Thoughts of a Dying Athiest
- Thread starter Nine_Milla_Killa
- Start date
will987654321
Active member
yeah! ever since those blacks got the vote the country has gone down the tubes!
it's true that there is a lot of violence in movies and video games, sex is everywhere, and drugs are widely used. to me, this isn't really a surprise considering those things were not as easily available (i bet if people in the 50s had the internet, they wouldnt just use it to look up bible verses). i also think that even with all the supposed "moral decay" the country is treating real people fairer and more humanely than ever before (the "greatest generation" had containment camps for japanese americans, the US was the last industrialized nation to ban slavery, etc.). do you yourself remember how the living was back before the 1950s? i thought not. the "good old days" we hear so much about are a hoax.
it's true that there is a lot of violence in movies and video games, sex is everywhere, and drugs are widely used. to me, this isn't really a surprise considering those things were not as easily available (i bet if people in the 50s had the internet, they wouldnt just use it to look up bible verses). i also think that even with all the supposed "moral decay" the country is treating real people fairer and more humanely than ever before (the "greatest generation" had containment camps for japanese americans, the US was the last industrialized nation to ban slavery, etc.). do you yourself remember how the living was back before the 1950s? i thought not. the "good old days" we hear so much about are a hoax.
telestar6
Active member
Don't put words in my mouth. I said nothing of racism and human rights conditions in the past century. I was speaking only of the moral realm.
As far as racism goes just because it's illegal no doesn't mean it no longer exists.
What does slavery have to do with the 1950s. Don't try to throw some argument in there that has no bearing on the argument.
As far as racism goes just because it's illegal no doesn't mean it no longer exists.
What does slavery have to do with the 1950s. Don't try to throw some argument in there that has no bearing on the argument.
will987654321
Active member
no. your claim was "the country's morals have gone down since the 1950s" was it not? i gave examples to the contrary. i think the treatment of human beings is included in your moral realm, so it is relevant. racism exists, yet it is far less rampant than your good old days. slavery doesn't have to do witht the 1950s, segregation and treatment of african americans does. slavery came before that, which does fit into your timeframe. those examples do have bearing on the argument.
zerospinskier
Active member
how come about 99% of wars and battles that killed millions were over religion? if it didnt exist, would they have happened? i dont really know what to call myself. my family is catholic, but i dont know what i believe. theres too much science n stuff
will987654321
Active member
"since the 1950s"
this implies that the moral fabric of the country has always been intact before that.
this implies that the moral fabric of the country has always been intact before that.
Colloquial terms then, telestar.
If you could understand a simple line of thought, this wouldn't be difficult. You say the country's morals have decayed since 1950. They say, but hey, look at slavery, that's pretty immoral and it was before 1950. So I guess even long before 1950, our morals weren't that great, and all this "declining over the past 50 years" bullshit is just that.
So basically you're an idiot. And you still don't know anything about morality.
If you could understand a simple line of thought, this wouldn't be difficult. You say the country's morals have decayed since 1950. They say, but hey, look at slavery, that's pretty immoral and it was before 1950. So I guess even long before 1950, our morals weren't that great, and all this "declining over the past 50 years" bullshit is just that.
So basically you're an idiot. And you still don't know anything about morality.
alaskadrifter
Member
they would have just found a different reason. none of them were really about anything but power and controll obviously.
will987654321
Active member
no we aren't. you said, quote, "since 1950", thus comparing the country any time before 1950 to any time after 1950.
saying the country's morals have been declining since any point in time is just ridiculous. look at the morals of times past... slavery was cool and so was beating your wife. i know you teenage bullshits will say something about "yeah beat your women" but that shit isn't cool. also, by saying that morals have been declining is being very closed minded. religion is nothing but a tool to suppress masses of people, while keeping another group on top by witholding their idealistic morals and values. who cares if people wanna be gay together or if a woman wants to have an abortion? i certainly don't give a fuck. you and your church shouldn't either.
so bringing this back to a dying atheist... it's what an atheist believes, so it wouldn't be that big of a deal. if you believed in an afterlife for your entire existence and then found out, on your death bed, that there was none... then that would be traumatic. otherwise, an atheist on his death bed would be no different than a catholic or a jew on his/her death bed. different beliefs and different expectations.
so bringing this back to a dying atheist... it's what an atheist believes, so it wouldn't be that big of a deal. if you believed in an afterlife for your entire existence and then found out, on your death bed, that there was none... then that would be traumatic. otherwise, an atheist on his death bed would be no different than a catholic or a jew on his/her death bed. different beliefs and different expectations.
telestar6
Active member
Since could refer to only the year of 1950. But really this is just getting rediculus. I was only saying that for arguments sake. I really don't care about this thread, just like to argue. Though I do believe a decline in religion has also led to a decline in values. People are more sefl centered now and I just don't think peole hold a general respect for each other.
