While in the chat room you said
"I think that if there were a God that was everywhere, was al-powerful, and knew everything in the universe, it would be absurd and hilarious that She would give a Sh*t about our sex-lives. "
But let me ask you somthing you believe that there is no God but do you believe murder is wrong?
Yes, murder is wrong.
Do you believe lieing is not something you should do often.
It depends. Lies are necessary in certain circumstances. Whether it should be done "often" or not depends upon the reasons we lie.
If you do then you have morals. If you have morals where did they come from?
My "morals" come from reality. Values are subjective. Morality is not, as it comes from the facts of reality. Morals are the set of actions we do when we make choices in our lives based upon our values. We should always act in our own best self-interest, so that we can survive and have good lives.
Do you really think that a person who truly does not believe in god would go out and murder people? That would mean that you do not have real moral values. If you really base your morals upon a belief in a god (which I don't believe you do) then you have nothing. Your morals, if they are biblically based, are subjective and wishy-washy, and have no solid base.
Who is the one that is superior enough to set these standards that most of the world believes?
Nobody should. It's not about an authority setting standards. It's based upon civilization. It's silly for someone to call themselves a god and try to make rules for everyone to follow, for the only reason that he threatens them with eternal punishment for non-eternal rule-breaking. That is quite immoral, don't you think?
If there is someone this superior enough to set them, which if you said yes to either of the two previous questions, then they would be known as a God therefore there is a God. The God.
Nobody can set the kind of standards to keep you alive. The standards exist as the rules of reality. The laws of nature are fine as they are. We don't have to anthropormorphize them into something that looks like us. That would be just silly.
Sincerely,
Alleee
http://www.hellboundalleee.com
16 comments:
Mike has asked me why I don't criticize other religions, like Scientology, that are, apparently, "politically correct." I will allow the dumbass to spend some time looking at my other websites before he may post again. I am being very kind, as his post makes him look even more idiotic than it did before.
said...
No, Europe Bound. Morals did exist when we were primitive. But I'm not sure what you mean: prosciptive or desciptive? Morals as in what is moral, or morals as in an emergent property of deciding what's the best course of action?
Yes, murder mattered. Murder matters in any group. I'm really not sure how you came up with that conclusion. Why would any civilization, primitive as it was, be simply "dog eat dog?" Even dogs have to live together in packs. They chose family groups. As Franc describes it, "If you say 100,000 years ago, I wouldn't have a problem with it [the idea that we didn't have morals].
I've been trying to explain it more simply. But so far what I'm trying to say is that morality is an emergent property of the brain of a being that has cognition of identity. You can say that it is a moral act to eat, and stay warm and healthy.
I think it is a mistake to talk about morality simply as "what is right and what is wrong." Morality should not be anthropormorphized. Morality is like a property of deciding between actions. It's not like "that man is moral." It's mlore like "that man has a moral decision to make." And if he wanted to survive and promote his genes, he had to make moral decisions every day, all the time.
Remember, people 10,000 years ago had already started building houses for a thousand years, and had shamans, etc. Unless you meant to add a zero. Brains took some time to evolve--so I think you were on the right track.
Some interesting observations! I think that the religion racket did help advance civilization at first, but it has outlasted its usefulness to a point that would make it absurd if it wasn't so tragic. Some things about humankind have been deliberately obscured by the religious formula. We are animals. We are pack animals. We are omnivores and scavengers. As such, we cooperate. Cooperation creates rules of behavior. Simple rules of behavior involve a pecking order. Infractions of those rules creates retribution that goes unchallenged by the rest of the pack. From this simplicity, more elaborate rules develop, and with rules, social enforcement also develops. Morality is an internalization and acceptance/rejection of the present social order. Rejection can take the form of transcendence (creating a higher moral standard for one's self) or descent (adopting a ... less social (?) moral standard). In any case, accepting a rule of conduct because you believe that, if you don't, an angry god will punish you with bad karma and halitosis, is not morals, it is fear.
Exactly. It cannot be morality if it comes from the end of a gun.
I just watched a great movie today--"Spring Forward," starring Ned Neatty. It was basically two guys, one in his 60's, one in his early thirties--talking during work. The older guy was talking about church and spirituality seminars, etc. He said that people inherently want to do good anyway. They go to church or these retreats, use it as an excuse to do good, then the institutions say, "you did a good deed, now give us money." I thought that was pretty wise. You would have done the good deeds anyway, but the religious organizations make themselves middlemen.
I'm not saying humans are inherently "good." I think humans cannot be either "good," or "evil." I think dualism is "evil." Humans have an inherent desire that's born to them, to "do good." To live a good life, to succeed, to be happy. Some of us are fucktards, and have no idea how to do it. SOme of us are born with messed-up heads that don't give us the ability to--empathize, see beyond the present, see beyond short-term needs, etc. MOst of us are totally lazy. But nobody "is" good, or :is" evil. That's religion, not good sense.
Religion has outlived it's usefulness for those who have no need for it. Fortunately, it is much easier now to live without it's influence, however, I don't think it will disappear. There is evidence to suggest that a certain portion of the population is genetically prone to superstitious thinking. I have met many people that seem to possess very few analytical faculties. They need not be stupid but are more comfortable living in a fantasy world - not unlike the way many people respond to storytelling for instance. Part of this is indoctrination, but I'm sure that much of it is endemic and religion has evolved (sic)as an art for the purpose of harvesting thier will.
