresponding premiss to Raskonikov's on
the religious side is "Deus vult" (alt. "Deus lo vult") - "God wills
it" - the popular motto of acclamation of the First Crusade.
(By the way, I find your description of Mao as a "devout atheist"
somewhat confusing. "Convinced", ok ... but "devout"?)
Francis
Slip Disc
aside from the existence of a God. Atheism is not universal label for
wanton killing without a conscience.
yar...@aol.com
I offer historical realities and you offer fairy tales and poetry to
bolster what....political realities?(I'm a bit flabbergasted at
fiction used as evidence for reality) Just how does 70 million dead
people at the hands of a system that has no restraining factor because
they think they can get away with it and _never_ have to answer to
anyone for it, figure into this complex political reality? I don't
think it is all that complicated. If someone in position of power has
no one above him to answer to and has the power(and he thinks he can
get away with it), he will do what he wants even if it means the death
of tens of millions to get his way. This is a picture of absolute
power corrupting absolutely.
yar...@aol.com
On Dec 29, 2:01 pm, frantheman <francis.h...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On 29 Dez., 18:00, "yarr...@aol.com" <yarr...@aol.com> wrote:
> This is why the greater danger lurks
>
> > in institutionalized atheism and this has been shown to be
> > historically so and can be quantified in the largest body counts.
>
> The size of the body counts have more to do with the fact that the
> latest crop of tyrants, like Mao, Stalin, Hitler, et al, (where such
> tyrants were not motivated by religious ideology) ruled during the
> 20th. Century, the period where world population density and the
> technical possibilities enabled a larger body count than in earlier
> times. Raskolnikov's premiss is contradicted daily by the hundreds of
> thousands of agnostics and atheists who find non-religious motivations
> to live and act morally. The corresponding premiss to Raskonikov's on
> the religious side is "Deus vult" (alt. "Deus lo vult") - "God wills
> it" - the popular motto of acclamation of the First Crusade.
Yeah...why don't you just tell us how many deaths are attributable to
them. Furthermore, I would like to point out that it is quite clear
that the crusades were, even then, considered to be an aberration by
the vast majority and most of the crusaders were hardly churchgoers.
As to morality, it is an obligation to persons that we talk to when we
speak of morality. Just what obligation do I have to you to behave
morally? What obligation do I have to anyone for that matter to do so?
There is no doubt that everyone has the moral intuition that tells
them what is right and what is wrong. Certainly everyone is capable of
behaving morally and even come up with rationalizations that seem to
make sense for motivations that might drive the behavior. But to make
sense of it...to determine why I have an obligation to you to behave
in a moral way toward you...you are not my superior, but my
equal...so, why should I? Without God, you can't answer the "Why
should I" question. This is especially true since I would be much
better off by robbing you and killing you and getting away with it. If
I stand to benefit, I should do that which benefits me.You might say
that my not doing this would enhance the survival of the group which
enhances my own survival. This describes my being moral in order to be
more efficiently selfish? Selfishness is not exactly the height of
morality and this whole notion is just plain silly and senseless. In
fact, reducing morality to selfishness is not morality at all.
>
> (By the way, I find your description of Mao as a "devout atheist"
> somewhat confusing. "Convinced", ok ... but "devout"?)
As most religious people will tell you...conviction leads to
devotion. So, it is not such a giant leap from one to the other at
all. That he dedicated his life's work to it is sufficient evidence of
his devotion. Why you would not find such evidence compelling, only
you can answer.
yar...@aol.com
On Dec 29, 3:28 pm, Slip Disc <bug...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dostoyevsky was wrong, simply by virtue of morality which can exist
> aside from the existence of a God. Atheism is not universal label for
> wanton killing without a conscience.
I think more accurately stated, atheists as a whole do not engage in
wanton killing without conscience. However, atheistic philosophy is
fertile ground for justification of killing. Human beings being what
they are, without conscience is generally not the condition they find
themselves in. There can be no sense made of morality from the
worldview provided by atheism...although atheists are fully aware of
its incumbency they cannot make any sense of it. Simply responding to
that incumbency by behaving morally, does not mean they can.
The whole thing usually boils down to moral behavior being driven by
selfish(immoral) reasons. I won't mistreat you so that you won't
mistreat me. Morality is given birth to by immorality. Is this a
rational explanation for the origin of morality? It leads down the
slippery slope that leads to only one statement being true "The most
immoral man is the most moral one." To believe this is insane.
ornamentalmind
has no restraining factor because
they think they can get away with it and _never_ have to answer to
The same way it does in any political reality. Of course, your
characterization is opinion alone and in no way supported. And, IF you
are not schooled in argumentation, you might want to take a look at
this.
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#slogan
On the other hand, if you already know that, we do too.
Overall, it is quite strange that I am reduced to being an apologist
for Mao!
Well, perhaps you didn’t read all of my words, caveats nor links
either - thus the confusion. From one:
“…Mao remains a controversial figure to this day, with a contentious
and ever-evolving legacy. He is officially held in high regard in
China as a great revolutionary, political strategist, military
mastermind, and savior of the nation. Many Chinese also believe that
through his policies, he laid the economic, technological and cultural
foundations of modern China, transforming the country from a backward
agrarian society into a major world power. Additionally, Mao is viewed
by many as a poet, philosopher, and visionary, owing the latter
primarily to the cult of personality fostered during his time in
power. As a consequence, his portrait continues to be featured
prominently on Tiananmen and on all Renminbi bills.