Dudes, morality is relative. Morality is between you and your god. If you have no God, Morality is between you and Society. In the 1950's it was cool to hang black people, and you have no god, then by all means, you can remain a moral person.
Be very careful when you start to say right and worng, cause who defines that?
its rhetorical.
ultimately no one can define right and wrong, so its still between you and your god.
And with a lack of god to regulate your decisions, you become a danger, embracing free will and making decisions based on whatever the fuck you want.
which is a highly volatile state of mind to be in. Im not going to be your friend, you may kill me over my peanut butter one day. Maybe karmic gods have influence over you whether you like it or not, even if The Big GUy doesnt, but thats no comfort top me, if Im the one with a butter knife sticking out of my eye.
just a thought though.
Be very careful when you start to say right and worng, cause who defines that?
its rhetorical.
ultimately no one can define right and wrong, so its still between you and your god.
And with a lack of god to regulate your decisions, you become a danger, embracing free will and making decisions based on whatever the fuck you want.
which is a highly volatile state of mind to be in. Im not going to be your friend, you may kill me over my peanut butter one day. Maybe karmic gods have influence over you whether you like it or not, even if The Big GUy doesnt, but thats no comfort top me, if Im the one with a butter knife sticking out of my eye.
just a thought though.
Sorry, dude, but morality is a philosophical SCIENCE.
It's not relative at all. People who say morality is relative to the individual are essentially saying Ted Bundy was right to rape and murder, people who say morality is relative to the culture are eliminating the idea of moral progress, condoning Hitler's Germany, and actually being entirely self-defeating.
There is so, so much reading in this and people don't even realize it because "it's all up to the individual' seems to a lot of people to be the default, easy answer. Well, it's not the RIGHT answer. What is the right answer? That's up for debate. But there IS a debate, and it's a debate that can be won and lost... well, lost, at least.
It's not relative at all. People who say morality is relative to the individual are essentially saying Ted Bundy was right to rape and murder, people who say morality is relative to the culture are eliminating the idea of moral progress, condoning Hitler's Germany, and actually being entirely self-defeating.
There is so, so much reading in this and people don't even realize it because "it's all up to the individual' seems to a lot of people to be the default, easy answer. Well, it's not the RIGHT answer. What is the right answer? That's up for debate. But there IS a debate, and it's a debate that can be won and lost... well, lost, at least.
Here's a paragraph from an essay that touches on this.
""... Then I learned that all moral judgements are "value judgements", that all value
judgements are subjective, and that none can be proved to be either "right" or "wrong."
-Ted Bundy
What of the supposition that there exists a public morality in the first place? Perhaps it is the case, rather, that morality is "in the eye of the beholder", as it were; something so subjective, in an abstract sense, that it should be in no way subject to legal regulation. This may be the simplest answer to the question "how ought we to act", as it offers definitional clarity (in that the meaning of "right" becomes "whatever each individual thinks is right") and appears to resolve moral disputes by suggesting that there is nothing to discuss, as each party is correct about morality, for him or herself. Though we might note that as a result the discussion of morality itself becomes something of a moot point, perhaps the moral subjectivist will be willing to accept this. Unfortunately, a number of other problems will arise. The most obvious of these is that we cannot criticize anyone's behaviour so long as they are acting in accordance with a moral principle they themselves hold. If Jane accepts the principle "I ought to kill people with blonde hair", we can hardly fault her for doing so. Essentially, if we accept that no single "value judgement" (as Ted Bundy characterizes ethics) such as "do not kill innocent people" can be shown to be right or wrong, then he is correct to allege that "if the rationality of one value judgement [is] zero, multiplying it by millions would not make it one whit more rational. Nor is there any "reason" to obey the law for anyone". While one might disagree with Bundy's principle that raping and murdering others is right, we have no cause to criticize him; he is as moral as Gandhi. Perhaps the greatest problem with subjectivism is that though it appears to solve moral disputes in society, as mentioned above, it in fact exacerbates them, as the wishes and beliefs of others need not have any bearing on the rightness of my actions. In essence, subjectivism fails to deliver us from the Hobbesian state of nature, which is, at its most basic, the function of a socially instituted moral system. If the moral rightness of something like homosexuality is relevant to the individual, and there is no reason to distinguish it from other actions, then morality loses both its purpose and its benefit to society. We cannot, therefore, conclude that private, subjective morality should hold sway." ...
