LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Theirs not enough lamentation of the wummin to be honest.
Theirs not enough lamentation of the wummin to be honest.
First of I all, I have to say tank you for showing a far greater understanding of Atheism than so many Theists. It is a singular belief on a singular issue, one I would consider utterly tangential and inconsequential if I didn't think most people had got it so wrong and created a powerful negative influence on the world in their mistake. Not a religion like so many claim, bald isn't a hair colour, and abstinence is not a sexual position.
I suppose a justification of how I came to that opinion on God is in order; Fundamentally on the question of is there a god personal or otherwise I have to accept the only reasonable conclusion is Agnosticism, by virtue of the question I cannot know it's answer and I mean Agnostic not "I haven't chosen a God yet", which seems to be how many use the word. However and the previous not withstanding, this isn't something I'm 50/50 on. I have studied many of the worlds religions out of genuine curiosity and at the very least looked at the brochures for the rest. I have found beautiful words, imagery even wisdom(even a broken clock is right twice a day) along with brutality, hatred and ignorance. No revelation, no conscience or conciseness an order of magnitude greater than my own. Only a reflection of our own many and varied imperfections and contradictions. The design argument I find to be the ultimate expression of human ego. A critical eye would have to say we are functional, but poorly designed at best. Perhaps it's because we can only see in one direction at a time, badly, less than 1.5% of the light spectrum infact and barring a powerful light source in that 1.5% spectrum being reasonably nearby we're practically blind, using a fragile unreliable instrument that must be shut off 20 times a minute for maintenance and often useless when you need them most such as dangerous situations. In fact the reason many things are dangerous to us the first place is because we can't bloody see them. Don't even get me started on what's going on between our legs, the fact I only got 2 hands(seriously I want 4 minimum) and having to eat and breathe through the same hole.
So given that, I am as sure that there is no God as you or any other theist are that there is, I think it is not only implausible but ridiculous in the extreme, I actually don't think the idea would have ever caught on if it weren't so ridiculous, only acknowledging I can't emphatically know or prove it.
Obviously for a theist the overriding question is how this affects my morality or how I can even have morality. Which misses the point. The real question should be; Where does morality come from and how can we be sure enough to we are right to base our whole lives on the morality we have found? A theist basically believes the instructions are in a book written by the creator of the universe. Obviously I disagree vehemently but not with the concept, morality itself, only your perception of the origin and how this negatively affects the morality that is found. I don't even question your intent, I think all humans seek and most believe they have found morality, even the evil ones. Osama bin Laden thought he was doing the right thing as did the many who followed him to the death, but as someone once said the road to hell is paved with good intentions. We forget that lesson to easily and confuse the purity of our intent with the purity of our morality.
So where do I think it comes from? Empathy. I feel the need to clarify I don't think this is some abstract concept or something you are taught. It is innate, we are born with it's seeds within us and carry it's fruit our whole lives. Mirror Neurons ftw, good ole' evolution kicking ass once again. Some theists find this somehow denigrates morality or that we believe it is somehow not crucial to us. It maybe grounded in a natural process and 'just something our brain does', but I believe it defines us. It is what made us what we are, it is the foundation our whole civilisation stands upon and if it disappeared human civilisation as we know would be gone by the weekend and please don't take that as hyperbole, I really do mean we would be reduced to a hunter gatherer state in the smashed and burnt ruins of our world never to rise again.
My empathy and the conscience it nurtured is heavier and more powerful than any book. I would defy any God before I defy it. Which is an important part of the definition of my personal morality; I do not kneel. Ever. If it turns out I'm wrong on the Atheism front and meet the creator of the universe I wont drop to my knees and take everything it says as well, gospel, although I like think he would be more interested in what I did with the mind he gave me than the book. That applies to concepts and principles more grounded in reality too. People are to quick to surrender to a God, Church or concept and go along with whatever you slap it's name on. We do dumb stuff in the name of Equality, a concept I deeply believe in as you know, for example, often entirely contrary to the concept. Same with God. The point being that while defining your morality by singular named concepts, beliefs or principles can be useful for introspection, understanding how to apply your empathy to your actions and if nothing else is illustrated in this post, brevity. I do not and do not see any value in slavishly latching on to one or any grouping. They should only be used descriptively otherwise you can only limit rather than enhance your morality as you're intrinsically lessening the import of your empathy within your principles. For a description of my own morality in a nutshell; Secular humanist is probably best.