Saying religion evolved is totally and completely accurate. Religion, I think, evolved from the same source originally. Just like us.
Indeed religion evolved. I have been studying Zoroastrianism, the mother of many modern religions. Lots of the modern formulae can be traced back, but it is also apparent why this religion was supplanted by more "user friendly" versions.
"There is evidence to suggest that a certain portion of the population is genetically prone to superstitious thinking."
I think that this is due to unnatural selection. Religious institutions used to be much more aggressive in destroying those that they could not control.
"Moral law is so diverse"
No... people's opinions are diverse, just like people's position on the development of life. But Neo-Darwinism is a fact regardless of that diversity. In fact, given memetic evolution, we should EXPECT "moral laws" to be "diverse". That doesn't mean that moral objectivity is invalid. Read up on the difference between "description" and "prescription".
I have absolutely no problem saying that cannibalism and genocide is objectively immoral. Why should I think any way else? Just because some people are of the opinion that it is, matters not one tittle. We do not murder because we want to live.
This is not something I assumed everybody believes. Believe me, I know that many atheists mistakenly think that morality is relative. No, it is not. Morality is contextual. Not the same thing.
Culture is subjective. There is no objective boundary for a culture. There is, however, an objective boundary for an individual. And the sact that every individual makes moral choices is not subjective.
We must make the difference between proscriptive and descriptive, as Franc mentioned.
Cannibalism is objectively evil because the initiation of force is objectively evil. Obvious. I can't beleive a grown human being is arguing with me on the morality of cannibalism.
"There is no fact upon which you can base the moral judgment,"
It's called living in society, imbecile.
Hello fuckwit.
"Why is cannibalism objectively evil?"
Because the initiation of force is objectively evil.
"Why is the initiation of force objectively evil?"
Because the trader principle (principle of voluntary exchange) is objectively good. Dealing with people on a voluntary basis reaps more rewards for ourselves than dealing with people with violence or coercion.
"And what the fuck with your "imbecile" comment you dickless bastard?"
Shut the fuck up.
"Do you think you've fucking solved ethical theory by holding to prescriptivism?"
Not me you idiots, there are people who wrote about this before me. Read David Kelley's Logical Structure of Objectivism, you fuckwit. He justifies every single value and virtue from a logical standpoint.
"Sure, utilitarianism/consequentualism is probably the most popular ethical formulation today"
Fuck you Nazi bastard. I bet you support killing the elderly because they don't benefit society, do you ?
"Read the link that I posted in my original comment you piece of shit because I think it makes a fucking good case for moral relativism."
NO ONE IS A MORAL RELATIVIST YOU IDIOT. NO ONE. NOT EVEN YOU, IGNORANT SLUT.
"An what kind of fucking pussy-ass name is francois anyway you fucking moronic asshole?"
I'm from Quebec you ignorant, chauvinist American pig. I'm sorry that you feel so threatened by other languages that you have to lash out.
Hi again fuckwit.
"You've defined moral relativism with your own typical fucking retarded definition and have dismissed it (if your fucking strawman only had a fucking brain)."
Idiot, let me quote your own posts :
"There is no fact upon which you can base the moral judgment, it is morally wrong for Hitler to exterminate Jews."
You just came out and said outright that there's no basis to say Hitler was morally wrong, you imbecile. That tells us everything we need to know.
Moral relativism is the belief that whatever a person decides is moral, is moral for himself. So if you decide that murdering the elderly is morally valid, then you're perfectly justified to do it. Cultural relativism is the extended belief that whatever a "culture" decides is morally valid. Not quite the same thing, but both have the same blatant disregard for facts and other human beings.
"Has this been proven by induction?"
No, it's been proven logically.
"Has it been proven that every person who 'dealt with someone on a voluntary basis reaps more rewards for themselves than if they dealt with people with violence'?"
That's not what morality says you fuckwit. It doesn't say that "every single person" who acts morally will have a better life. Ever heard of circumstances you fuckwit ? Do you think every moral person living in Nazi Germany had a great live, idiot ?
"Why is gaining rewards for yourself an objective moral good?"
That's not even a meaningful question, idiot. I think your feeble retarded mind is trying to grasp the phrase "fulfilling your values" and failing miserably.
"I'm saying that it is one ethical theory among many"
No it's not, you fuckwit. That's like saying Neo-Darwinism is "only one theory about the diversity of life". IT'S THE ONLY SCIENTIFIC ONE !
"I don't know, it depends how old you are, you shit."
Wow, you truly are a murderous shit. You really support killing the elderly ? And YOU want to tell US about morality ?
Wow.
Please die.
Bleeding Isaac:
"An what kind of fucking pussy-ass name is francois anyway you fucking moronic asshole?"
You lost, Bleeding Isaac. And not just "it." However, regardless of the effort you put in to make me believe otherwise, I don't think you really are racist or homophobic. I don't want to say it, but I hjave to at this point, respond by saying "what kind of Jew name is isaac? Are you some kind of pussy accountant or dentist?" Same thing.
You lose.
I'm sorry, but I must abandon this discussion. I can explain the illogic of coercion, but I'm not going to discuss reasonably with someone who seriously advocates killing the elderly. Either he's lying or he's crazy, and I really really really hope he's lying.
Thread closed.
Post a Comment