""... Then I learned that all moral judgements are "value judgements", that all value
judgements are subjective, and that none can be proved to be either "right" or "wrong."
-Ted Bundy
What of the supposition that there exists a public morality in the first place? Perhaps it is the case, rather, that morality is "in the eye of the beholder", as it were; something so subjective, in an abstract sense, that it should be in no way subject to legal regulation. This may be the simplest answer to the question "how ought we to act", as it offers definitional clarity (in that the meaning of "right" becomes "whatever each individual thinks is right") and appears to resolve moral disputes by suggesting that there is nothing to discuss, as each party is correct about morality, for him or herself. Though we might note that as a result the discussion of morality itself becomes something of a moot point, perhaps the moral subjectivist will be willing to accept this. Unfortunately, a number of other problems will arise. The most obvious of these is that we cannot criticize anyone's behaviour so long as they are acting in accordance with a moral principle they themselves hold. If Jane accepts the principle "I ought to kill people with blonde hair", we can hardly fault her for doing so. Essentially, if we accept that no single "value judgement" (as Ted Bundy characterizes ethics) such as "do not kill innocent people" can be shown to be right or wrong, then he is correct to allege that "if the rationality of one value judgement [is] zero, multiplying it by millions would not make it one whit more rational. Nor is there any "reason" to obey the law for anyone". While one might disagree with Bundy's principle that raping and murdering others is right, we have no cause to criticize him; he is as moral as Gandhi. Perhaps the greatest problem with subjectivism is that though it appears to solve moral disputes in society, as mentioned above, it in fact exacerbates them, as the wishes and beliefs of others need not have any bearing on the rightness of my actions. In essence, subjectivism fails to deliver us from the Hobbesian state of nature, which is, at its most basic, the function of a socially instituted moral system. If the moral rightness of something like homosexuality is relevant to the individual, and there is no reason to distinguish it from other actions, then morality loses both its purpose and its benefit to society. We cannot, therefore, conclude that private, subjective morality should hold sway." ...
^ I dont agree that just because I said morality is relative to the individual means I think Ted Bundy was right. theres quite a leap there. First off, I dont know enough about his situation to aquedately judge his decision making and action taking, and even then, why should I judge his actions? Thats between him and his god.
Just because its a philosophical science doesn't mean it's not relative. Relativity doesnt inhibit moral progress either. It means theres no universal right and wrong, no code, no black and white. Its the grey area which is relative, and It is still up to us.
Just because its a philosophical science doesn't mean it's not relative. Relativity doesnt inhibit moral progress either. It means theres no universal right and wrong, no code, no black and white. Its the grey area which is relative, and It is still up to us.
No, because it's a philosophical science means that there are solid answers. Additionally, when the philosophical science proves that saying "morality is relative" makes about as much logical sense as saying "look at this 4-sided triangle I just drew", it definitely DOES mean things aren't relative.
Why it impedes moral progress: if we say "Culture x has different values and historical context, and therefore, we can't judge them. What they judge to be right in their culture IS morally right for them". Then we can't do so historically either: In Spain during the time of the inquisition, it was "right for them" to burn witches and torture people despite a lack of evidence. They aren't morally worse than we are, because their practices were right for their culture.
If you make it about individuals and not cultures, it gets even worse. You can make the translations easily enough... if Bundy's murders are right by his code, I can't criticize them, etc.
Relativism has been shown to be wrong... sorry, can't dismiss an entire philosophical discipline that easily.
Why it impedes moral progress: if we say "Culture x has different values and historical context, and therefore, we can't judge them. What they judge to be right in their culture IS morally right for them". Then we can't do so historically either: In Spain during the time of the inquisition, it was "right for them" to burn witches and torture people despite a lack of evidence. They aren't morally worse than we are, because their practices were right for their culture.