What do I live for or to put it another way, why do I live? To live. It's the universe's best rollercoaster, the lows have been lower than I ever could of imagined the highs seemed impossible til I was there it's twists and turns can be terrifying and exhilarating, I find I need no encouragement or justification. I find even the question oxymoronical. I never want to get off this ride. Which I suppose is a good point to bring up the whole death thing. First up; I've taken to slapping people who come out with "there's no atheists in foxholes" and alike upside the head. It's egotistical to believe that somehow you're own beliefs are held more firmly or with more conviction simply because you hold them. You don't seem that kind, it's not an accusation btw, but it bears mentioning due to it's commonality. I've not died, but I've been close enough for the man in the green suit to start swearing it had no effect on opinion on God so don't be expecting any death bed conversion from me. I am afraid of death? Not really. Not existing? Had 14.7billion years experience, got that down to an art. Dying? Well yeah that bits probably gonna suck pretty hard, I just hope it doesn't hurt for to long. After nearly 15billion years of being inert matter I am a concious sentient being able to look up at the stars and not just see the enchanting beauty of the furnaces that made me, but understand them, share that experience with others and maybe one day reach out and touch them. Whenever you think the us and the stars came from that's pretty cool.
aidanjt (09-02-2012),billythewiz (10-02-2012),DeludedGuy (09-02-2012),G4Z (13-02-2012),Saracen (09-02-2012),TeePee (09-02-2012),TheAnimus (09-02-2012),yamangman (10-02-2012)
Originally Posted by Lanky123
If I'm not happy with my actions/inactions throughout the day(s) then it troubles me...not really sure how much more I can explain that. There's no hiding from your own thoughts.
With regards having a positive impact, I see that as a fairly fundamental element of life satisfaction. For various people I suppose that could come through research/industry/work for the general benefit of the human race, pushing for reforms etc you believe in and/or just leaving a positive impression on the people you come into contact with.
Whilst I appreciate various religious teachings coincide with a lot of that I fail to see the need for any additional motivator. They also come with a fair amount of additional baggage that I personally see as unnecessary. My background (so far at least, I'm only 22) is scientific so my default position on anything presented with little to no empirical evidence is skepticism. Particularly if I see no necessity or requirement for it. I fear I am deviating from the initial thread topic a little so I will end that trail of thought there.
Galant (16-02-2012)
Treat people how they deserve to be treated, don't judge a book by it's cover.
Be nice, understanding, tolerant and patient.
S**t happens, deal with it then get over it and move on.
Have no regrets, learn from your mistakes.
Life is NEVER fair.
All things that ALL human beings should abide by, god fearing or not.
And that is the ONLY time I will be commenting on my beliefs, or lack thereof.
I tried several organised religions but couldnt get on with any of them. The in 1993 I read a book called The Importance of Living, by Dr Lin Yutang. Then on his recommendation, I read the Tao Teh Ch'ing.
woot, that will do for me. Taoism.
All the ethics and morals of "good christians" etc, but without that one (for me) oh so difficult element - a personal caring god.
It works for me. I am a caring person, well in touch with feelings and emotions, live and let live being one of my prime tenets.
I used to live to work, then I worked to live, now Im retired I just live and love it.
Cheers, David
It's very easy, if my actions have the potential to harm another person, then it's unethical. All people know how to empathise with others from childhood. It takes an adult to teach children to ignore their empathic nature and to hate and behave selfishly.
I need a bigger "Thanks" button, 'cos the one I have somehow doesn't seem an adequate reaction.
chuckskull (09-02-2012)
Is anything a satisfying answer to "all" of life's questions? Even if you belief ion one of the many variations of God that people believe in, one question at least remains .... which group (if any) are right? And as a question .... it's kind-of a right dooozy.
That's one definition, but not the only one. Another is the belief that God doesn't exist. There are at least two types of atheist, according to some well-respected definitions, including those disbelieve the existence of God, and those that deny the existence of God. And there's a difference.
So when you group people by a definition like "atheist", you're going to wind up either clarifying that particular definition, or arguing semantics.
For reference, I include, but don't limit it to, the OED definition :-
1. One who denies or disbelieves the existence of a God.
2. One who practically denies the existence of a God by disregard of moral obligation to Him; a godless man.
I added the bold-red emphasis.