Conversely, Mao's social-political programs, such as the Great Leap
Forward and the Cultural Revolution, are blamed for causing severe
famine and damage to the culture, society and economy of China. Mao's
policies and political purges from 1949 to 1975 are widely believed to
have caused the deaths of between 50 to 70 million people. Since Deng
Xiaoping assumed power in 1978, many Maoist policies have been
abandoned in favour of economic reforms.
Mao is regarded as one of the most influential figures in modern world
history, and named by Time Magazine as one of the 100 most influential
people of the 20th century...”
End copy/paste
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mao_Zedong
Clearly he is controversial. And, I thought the current issue/topic
here at ME was the good that men do and perhaps theism/atheism…perhaps
I missed your intention/position. So far, I have seen two posts on the
topic by you. One was a rant against ‘evil’ men and the other a
mishmash about ideology and theology, so, I have no idea what your
actual argument/view/position is, other than a strong one.
Of course, when it comes to one person’s opinion about who is ‘evil’
and who is not, the millions who died under his regime, most due to
crop failures, were over a period of over ¼ a century. IF one were
willing to analyze how other leaders faired for such a duration and
over a similar quantity of people, it is easy to argue that he didn’t
do that badly.
And, clearly there has been no support presented for the argument
about the link between atheism and deaths…other than numbers and
opinions and beliefs.
> power corrupting absolutely.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Vamadevananda
characterization is opinion alone and in no way supported. And, IF you
are not schooled in argumentation, you might want to take a look at
this."
OM, I find in this post of yours an attempt to put down your
interlocutor ! In fact, I myself found your previous post to be an
apology for Mao, his beliefs ( idealism ), his emotions ( poetry ),
when it does nothing to address Yar's simple recall of wanton
destruction and deaths that Mao's and Stalin's convictions caused to
the world.
I have no difficulty appreciating any of the positions people have
taken in this discussion. One particularly foolish train of thoughts
was linking of God and religion with fairy - tales and crusades, and
jihadists today. I can also see that actions of Mao, Stalin and Hitler
cannot be entirely attributed to their atheist view. But that does not
lead me to the contrary conclusion, that it was not an attribute at
all. How much or how far or deep, I would not really know, other than
that it was.
Sadly, atheist Europeans and Americans continue to view religion as
what it does to the individual and mobs through emotional charge and
discharge. They have yet to experience religion as that which engages
the intellect ( knowledge ) and mind ( questions and doubts ). There
just doesn't seem to be enough of that in their tradition. For
instance, they might find it inconceivable that a religious tradition
can actually give a call to " burn all books " or to " turn away from
the highest of the high, if one judges that there is no truth in what
they are saying."
And, yes, Dostoevsky is right in the historical - psychological -
epistemological context of our yet evolving individual and society.
For most of us, indeed, everything is permissible if there is no God,
quite like the devastating freedom a suicide ( bomber ) can assume.
The fact that you or I may yet take hold of ourselves ( as Nietzsche
advocates ) does not render the statement as wrong or incorrect, in
general practice.
How many Zarathushtras have you come across in your 70 years ?
On Dec 30, 10:49 am, ornamentalmind <ornamentalm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> “Just how does 70 million dead people at the hands of a system that
> has no restraining factor because
> they think they can get away with it and _never_ have to answer to
> anyone for it, figure into this complex political reality?” – yar
>
> The same way it does in any political reality. Of course, your
> characterization is opinion alone and in no way supported. And, IF you
> are not schooled in argumentation, you might want to take a look at
> this.http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#slogan
> End copy/pastehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mao_Zedong
> ...
>
> read more »
fiddler
that Mao felt the state needed absolute control, something it could
not have while whole family units and religious philosophies existed.
You are correct, he was a Taoist. But, even were someone to call him
simply an atheistic taoist, they would be incorrect. He replaced god
with state, he didn't accept that man must do and be the best simply
because man must do and be the best. Instead he took the belief, like
so many do, that mankind must be led to water AND forced to drink.
On Dec 29, 12:36 pm, ornamentalmind <ornamentalm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Pictures:http://voyage.typepad.com/lfc_images/Chairman_Mao_Visit_Guangdong_Cou...
ornamentalmind
interlocutor ! …” – Vam
So Vam, pointing out a fallacy is now considered a put down? I think
not.
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#slogan
He was ‘guilty’ on more than one occasion of this fallacy and I wanted
something ‘real’ in his responses.
“… In fact, I myself found your previous post to be an
apology for Mao, his beliefs ( idealism ), his emotions ( poetry ),
when it does nothing to address Yar's simple recall of wanton
destruction and deaths that Mao's and Stalin's convictions caused to
the world….” – Vam
Uhhh, yes, I do believe that I admitted to being ‘reduced to being an
apologist’, did I not? And, in countless ways Mao *was* an idealist,
few even attempt to refute this. And, his poetry stands on its own.
Further, in the previous post I said what I didn’t address, although
somehow, even though his post started out and was peppered with
assumptions about atheism, which I thought was his point…though later
I did say it was difficult to tell…I kept my earlier points directed
toward this belief structure about the moral nature of atheism, which
I can only guess that you agree with Vam. While I can see that some
actions of some people could be interpreted through this lens, in no
way is nor has it been demonstrated to be the case in general. So, the
post was much more than a ‘simple recall of wanton destruction…’. The
main point appeared to be a belief about how ‘convictions caused’ them
to act the way they did. This is what I was addressing and still do
not see anything to support the view that atheists somehow act
differently based upon their belief (or lack thereof) structures
alone. Somehow, it appears to me that theists project a lack of innate
morality upon atheists which on the surface may appear to work but in
reality is only a projection about what one sees as ‘evil’.