If you make it about individuals and not cultures, it gets even worse. You can make the translations easily enough... if Bundy's murders are right by his code, I can't criticize them, etc.
Relativism has been shown to be wrong... sorry, can't dismiss an entire philosophical discipline that easily.
Mr_Bojangles
Active member
hahaha...
if you hold your christian values so close to heart, why are a majority of americans filthy religious hypocrites who claim false piety?
Besides, the moral code religion preaches is arguably against human nature, we don't naturally care for others outside of ourselves and our families/those we love, why should we? some of us only do 'good' in this world because we fear a higher power, arguably this 'good' we are doing is holding our society/species back, such as allowing those with genetic disorders to survive, if we don't want genetic anomalies repeating themselves in future generations we should not allow those with genetic disorders to breed, same thing can be said about those with HIV, the human race is devolving, in other words going backwards as a species
That probably sounds shocking haha, but think about it...
and whoever suggested those articles above, since this kinda stuff interests me I shall definately take a look
if you hold your christian values so close to heart, why are a majority of americans filthy religious hypocrites who claim false piety?
Besides, the moral code religion preaches is arguably against human nature, we don't naturally care for others outside of ourselves and our families/those we love, why should we? some of us only do 'good' in this world because we fear a higher power, arguably this 'good' we are doing is holding our society/species back, such as allowing those with genetic disorders to survive, if we don't want genetic anomalies repeating themselves in future generations we should not allow those with genetic disorders to breed, same thing can be said about those with HIV, the human race is devolving, in other words going backwards as a species
That probably sounds shocking haha, but think about it...
and whoever suggested those articles above, since this kinda stuff interests me I shall definately take a look
Mr_Bojangles
Active member
haha hey I'm just throwing it out there, it is extreme but an interesting concept to consider
damn, this thread is deeeeep...
damn, this thread is deeeeep...
Mr_Bojangles
Active member
Also from an atheistic and nihilistic point of view, I try to understand or see some benefit of religion, sure it undoubtedly has it's pros, but the cons arguably outweigh them (the stuff i've been ranting about in other posts)
Pros, I mean take america, martin seligman (pyschologist, developed learned helplessness theory of depression) says that one of the main contributing factors to the increasing level of depression amongst adolescents is due to a lack of religion in their lives, that there is nothing out there bigger than themselves hence they develop symptoms of helplessness, also religion is essential to the humanistic perspective of psychology, a perspective that was founded to oppose the very stance I took in my last post and assumes that all humans are intrinsically good and that a higher power exists
coming from a psychological approach, yes religion plays a part in humam development according to the humanistic approach, an approach that is widely accepted, however I disagree with it's assumptions among other things (only applies to western culture, contrasts human nature and relies on qualitative evidence to support it's theories, if any at all), but one advantage is that it opposes freud and rejects determinism and reductionism, plus emphasises the role of religion in our lives
If you fellow NSers have no idea what I'm talking about, look up the following theorists:
Abraham Maslow
Rollo May
Victor Frankl
Carl Rogers
Sigmond Freud (if you want a laugh)
I appreciate that these distinguished psychologists recognise religion as an essential factor in our development and helps us achieve self actualisation, but putting less focus on the individual and looking at the broader picture, look at what religions done to this world and what it will do
My question is, yes religion is essential to the individual, but following your 'for the greater good' stance, does it benefit society as a whole?
No.
Pros, I mean take america, martin seligman (pyschologist, developed learned helplessness theory of depression) says that one of the main contributing factors to the increasing level of depression amongst adolescents is due to a lack of religion in their lives, that there is nothing out there bigger than themselves hence they develop symptoms of helplessness, also religion is essential to the humanistic perspective of psychology, a perspective that was founded to oppose the very stance I took in my last post and assumes that all humans are intrinsically good and that a higher power exists
coming from a psychological approach, yes religion plays a part in humam development according to the humanistic approach, an approach that is widely accepted, however I disagree with it's assumptions among other things (only applies to western culture, contrasts human nature and relies on qualitative evidence to support it's theories, if any at all), but one advantage is that it opposes freud and rejects determinism and reductionism, plus emphasises the role of religion in our lives
If you fellow NSers have no idea what I'm talking about, look up the following theorists:
Abraham Maslow
Rollo May
Victor Frankl
Carl Rogers
Sigmond Freud (if you want a laugh)
I appreciate that these distinguished psychologists recognise religion as an essential factor in our development and helps us achieve self actualisation, but putting less focus on the individual and looking at the broader picture, look at what religions done to this world and what it will do
My question is, yes religion is essential to the individual, but following your 'for the greater good' stance, does it benefit society as a whole?