Well, given that above definition, you're wrong that it's necessarily an entirely negative belief in that it isn't just a "lack". It's, possibly but not necessarily, a belief that God doesn't exist.
But that does not mean that those that don't believe God exists, or even just are unconvinced that he/she/it does, don't feel that many of the principles espoused by most major (and for all I know, minor) religions aren't a good code to live by. After all, kindness, helping others, protecting the weak, denouncing war, etc, are laudable objectives, whether the word and/or will of god or not.
What principles do I live by? Much the same as much, or maybe most, of society, I expect. One theme would be 'do no harm' .... but it's not a principle unlimited by caveats. I try to treat others as I would like them to treat me, but if, for instance, a burglar thinks I'm going to stand back and let him help himself, because I'll "turn the other cheek", he's in for a rude surprise. He's most definitely breached one of my limits.
What do I live for? Well, because until or unless I get sufficiently good reason, I'm not too keen on the notion of death, and certainly not of dying, so right now, I see no practical alternative. So given that I'm here, to live comfortably and well, and to ensure my family does the same, and, within the limits I mentioned earlier, to do no harm to others in the process.
But "doing harm" is a slippery idea. If I go up for a job and someone else does too, I might be doing harm by accepting it if I get the offer, because maybe they needed it more. Would I turn it down on that basis? Not a hope in hell.
Or another issue .... if you serve on a jury, and you belief an accused is guilty, you may do them harm by voting to convict, and you may do others harm if you don't. And you may do society harm if you refuse to take part of contrive to avoid "civic" duty. So there's a balancing act to seek to master. I therefore do what I feel is "right". And I'm not even really interested in trying to argue what's "moral" because better philosophers than me have been arguing about that for hundreds of years and still don't seem to be able to settle it.
htid (09-02-2012)
Oh, slippery.
How about an old "moral" problem.
Suppose you are at the controls of a railway switch, and a runaway train is heading straight for half a dozen workmen working on the tracks, and they haven't seen the train. If you don't pull the lever, they'll be killed. If you pull the lever, the train diverts down a side line .... where another innocent bloke is working, and he'll be killed.
So, by your action, you can save six lives .... at the cost of taking one. Do you pull the lever?
Because you are going to do, or allow, harm, either way, and pulling that lever opens a justification for all sorts of things on the basis of the "greater good". But your choice or action or inaction will result in harm.
Moreover, you cannot know the extent of the harm. The blokes repairing the track might prevent a crash that would otherwise kill hundreds, but the bloke down the sideline might be the father of the yet-unborn child that will find a cure for cancer, or be a politician that avoids World War 3. Which, then, is the greater good?
I'd say it's far from easy to know if your (or my) actions have the potential to harm others. Sometimes, obvious harm is easy to predict, but sometimes it isn't. And often, the extent of the harm is impossible to predict.
Superficially, that switch question is obvious. Act, sacrifice one to save six. Suppose one of the six is a mass child murderer? If you choose to sacrifice one, you may condemn numerous kids to the hands of a killer. Or the single bloke down the side track may be the mass child killer.
Your action of going to work in the morning has the potential to harm another ... such as if you have an accident. But should you refuse to go out of the house ever again, just in case? Obviously not. But the potential is there.
The kindness human beings show in the face of horror/trauma/adversity.
It is SO RARE these days, but standing up to be counted, when everything around you is going horribly wrong is what makes us, and defines us as human beings.
There is one reason for mentioning religion thou, without it we wouldn't be able to make some jokes:
throw new ArgumentException (String, String, Exception)
Just dont mention it on twitter or facebook, you'll have homeland security making a surprise visit to your door with claims your a terrorist.There is one reason for mentioning religion thou, without it we wouldn't be able to make some jokes:
m
Ahh beatiful. Why is that only after a few ales can I then communicate with such lofty clarity!?
Last edited by yamangman; 10-02-2012 at 09:06 PM.
To err is human. To really foul things up ... you need a computer.
chuckskull (10-02-2012)
What do I live for?
To have fun. I aim to enjoy myself, and that's pretty much it.
Excellent post Chuckskull. There's so much I'd like to quote and agree with, but it would take too long,so I'll just select one that I particularly like.
chuckskull (10-02-2012)
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