“…How many Zarathushtras have you come across in your 70 years ?” –
Vam
In fact Vam a handful in just the last couple of years. I wish there
was more left of the original tenets of this system. My guess is that
it was wonderful. Unfortunately, almost all of the priests of the sect
were killed hundreds of years ago and most was lost.
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
ornamentalmind
same sort of apparent need to use force when implementing any ideology
is universal. If pondered, many correlates can be found.
> > > historically so and can be quantified in the largest body counts.- Hide quoted text -
fiddler
kampf, or google a little. Mao and Stalin were not atheists, they were
people that wanted absolute power and were therefore anti religious
because religion is a mass mind control method. They did in fact,
replace religious figureheads with themselves and their "party."
God is a fairy tale, as are all religions and their figureheads.
To say that "everything is permissible if there is no god" says a
great deal about the lack of morality among those of faith, it says
nothing about the majority of people who still would not murder if
they weren't threatened with an eternal game of demonic grab-ass.
On Dec 29, 11:08 pm, Vamadevananda <atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ...
>
> read more »
Vamadevananda
Which God or what God did you mean when you used the word in your
sentence ? Maybe you do know enough.
As for me, I see God, live God. Its reality is more real to me than
anything else in this universe ! That I am, makes the fact self -
evident.
" ... majority of people who still would not murder if they weren't
threatened ..."
Obviously, you have the numbers. So, what is the number of people who
would ...
1) ... murder when threatened ?
2) ... murder even if not threatened ?
3) ... not murder even when threatened ?
4) ... not murder if not threatened ?
And, you probably already know this, you need not froth from the
corners of your mouth while participating in a discussion here
> ...
>
> read more »
Vamadevananda
support the view that atheists somehow act differently based upon
their belief (or lack thereof) structures alone."
There is something blind in what you are saying. How can any belief
system not have an impact on how we behave, think and act ?
I would see the matter as a process. Moral and ethical values may be
learnt and assimilated in our belief structure through religious
thought contemplated upon, through philosophy and critical thought
contemplated upon, through life's experiences contemplated upon ...
etc.
The trouble is most people, for a variety of reasons and causes, do
not so contemplate or examine their life's experiences. Even those
minority who do are not able to retain or assimilate their learning or
conclusions because of poor ' memory ' that gets overtaken or
superceded by the next impositions on the mind or by unsettling
distractions.
I agree, in view of the process, that we all need to outgrow our
respective religions. But, until we do, until we actually have
assimilated our values with our very self, religion and God do serve
the majority to remind us and keep us moderated, on the middle path.
The real culprits, in my view, are lack of enough contemplation and
self - examination, and consequent absence of adequate learning, which
results in devastation compounded by concentration of power in the
hands of individuals who yet believe that " power flows out of the
barrel of a gun " or that " ends justify the means."
Until we individuals have the power to moderate ourself, our emotions,
our thought, our speech and action, a man without God or religious or
community moorings is likely to be akin to a suicide bomb waiting to
explode !
On Dec 30, 12:43 pm, ornamentalmind <ornamentalm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> “OM, I find in this post of yours an attempt to put down your
> interlocutor ! …” – Vam
>
> So Vam, pointing out a fallacy is now considered a put down? I think
> not.http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#slogan
> ...
>
> read more »
Pat
On 30 Dec, 07:28, fiddler <kenandk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hitler was a devout christian, simply read his speeches, read mein
> kampf, or google a little. Mao and Stalin were not atheists, they were
> people that wanted absolute power and were therefore anti religious
> because religion is a mass mind control method. They did in fact,
> replace religious figureheads with themselves and their "party."
>
> God is a fairy tale, as are all religions and their figureheads.
>
Of course God is a tale. So are the tales of Hitler, yet he existed.
And, in some respects, still does (the atoms that were once him still
exist somewhere). If you are saying 'God is ONLY a fairy tale', then
THAT is a statement that simply cannot be backed up and, in fact, is,
clearly, 'only a tale'.
> To say that "everything is permissible if there is no god" says a
> great deal about the lack of morality among those of faith, it says
> nothing about the majority of people who still would not murder if
> they weren't threatened with an eternal game of demonic grab-ass.
>
{chuckles} Atheistic ethics are a great thing, no? Why is it that
they exist? For what purpose? From where did they issue forth?
'Murder' is a poor term, as it implies that there was 'no reason' for
the killing. Yet we all live in a cause-and-effect universe for which
there are sufficient causes for every effect. 'Murder', then, is an
opinion based on a lack of knowledge of the sufficient causes for the
effected death and 'killing' is allowed by the laws of physics.
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
frantheman
basis of morality. If I understand you correctly, yar, your argument
is that a theistic worldview is essential in order to ground morality.
In your own words, "Without God, you can't answer the "Why should I"
question." I would, however, like to carry the analysis a little
further with another question. If one, for the sake of argument,
accepts a "God" concept (presumably defining this in conventional
Abrahamic terms, an omnipotent, omniscient supreme being), then one
can still ask the question, "why should I do what is commanded by
God?" The general answer is because God will reward me if I do and
punish me if I don't. This is, after all, the basic concept behind the
argument for God as the ground for ultimate justice; after death, at
the Second Coming/Rapture, or whatever, God will settle all accounts
and those who have profited from evil and died comfortably in their
beds will get theirs in hell, while the righteous who have suffered
will enjoy eternal bliss.