No.
I completely agree.
I wasnt making an arguement FOR relative subjective morality as a solution. I was stating that God is the only true judge of moral decisions and actions, and God being an abstract idea of something greater than oneself.
I agree that learning from history, and compiling humanitys knowledge into a relativly cohesive coherent definition of right and wrong actions.
personally, I believe what you do or not do is not right or wrong unless it affects another living entity. Which is the first part of my construction of a moral fabric.
The second part is those actions that only affect myself as a living entity, and those actions are between me and my concept of god, which in my opinion are more important, becuse if I adhere to my conscisnce, My interactions with other living entities takes care of itself.
I wasnt making an arguement FOR relative subjective morality as a solution. I was stating that God is the only true judge of moral decisions and actions, and God being an abstract idea of something greater than oneself.
I agree that learning from history, and compiling humanitys knowledge into a relativly cohesive coherent definition of right and wrong actions.
personally, I believe what you do or not do is not right or wrong unless it affects another living entity. Which is the first part of my construction of a moral fabric.
The second part is those actions that only affect myself as a living entity, and those actions are between me and my concept of god, which in my opinion are more important, becuse if I adhere to my conscisnce, My interactions with other living entities takes care of itself.
Well, problems arise immediately with this arguement of de-evolution. We have to remember evolution is random mutations. Not more efficient bodies, or longer lasting ones. Having sick, retarted, or crazy people reproduce doesnt stop our evolution, it allows for just as many random mutations, and who knows what qualities will be beneficial in the future. We are enlarging our gene pool, creating, as stated in Waking Life, the Neo-Human who no longer is subjected to the cold, efficient evolutionary system of survival of the fittest, but instead begoins to select the human traits such as truth, loyalty, and love as the determining factors for evolution.
HAve you seen I an Sam? Its about a handicapped father who raises a daughter, he loves her more than a 'normal' person, and I challenge you to classify that as a de-evolution by allowing them to reproduce in the first place.
We are evolving, you cant say de-evolution, because youre bringing the idea of Right and Wrong into what should and should not BE.
HAve you seen I an Sam? Its about a handicapped father who raises a daughter, he loves her more than a 'normal' person, and I challenge you to classify that as a de-evolution by allowing them to reproduce in the first place.
We are evolving, you cant say de-evolution, because youre bringing the idea of Right and Wrong into what should and should not BE.
Is there really ANY action that doesn't affect others? Suicide and heavy drug use are the clasic examples, but it's easy to see how killing yourself would affect others...
Whether God is the judge of right and wrong doesn't matter, he can't be a "source" of morality either. DCT, Divine Command Theory: "X is right if God says it's right" was logically disproved way back in Socrates' day in the "Euthyphro":
http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/euthyfro.html
Essentially, God can be a reporter of morality (ie; a correct judge), but he cannot logically be its SOURCE unless we're willing to concede that his prescriptions are arbitrary. Which no informed religious person is willing to do.
Whether God is the judge of right and wrong doesn't matter, he can't be a "source" of morality either. DCT, Divine Command Theory: "X is right if God says it's right" was logically disproved way back in Socrates' day in the "Euthyphro":
http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/euthyfro.html
Essentially, God can be a reporter of morality (ie; a correct judge), but he cannot logically be its SOURCE unless we're willing to concede that his prescriptions are arbitrary. Which no informed religious person is willing to do.
almostaskier
Active member
which i did as an uninformed one... ah, memories.
I guess actions was the wrong word. I meant Thoughts. Thoughts transend into moral actions.
God cant be the source, but he can be a confidant. It seems I find myself coming up with a thought that makes sense, and then running it by a few places, one being WWJD, and seeing if it lines up, "making sense to me", and then running it by some part of society, to see if we also line up, if it makes sense. If we dont all agree, I will reasses, and try again. sometimes I try quite a few times, and sometimes I just cant come to a satisfactory conclusion, so I either remove myself from making that decision, or making it anyway and being open to the consequences.