There is, however, a problem with this, one which you yourself defined
in your next post in which you criticise non-theistic systems of
morality:
" The whole thing usually boils down to moral behavior being driven
by
selfish(immoral) reasons. I won't mistreat you so that you won't
mistreat me. Morality is given birth to by immorality. Is this a
rational explanation for the origin of morality? It leads down the
slippery slope that leads to only one statement being true "The most
immoral man is the most moral one." To believe this is insane."
Yet, theistic systems of morality also fall completely within this
category of criticism; surely, to act morally because I believe that
God will reward me if I do/punish me if I don't, also "boils down to
moral behaviour being driven by selfish(immoral) reasons," Indeed by
changing just one word in the next sentence, your comment fits
religiously-based moral systems perfectly: I won't mistreat you so
that GOD won't mistreat me.
Seen in this light, your paragraph shows perfectly the mechanisms by
which various religious regimes have exercised social control, be they
the Spanish or papal inquisitions, Calvin's Geneva, the holier-than-
thou societies in many of the early New England colonies, the demands
of ultra-orthodox groups in Israel, or various Sharia-based systems
like the Taliban-ruled Afghanistan, Wahabi Saudi Arabia and Sudan.
Religiously-based foundations for morality tend to lead towards a
conflation of private morality and societal systems of justice in
which right and wrong is defined by those who claim knowledge of God's
will.
After all, if I know what God wants and what, according to the
particular revelation and its interpretation I adhere to, is right and
wrong in every situation, then the viewpoints of those who don't agree
with me are simply wrong and, as such, need not be taken into account.
Or, as the old traditional Catholic social teaching put it; error has
no rights.
Our pluralist, secular western viewpoint, with such basic values of
the separation of religion and state, or tolerance is largely the
result of the ideas of thinkers, for the most part deeply sceptical
about and critical of the accepted theistic positions, who are
collectively described by the term "Enlightenment". I, for one, see
their model of society as better than the totalitarian alternatives,
whether religious or other.
Francis
fiddler
> ...
>
> read more »
yar...@aol.com
On Dec 29, 9:49 pm, ornamentalmind <ornamentalm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> “Just how does 70 million dead people at the hands of a system that
> has no restraining factor because
> they think they can get away with it and _never_ have to answer to
> anyone for it, figure into this complex political reality?” – yar
>
> The same way it does in any political reality. Of course, your
> characterization is opinion alone and in no way supported. And, IF you
> are not schooled in argumentation, you might want to take a look at
> this.http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#slogan
> End copy/pastehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mao_Zedong
>
> Clearly he is controversial. And, I thought the current issue/topic
> here at ME was the good that men do and perhaps theism/atheism…perhaps
> I missed your intention/position. So far, I have seen two posts on the
> topic by you. One was a rant against ‘evil’ men and the other a
> mishmash about ideology and theology, so, I have no idea what your
> actual argument/view/position is, other than a strong one.
>
> Of course, when it comes to one person’s opinion about who is ‘evil’
> and who is not, the millions who died under his regime, most due to
> crop failures, were over a period of over ¼ a century. IF one were
> willing to analyze how other leaders faired for such a duration and
> over a similar quantity of people, it is easy to argue that he didn’t
> do that badly.
>
> And, clearly there has been no support presented for the argument
> about the link between atheism and deaths…other than numbers and
> opinions and beliefs.
Is only a belief or a fact that if there is no law, there is no crime?
Is it only a belief if there is no lawgiver, there is no law? Is it
just a belief that when there is no law, everyone is within his rights
to be a law unto himself and do whatever he wishes without any
restraint as long as he has the power with which to do it?
What could possibly be a justification for the taking of 70 million
innocent lives? The list you give fails to do so. No one has the right
to take the life of another without proper justification. You know
that this is true. I can think of only one or two instances where such
justification exists and materialistic enrichment has nothing to do
with those. Your example simply shows that selfishness on a societal
level is justification for the butchering of the innocent so that the
selfish appetites of a particular society can be satisfied. If
anything, your justification makes the crime worse and more deplorable.
fiddler
pink, flying elephants never existed, especially with purple polka
dots, does not require proof of any form, it is incumbent upon the
"believer" to provide proof in fantastical mythological creations.
The only morals or ethics that any person has are subjective. This is
not an atheistic concept. Morals cannot be something imposed upon us
by any form of deity, especially a nebulous and invisible all-knowing,
all-caring god. The concept of ethics is societal, not imposed. For a
moral to be imposed by the god of Abraham, they would need to be
constant among all three fan clubs. They would, in fact, need to be
constant within one fan club. As the meaning of morals has developed
and changed over time, no god can be a giver of morals, as the god
would not change over time.
Murder is a concept that has changed and is completely situational.
The concept of murder i use in the predatory, non reactive form, such
as a person that kills for joy or simply to amuse themselves. This is
a perfect example of a law that cannot be a god-given moral. If god
didn't want murder to occur, and one believes the bible or other texts
of the trilogy, murder would not be commanded by the same
god...repeatedly.
A human being has the ability to weigh the results of their actions,
religious or not. The religious decide not to make the decision
apparently, falling back on a bronze age goatherder for moral
direction. To claim that atheists cannot have a moral set is to mean
that you have no moral set, presuming of course you don't walk around
raping, murdering, stealing, keeping slaves, destroying other
churches, etc, all activities commanded or condoned by the Abrahamic
god in the writings.
On Dec 30, 6:24 am, Pat <PatrickDHarring...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> ...
>
> read more »
fiddler
Being that a capitalised "God" refers to the single Abrahamic entity,
I assume that to be the one in discussion when the singular is brought
up.
> As for me, I see God, live God. Its reality is more real to me than
> anything else in this universe ! That I am, makes the fact self -
> evident.
This doesn't make sense because: were some god to exist in this
pervasive manner, he wouldn't be hidden from all but those who
"accept" him. That you are is simply that: you are. No god needed or
even able to assist in your creation.
As for numbers, your own argument assumes numbers. If you feel that
all morals come from your own little(singularly) christian god, then
every christian obeys only by threat of punishment or needs to be told
by a vicar or priest whether or not something is wrong. This means
that christians must be like ravening animals, incapable of feeling
empathy or caring, chomping at the bit and held back by the leash of
god alone.
If we expand the god concept into the god of old and new testament( by
the way, i just realised how condescending "little god" sounded, I
meant little by the restrictive sense) there is a severe problem when
morals are assessed to be god given. All jews and christians now make
up the block of numbers and less detail is available on what is moral
or not. These morals are becoming more vague now and impossible to
assume as a constant, which is what a god given moral must be:
constant.
If we then expand into the third part of the trilogy, jews,
christians, and muslims now make up the numbers to be included. Now we
see the problem of an even more nebulous set of morals, impossible to
condense into a cohesive set. The condensing should be less necessary
if a god had indeed been a giver of morals.
As for simple numbers, christians compose about 75% of America and
correspondingly make up 78%, each religion is similarly represented.
Atheists compose of only 0.5% of the prison population, whereas in
overall population we make up around 10%. stats courtesy of the prison
boards.
On Dec 30, 5:22 am, Vamadevananda <atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> " God is a fairy tale, as are all religions and their figureheads."
>
> Which God or what God did you mean when you used the word in your
> sentence ? Maybe you do know enough.
>
>
> ...
>
> read more »
fiddler
ornamentalmind
crime?...” – yar
The way you present the question, the former.
“…Is it only a belief if there is no lawgiver, there is no law?...” –
yar
Yes.
“…Is it just a belief that when there is no law, everyone is within
his rights to be a law unto himself and do whatever he wishes without
any restraint as long as he has the power with which to do it?...” –
yar
Yes.
Of course, there was law under Mao, so the above is all hypothetical
and not applicable in reality.
“…What could possibly be a justification for the taking of 70 million
innocent lives? The list you give fails to do so. No one has the right
to take the life of another without proper justification. You know
that this is true. I can think of only one or two instances where such
justification exists and materialistic enrichment has nothing to do
with those…” – yar
I see that you set up a convenient question and answer it yourself as
well as are omniscient in that you know what I know. Perhaps no
response is necessary here.
Oh, wait, I’m not sure that I had a list justifying killing, did I? If
so, perhaps you could reprint it for me to check out.
And, thank you for presenting your argument:
“No one has the right to take the life of another without proper
justification.”
Of course, you haven’t supported it in any way nor do I expect you to
do so. You haven’t completed it by defining what justifications you
believe in. You haven’t shown how ‘materialistic enrichment’ is
involved.
“… Your example simply shows that selfishness on a societal level is
justification for the butchering of the innocent so that the selfish
appetites of a particular society can be satisfied. If anything, your
justification makes the crime worse and more deplorable.” – yar
First, it is not clear what you believe my ‘example’ to be. I’m not
aware of presenting one. Nor was there any direct reference to
‘selfishness on a societal level’. Nor was there any attempt at
‘justification’ of anything, let alone ‘the butchering of the
innocent’ that you suggest. While I do agree that humans have ‘selfish
appetites’, I’m not sure how you see that to be extended to ‘a
particular society’. To be clear, what I see as ‘selfish appetites’ in
this context is the desire to survive.
Again, I presented no justification so your projections about ‘crime’
and something being ‘more deplorable’ are all your own. Perhaps you
were addressing someone else’s post?
> anything, your justification makes the crime worse and more deplorable.- Hide quoted text -
Justintruth
I think you have missed the point.
While it is true that if you presume the conventional "Abrahamic"
terms *and* this is interpreted fundamentally meaning as a
fundamentalist would and if you believe in all the threat literally
then perhaps you are right.
However such a god does not exist nor is it the basis of any of the
major religions where here I presume to use the word in the non-
fundamentalist sense.
You still need to establish that if you do not presume the
conventional Abrahamic terms (or other fundamentalist terms) and
instead presume the God evident in the mystical religious traditions
then you must establish that there is a basis for morality once that
God is disregarded.
The problem is that the experiences that found religion are related
essentially to those that found ethics through its experience of "the
good". So you are left with the problem of founding an ethics in a
worldview where "good" doesn't exist - not just God but good.
In that worldview, one in which there is no good, all ethics and all
aesthetics become unfounded and a species competent in biological
technology would be justified in eliminating them - while at the same
time having no basis on which to found a decision to do so. Such an
attempt was made by Sartre I think. He founded his ethics on freedom
and I think it failed.
The intellectual tradition is clear and without some reference to God
of some kind there is no foundation for ethics because there is no
experience of the good.
Now, you might think that the experiences that confirmed atheists have
of the good is enough to found an ethics and I would agree. But that
experience is in fact an experience of God that has not been
understood. So in fact you need only show that the good that an
atheist experiences is unrelated to an experience of God. In fact you
can merely say what you mean by "good". Is it a feeling? Why is it
compelling?
Can you do that?
Justintruth
It seems to me that an argument for or against atheism could never be
made by an appeal to what people do or do not choose to do because the
actions of people are not causal with respect to the existence of what
is in question. Their actions seem to be irrelevant to what is in
question which is whether God exists. Ultimately it is a question of
fact, not a normal one as it is metaphysical, but still it retains
that character that means that you cannot just choose the answer based
on some advantage to you.