I read Frankl's book mans search for meaning BTW. interesting stuff.
God cant be the source, but he can be a confidant. It seems I find myself coming up with a thought that makes sense, and then running it by a few places, one being WWJD, and seeing if it lines up, "making sense to me", and then running it by some part of society, to see if we also line up, if it makes sense. If we dont all agree, I will reasses, and try again. sometimes I try quite a few times, and sometimes I just cant come to a satisfactory conclusion, so I either remove myself from making that decision, or making it anyway and being open to the consequences.
I read Frankl's book mans search for meaning BTW. interesting stuff.
will987654321
Active member
what if a hermit with no ties to the outside world decides to kill himself?
alaskadrifter
Member
^^maybe he has a long lost relative...
underflipped
Active member
but then what... think about it, if your living right now, a thinking human, and then nothing forever? what hapens to you?
mindbogling
mindbogling
Even in that case, are we really prepared to say that the act has NO moral bearing? Kant would say that universalized, the act isn't logically consistent. But even if he's wrong, we don't necessarily need to answer the question "Is suicide morally permissible", just "Is any action that doesn't concern others beyond the bounds of moral consideration?" It seems to me that it can't be... "Ought I to kill myself" is a question that simply makes sense to ask.
will987654321
Active member
i thought i would answer your question, probably just to be a jerk. i wasn't trying to prove anything at all. honestly i have close to no knowledge of moral science, although i am interested. those are good questions, and i have to say i dont know.
take a psychology class and watch how aton of religious tradition banks on alot of psychological norms/phenoms, that coupled wiht alot of hsit ive been thinking about just makes me beleive religion sucks and was just a tool to control the masses. it sucks. i mean i dont' realy believe in god, and dyign literally scares the shit out of me now. it dominates my thinkign sometimes, it lieka pandoras box, i wish i had never thougth about it. i just try not to think about the blankness.
i realized this thought when i was like 7 or eight alone in my dark bed, prolyl the scariest moment of my life, but my mom said everythign was gona be ok, and it was and i think i had like mental blocks put on this shit. i think later in life i'm going to convince my self to beleive in god just to stay sane.
i realized this thought when i was like 7 or eight alone in my dark bed, prolyl the scariest moment of my life, but my mom said everythign was gona be ok, and it was and i think i had like mental blocks put on this shit. i think later in life i'm going to convince my self to beleive in god just to stay sane.
21, but I'm not a phil major.
The Euthyphro doesn't require polytheism... it just creates a dilemma for the DC theorist: Does God say right actions are right because they are (according to some other standard), or are right actions right simply because God says so (in which case rightness is arbitrary)? That's all the Euthyphro needs to accomplish to wreck DCT, although there are other problems; for example, it eliminates the meaning of the phrase "God is good"... but the whole polytheism thing is just an argument that the Greek Gods don't always seem to agree about what's right. That's a good argument if, like you say, the system is polytheistic, but the dilemma I paraphrased above (I think the original translation is "Do the Gods love piety because it is pious, or is it pious because the Gods love it) is the real criticism.
I don't know that the end is more important than the means... it's important that you know you have the right means (moral theory) to be sure you have the right end, isn't it? Or at least to try to find that correct path.
The Euthyphro doesn't require polytheism... it just creates a dilemma for the DC theorist: Does God say right actions are right because they are (according to some other standard), or are right actions right simply because God says so (in which case rightness is arbitrary)? That's all the Euthyphro needs to accomplish to wreck DCT, although there are other problems; for example, it eliminates the meaning of the phrase "God is good"... but the whole polytheism thing is just an argument that the Greek Gods don't always seem to agree about what's right. That's a good argument if, like you say, the system is polytheistic, but the dilemma I paraphrased above (I think the original translation is "Do the Gods love piety because it is pious, or is it pious because the Gods love it) is the real criticism.