The idea of adopting a worldview based not on what is but rather on
whether that view will work for me fails for me because it leaves me
wondering how the world really is independent of my desire for it to
be a certain way. Mightn't it not also be in a way that, should I
believe it, I would be unhappy? I could never conjure a belief based
on some advantage that would accrue should I believe it. There has
always seemed to me a contradiction or a missing of the meaning of the
word "truth" or at least a missing of the idea of having a basis for
the truth in that kind of an argument. Not sure how others do it so
easily.
So any discrediting of the argument against atheism by arguing that
Mao, Stalin, Hitler et al were not really atheists seems to be even
unnecessary or certainly secondary. If there is no God and these men
believed it, and even if their belief caused their murdering, and even
if belief in the existence of God caused one to be murderous 100% of
the time, then it would not mean that there was a God - only that
belief in the truth that their wasn't - could cause one to be
murderous.
The fact is plainly obvious to me, on the other hand, that Mao,
Stalin, Hitler et al did not kill because of atheism or theism. I
think they would not even have found the question interesting. They
killed because either they failed to experience God or, more likely,
they experienced him and hated the choice of accepting their
limitations and realizing that "they" - their "identity" in the
limited sense was not God they flew into what is essentially a rage.
Their will was the problem. They are classic examples of demonic rage
and the will to power.
Of the three Hitler especially seemed to have the manners of a monk -
with the exception of his rages. He was not a hedonist but a very
restrained and disciplined, one might almost say contemplative,
demonic figure.
Then too we must realize that the actions of these leaders, while
perhaps describable as pivotal, were not alone responsible for the
evil. The evil that flowed was an example of a kind of human
sociological potential for evil. Especially in the peoples revolution
or in the purges of Stalin the process flowed only by giving license
to many, many ordinary people to execute their own demonic intentions.
Many, if not most of the murders conducted were not ordered from the
top but were part of the machinery of human dynamic that became
established. The key is to get a population where it becomes
fashionable to murder those who evidence reluctance to carry out
murder and also have simultaneously, within that population, a greater
desire to participate and live rather than not participate and die.
Once those two mindsets mix the fire is ignited and the fire burns
outward from the leadership without their continued direction and the
killing kind of mass produces.
As with all religious modes, evil is inherently sexual and it is this
that fuels the fire. I am afraid that we don't admit it but I believe
that the so called "true detective" stories, the ones that emphasize
the gore and confuse lust and death have more to do with the process
than any intellectual opinion on the existence or non existence of
God. It is not atheism I am afraid. It is perversion.
In my life we were always afraid that the evil would express itself in
nuclear war. It is a fact of history that that process of killing
within a country - killing of ones countrymen in a kind of a purge -
has resulted in far more actual deaths - and equally terrible ones -
and, since the bombings in Japan, no one else has been killed in
nuclear conflict. We missed the real problem of these homicidal
frenzies and how to prevent them.
Happy hunting.
Matthijs
So if I understand correcly by all of the information I just read, all
of you really have no clue of the central core from wich we base our
acts on. Concluding: All my actions could be based on making myself
feel better, but they could also be based on Winnie The Phoo.
Matthijs
archytas
bureaucracy-media now that reminds me of time spent in the Soviet
Block and reading on Stalin and Mao done long ago now. It is tame yet
in comparison, but still Orwellian. The lying that is going on and
the suppression of argument in favour of reports of amazingly
successful initiatives and 'success stories' generally is very scary.
Greenspan in the US has been a classic panderer to power, always
talking up the economy whilst surely knowing it was all about one
bubble after another and printing money. I sense a widespread
collapse of integrity, grace, virtue and even innocent observation.
Purpose is perhaps replaced by a much crasser ideology of 'success'.
Imagination also seems to have waned.
Given we can only be logically agnostic, I suspect atheism as
religious - one just needs too much faith to be sure of it. Detesting
the lies of organised religion is another matter. People seem to
neglect that one must take a step in faith in epistemology in the
scientific world-view - one still chooses (on the basis of epistemic
risk) 'evidential basing relations' in order to be positive about
scientific heritage. This is still an act of faith.
In recent years we have been encouraging emotivism and spin ahead of
proper informed dialogue and made this feel 'rational' by setting up
straw models of a harsh, cold 'objectivism' as the model of
rationality - which it is not (in fact this is a pathology). What we
have is a mess and broadly one created to drown what might be a
modern, rational sentiment in which we could find purpose. My guess
is pretty dark forces are at work.
gwilli...@aol.com
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
""Minds Eye"" group.
To post to this group, send email to mind...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to minds-eye+...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en.
fiddler
morals over time. But yes, many people on the other side have based
their morality on a character whose concept is less believable than a
talking bear.
Pat
On 30 Dec, 17:06, fiddler <kenandk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> You are confusing fairy tales with tales of the past. To state that
> pink, flying elephants never existed, especially with purple polka
> dots, does not require proof of any form, it is incumbent upon the
> "believer" to provide proof in fantastical mythological creations.
>
Rather, to state that "pink, flying elephants never existed,
especially with purple polka dots" is a positive assertion that leaves
the burden of proof on the one who asserts it. The fact that the
assertion is phrased using the term 'never' does not make it safe and
unimpeachable. To make such a statement does subtly imply that there
ARE believers, yet, there may actually be none. Poor logic, again.
The same holds true for those who assert that 'God does not exist'.
Yet, of course, those who would make such an assertion find it
difficult to accept the error of their logic. Dragons never
existed...The 'kimodo dragon' is proof against that, sa they still
exist, yet they are not the 'fanciful' dragon that is 'subtly' implied
by the phrase 'Dragons never existed'. In fact, Pterodactyls come
pretty bloody close.
> The only morals or ethics that any person has are subjective. This is
> not an atheistic concept.
Perhaps a misunderstanding of what I meant by 'atheistic ethics'. I
intended that there can exist 'ethics' without the necessity of the
holder OF those ethics having a belief in God.
>Morals cannot be something imposed upon us
> by any form of deity, especially a nebulous and invisible all-knowing,
> all-caring god.
Really? Just how would you go about proving that. That is, how can
you back up that morals cannot be imposed by an omnipotent (i.e.,
capable of doing that which is possible) entity? As for 'all-caring',
that's not an attribute I would associate with God, as I would say
that Omnipotence over-rules Omnibeficence. God, in order to BE
omnipotent, MUST be capable of doing those things which we PERCEIVE to
be evil. The perception of evil is what is subjective.
>The concept of ethics is societal, not imposed.
>For a
> moral to be imposed by the god of Abraham, they would need to be
> constant among all three fan clubs.
A fair assertion, if you have never read the Qur'an. However, The
Qur'an states that the Torah was corrupted (and we can demonstrate
that today's 'Torah' was compiled and redacted from 4 source
documents). With respect to 'The Gospels' (the 'Injeel' as referred
to in the Qur'an), there is no written work by the hand of Jesus, so
the New Testament, as it stands, can also be refuted. That leaves the
Qur'an. So, only one fan club.
>They would, in fact, need to be
> constant within one fan club. As the meaning of morals has developed
> and changed over time, no god can be a giver of morals, as the god
> would not change over time.
>
The Qur'an states that, whilst His message has not changed, it has
BEEN CHANGED by men over time. That was the whole reason for its
revelation, i.e., to set the record straight. Read the Qur'an if you
have the time, it's no crime and it IS internally consistent and
explains why others before differ and that THAT was due to corruption
over time or complete loss of source documentation of revelations.
> Murder is a concept that has changed and is completely situational.
> The concept of murder i use in the predatory, non reactive form, such
> as a person that kills for joy or simply to amuse themselves. This is
> a perfect example of a law that cannot be a god-given moral. If god
> didn't want murder to occur, and one believes the bible or other texts
> of the trilogy, murder would not be commanded by the same
> god...repeatedly.
>
But, if you read the Qur'an, you would understand that it is only the
will of God that occurs. What we perceive as 'murder' is done without
omniscience, so how can we, without omniscience, be sure that what
occurred was actually 'wrong'? There are plenty of reasons for God to
give good 'bad examples' to show us how we should NOT act. Murder was
never commanded. Killing was. The difference is necessity and, given
a space-time continuum and a cause-and-effect universe, all things
that HAVE occurred were, without doubt, necessary, as are all things
which will occur. Space-time contains ALL of space and time, the
future is already extant, we just haven't reached it yet.
> A human being has the ability to weigh the results of their actions,
> religious or not.
Yes, this is the ability to speculate. Couple that ability with the
profound lack of knowledge of the future and you're left with a
perfect illusion of 'free will'. But it IS just an illusion.
>The religious decide not to make the decision
> apparently, falling back on a bronze age goatherder for moral
> direction. To claim that atheists cannot have a moral set is to mean
> that you have no moral set, presuming of course you don't walk around
> raping, murdering, stealing, keeping slaves, destroying other
> churches, etc, all activities commanded or condoned by the Abrahamic
> god in the writings.
>
I never claimed atheists have no morals. In fact, for very many
years, I was atheistic and still maintained a code of behaviour. I
don't believe, for a minute, that a belief in a deity is required for
an individual to, as you say, weigh their behaviours before they act,
rather, it's a perfectly natural thing to do. Even other species have
that ability. With respect to the killings 'required' by God, do you
know how populous the world would be if they had NOT occurred and what
problems we'd be facing? Think about it. The plague (and many other
epidemics) and countless wars have culled us in such a way as to make
our life possible. Yet, we are STILL faced with a population
problem. Thankfully--and I mean that in a very tongue-in-cheek way,
yet with understanding of consequences--there are more epidemics and
wars in our future, which will allow mankind to continue to exist on
this planet for a few more years. Yet we ARE our own worst enemy and
the most expendable species on the planet. If we were all wiped from
the planet, the planet itself would, if it could, sigh a sigh of great
relief, as we have exploited it almost to the breaking point. Yet our
(not yours or mine, but that of mankind as a whole!!) arrogance
prevents us from seeing that.
frantheman
On 30 Dez., 23:22, Justintruth <truth.jus...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Francis,
>
> I think you have missed the point.
>
> While it is true that if you presume the conventional "Abrahamic"
> terms *and* this is interpreted fundamentally meaning as a
> fundamentalist would and if you believe in all the threat literally
> then perhaps you are right.
>
As usual, Justin, you cut right to the chase here. In fact, my post
was a very specific response to the specific mode of argumentation
used by yarrido which I interpreted (and I may be doing him/her an
injustice here) as espousing just that sort of religious
"fundamentalism" which you have often criticised here and an attempt
to question his/her arguments precisely on the level at which they
were posited.