I don't know that the end is more important than the means... it's important that you know you have the right means (moral theory) to be sure you have the right end, isn't it? Or at least to try to find that correct path.
honestly, taking psych has helped me alot when figuring out whats "right". i mean i trust myself and i feel liek i have a good moral compass, and i only make wrong ones when my reasoning faisl because i'm angry/peer pressured etc. alot of psychological phenoms/experimnents only work when the subjects are unaware of the effects (they have to be deceived into thinking an experiment is about A to measure B).
i mean on huge questions of right and wrong there is usually a very obvious choice, and the only reason crazy awful shit happens in the world is because of sheeple. like don;t kill all the jews, yes we should help the poor are all pretty easy revelations for a person to make...i guess what i'm sayign is knowledge is power, and always question your decsions ("why am i really doing this"), be self aware. do unto others as you would liek to be done unto yourself is pretty much the only philosophy you need, its not hard.
sorry for not reading your discussion and busting in
i mean on huge questions of right and wrong there is usually a very obvious choice, and the only reason crazy awful shit happens in the world is because of sheeple. like don;t kill all the jews, yes we should help the poor are all pretty easy revelations for a person to make...i guess what i'm sayign is knowledge is power, and always question your decsions ("why am i really doing this"), be self aware. do unto others as you would liek to be done unto yourself is pretty much the only philosophy you need, its not hard.
sorry for not reading your discussion and busting in
the problem with god always being right is that we interpret god's word. look at job. how are we supposed to interpret the word of god, when job is punished for questioning god? god replies that job will never be able to understand his majesty and isn't that the whole reason for the story/the reason job gets destroyed at first? he questions god and then is punished for questioning somethign he is not able to understand. we are the flaw. the whoel idea of having priests is almost heresey in a way right? who are they? are they above us to be able to interpret the word fo god? look at all the fucked up shit that has happened in the name of religion especially wiht islam today, ireland a couple decades ago, the crusades...all supposedly fulfilling the "word of god"...."interpreted by our retarded minds"
pwallstreet
Active member
not me..but ok
im not arguing, thats just part of my god rant...i think about this alot more than i want. if you play by the rules set forth in the bible, the bible itself does not hold up. god if there is one (fingers crossed) is most likely good, but the bible is not the word of god. it must be questioned as much as the word of any man, or any thought anyone ever has had. somethign cannot be valid wihtout correct proof/thought/reasoning behind it while examining the thought process the whoel way, for human weakness can distort reason.
Mr_Bojangles
Active member
I concur, yes religion has established and in some cases develops an acceptable moral framework, I consider that it's only achievement. Through promising 'eternal life' and through fear of a higher power, we seemingly lead the masses on a path of moral righteousness.
But, I agree with Freud (for once) - 'religion is the universal compulsive psychosis of mankind...' and reject the humanistic approach to psychology, including it's values and assumptions as I have stated.
I approach all of this from a psychological background and would readily accept kohlberg's theories of ethical development/moral reasoning over any humanistic assumptions such as Maslows hierachy of needs, religion has been argued to be a critical part of human development, however I believe it is not essential and therefore what is not essential to the individual is not essential to society.
But, I agree with Freud (for once) - 'religion is the universal compulsive psychosis of mankind...' and reject the humanistic approach to psychology, including it's values and assumptions as I have stated.
I approach all of this from a psychological background and would readily accept kohlberg's theories of ethical development/moral reasoning over any humanistic assumptions such as Maslows hierachy of needs, religion has been argued to be a critical part of human development, however I believe it is not essential and therefore what is not essential to the individual is not essential to society.
The Tao is a great way to live, As I read into it, i began to realize that I had discovered The Way all on my own. it was a great comfort to see that the way I felt about life has been around for thousands of years.
Its not about adoption anthing in its absolution, as in the concpet of a christian god, its about adopting the lessons and ideas about what is attempting to be acomplished.
WWJD?
why isnt that a great question to ask yourself as a back up for your potential decision?
Its not saying its only right if GOD or Jesus says it is, its just an Idea of the Perfect Morality. "If I consult the Perfect Morality (god) does it line up with the decision I was about to make?"
whats wrong with that?
makes sense to me.
Its not about adoption anthing in its absolution, as in the concpet of a christian god, its about adopting the lessons and ideas about what is attempting to be acomplished.
WWJD?
why isnt that a great question to ask yourself as a back up for your potential decision?
Its not saying its only right if GOD or Jesus says it is, its just an Idea of the Perfect Morality. "If I consult the Perfect Morality (god) does it line up with the decision I was about to make?"
whats wrong with that?
makes sense to me.