Indeed, as a confessing agnostic (I am reluctant to use the term
atheist, since this implies for me a positive knowledge of the non-
existence of "God", a position I cannot take, as I will, hopefully,
explain a little further down), I go a long way with your argument,
particularly with regard to the - let's call them - "ultimate" terms
which play a major role in your thinking; Good, Beauty, Being and God
[perhaps these could serve as a new definition of "the four last
things":-)]. I have, however, two major problems with taking the
final, all-important step you do, or perhaps, it's just one problem,
seen from two different vantages.
In the first place, I have major doubts about the possibility of our
human language and reason being able to make any definitive statements
about things beyond the human phenomenological horizons. This is a
very complex area, about which many great thinkers have thought
deeply; Heidegger's "Kant and the Problem of Metaphysics" immediately
comes to mind, as does Wittgenstein's Tractatus. I have the impression
that, the closer we come to these horizons, the more reason falters
and language frays. In the end we are faced with the necessary
conditionality of our ineluctable anthropocentric reasoning, the
impossibility of removing the thinking (human) subject from its own
ratiocinations. Applied exemplarily to the Cartesian paradigm, the
difficulty (impossibility?) of moving from "cogito ergo sum" to
"cogitans essens" [please excuse my bog Latin!]. Of course, while this
position raises major problems for purely rational arguments for God,
it places the same problems in the way of positively affirmed atheism
- thus my earlier confession of agnosticism.
This brings me to my second point, or other vantage. Those reasoning,
non-fundamentalist theists who I know, know of, have read, or read of
(including your good self!) tend not just to argue from pure reason,
but usually also refer to a deep, personal experience of this
"otherness"/immanent transcendence/God/satori/the Good/oneness/grace,
call it what you will. I seem to recall your own epiphanic experience
of a road sign in this context, although I may be wrong - I'm too lazy
to research back posts here at the moment. This is an experience I
have not had. I have occasionally been subjected to the counter-
argument - usually from the fundamentalist believer corner, to use
your description - that I have closed myself to such an experience,
but I honestly don't think this is the case; I would describe my basic
attitude as one of expectant, (hopefully) serene waiting ... and
waiting ... and waiting. (Perhaps with a seasoning of searching, or -
to use your term - hunting!)
Indeed, biographically, I would go further. As those who know me
longer here know, I have spent a large part of my life as a confessing
believer, which even led me to spend nearly a decade as a member of
the Domincian Order. But this faith was always a "purely" rational
thing, a conviction of the head rather than the heart, which is
probably why I found myself growing beyond it. In addition came what
one might call a negative epiphany. While coming to terms with a
serious alcohol dependancy nearly ten years ago, I had the strong
personal experience (contradictory to that of most in the same
position) that getting "dry" was the result of my own strength and
preparedness to face up to uncomfortable and painful truths regarding
my own personality and history and that the God, who so many
recovering alcoholics discover as a strength and support, was in my
case conspicuously absent. I know there can be many explanations given
for this experience - Molly would refer to a "dark night of the soul"
and this may well be the case, though I have to say that I don't
experience it as dark.
A final comment; as you argue, I do tend to find my foundation for
ethics in existentialist themes - particularly in the hinged ideas of
freedom and responsibility within the context of a philosophical
anthropology, although I would take my inspiration from Camus rather
than Sartre. So, like Sisyphus, I'll go on pushing that f***ing rock
up the hill, and go on expectantly, hopefully, serenely, (quite
possibly futilely) waiting ... for God(ot)!
Francis
fiddler
compass than any other holy book and it's views on whether or not
other books are corrupted is irrelevant both to religion in general
and abrahamic cults in specific.
For an omnipotent god to have created and forced morals upon us, these
morals would be constant and consistent. Being that every societies
morals alter and evolve along with those societies, they could not be
external in nature.
I have no idea why you seem so enraptured by the Qu-ran, it simply
makes the same claims that every religion insists is true. "This is
the true path, others before were incomplete, corrupted, or wrong.
There will be no further revelation because this is the true path."
As for population and waste; yes, we have severe problems as a
species. I have long contemplated the likelihood of a stunning viral
mutation that is capable of taking the population total down quite a
notch. It seems to me that this becomes more likely every year,
because of the media's infatuation with misusing the words pandemic
and epidemic each time some new strain of nearly anything is
discovered. I think the swine flu is the tenth or so deadly epidemic
that will lay waste to society and rape cattle while stampeding women
or some such. Each hysterical bout of media screaming adds to an
overall fatigue, people that were scared of the avian flu, for
instance, weren't all that concerned with the swine flu.
> ...
>
> read more »
iam deheretic
Allan
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group.
To post to this group, send email to mind...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to minds-eye+...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en.
--
(
)
I_D Allan
Molly
thing. My suggestion is that you re-read the posts here of Justin,
Francis and Pat. You may find more insight into the impetus of our
actions than you give credit for here. I know I did.
On Jan 1, 8:41 am, iam deheretic <dehere...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I agree with you Matthijs, but that is normal here,
> Allan
>
> > minds-eye+...@googlegroups.com<minds-eye%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>
> > .
> > For more options, visit this group at
>
> ...
>
> read more »
Justintruth
I think you are right in saying there is something about language and
ontology that is ... dysfunctional?
I never did like the "faith is a gift" idea. But we dont seem to have
a "proof"
Enjoy
On 31 déc 2009, 16:58, frantheman <francis.h...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On 30 Dez., 23:22,Justintruth<truth.jus...@gmail.com> wrote:> Francis,
> > > Or, as the old traditional Catholic social teaching put it;- Masquer le texte des messages précédents -
>
> - Afficher le texte des messages précédents -...
>
> plus de détails »