What are you talking about? Religious people choose to be believe what they believe. I don't have to do anything God says... that's actually one of the key points of the Christian faith. We're free to do anything we want, God gave us a free will. I choose to trust Him and obey Him, but I don't have to.
Yes, without a religion to decree it, there is no "right" or "wrong" (except for 2+2=5)
Are you kidding me? One, I didn't say religion has to "decree" everything for it to be true. Two, are you so dumb as to equate observed principles with moral value applied to choices? Maybe I'm just not getting what you're trying to say.
Solidifies it into a meaningful and non-arbitrary construct.
No. First I said "universally meaningful". Doing what is "right for you" is completely and totally irrelevant to me. You might thing it's only right to eat tofu. I might think it's only right to eat meat. Given no universal standard, which a no-God/higher power theory requires, your view of right has no bearing on me. Of course if everyone thinks that only eating tofu is right and I choose to eat meat then you'd call me "wrong" and I may be punished. The point is that "right" and "wrong" become universally meanginless, they're entirely and totally relative to you and only enforceable by those who have the power to enforce them.
Again, my point is not that you can't abstract some useful principles about how to live your life or operate in society or that humans haven't managed to do that or that if you don't have a Bible you're going to just fall over and die because you have no way to live... I'm simply saying that non-God/higher power theories have absolutely no universal moral standards. All "right" and "wrong" choices are entirely pragmatic, or should be, anything else... claims to higher "right", platitudes about future legacies, etc. are all as arbitrary as you would believe people "arbitrarily" believe in God. Non-god theories are inherently pragmatic, there is no unverisal right and wrong for anything at all ever... if you believe that the two can co-exist or someone tells you there they do you're buying into a total sham.
Thank you, miss (or small minded man), for pointing out my grammatical error. I do hope that you are able to find some type of cleaning work after you lose your job as a secretary or copy editor (a profession women and small minded men are apparently very good at). The advent of these new fangled computerized grammar genies (I hope by explaining this in terms you're familiar with you can grasp the concept) will make your career search much more challenging. Best of luck.
Well no, evolution doesn't "teach" anything, evolution is a fact.
Sorry, thanks for the symantic check there... let's just say that one thing a person should derive from evolution then... does that work for you?
About higher morality: Your example is wrong. Througout history humans have killed their leaders, overthrown their own governments, etc. Although in general practice one guy killing his neighbor has always been considered wrong, toppling governments, killing Caesars, etc. is frequently just considered part of the deal. At best though, all you're saying is there is a pragmatic principle that tends to work most of the time but really isn't any sort of absolute and the only reason you would follow it is that the consequences of not following may be greater then the benefits (for example I have no desire to actually kill my neighbor).
About morality and strength: You didn't address the question, you attacked me. Which is fine. I've been misunderstood on this point. I'm not saying that I want to burn the world and roast marshmallows on the flesh of my enemies, I'm not saying that most people do. I am saying however that people have their own interests at heart all of the time. When presented with an opportunity to steal from their company... the person can ask themselves is it "right". If they believe in a higher power they would ask if the action aligns with their higher power's moral standard. If they do not, and believe that morality is a social construct, then they ask themselves... what would the consequences of this action be if I am caught and am I willing to accept those consequences. Now they might have all sorts of factors they they consider as consequences... legal issues, they've trained themselves to feal bad about stealing, etc. but the point is the decision is there's and attributing "right" or "wrong" to it isn't all that important. It just becomes a way to show how the culture feels about a certain type of activity... it's not so much a guide for anyone's actions.
You're a funny one Mark. You have to go with an ad hominem attack there huh?
The point Mark is that many people are enjoying bashing religious people because of their "arbitrary" beliefs, and yet are unwilling to accept that they themselves believe in a lot of arbitrary concepts and ideas themselves. They've simply accepeted them.
The implication of your statement is that you believe you are intrensically "good" and so you act out of that. Why are you this way? Assuming I'm not intrensically "good", why am I not? Why are you better then me?
No, what evolution predicts is that moral norms would form as part of societal evolution and complexity. Morality becomes a cultural function. What is clear is that there is never any universal "right" or "wrong". These ideas are just mental constructs. At one point is ok to slaughter children as sacrifices to imaginary gods... evolution would deem that the moral norms at the time permitted it. In our society it is no longer acceptable to slaughter living babies. Right is determined not by sometype of intrensic moral norm that is always true, but is determined by those who have the power to enforce their view on others.
Ultimately, following a non-God/higher power view of the world. You need to recognize two things. One, you're going to die and any pleasure you can gain for yourself while you're here is all you're going to get so maximize it and then die. Two, moral norms are constraints that have been formed by society. You are only bound to them by your fear of being caught and punished. Do what you will and take what risks you want, there is no "right" or "wrong".
I don't buy it... I believe there is a God... but I think it's funny how on one hand athiests/agnostics/etc. like to bash religious people for being arbitrary and yet don't accept their own arbitrary beliefs in hapiness for all, and human goodness, and the "rightness" of things. Without a higher power, strength and power are what makes one "right".
What exactly do you have faith in mankind about? The point is that morality and "faith" from an athiests standpoint are arbitrary decisions. Choose to believe in a higher power, choose to believe god, choose to believe there are aliens in an asteroid who want to take you to the town of Nanujibar... who fucking cares, it doesn't really matter because there is no foundational right and wrong.
I did not say athiests have no morals. Their morality is arbitrary and if there is no God then it's just as valid as anyone elses... of course your decision to light children on fire is not any better then my decision not to light children on fire. The decision about whether lighting children on fire is right or wrong is now determined by those with power to enforce their viewpoint.
What amuses me is that general conversation here, what I would percieve to the run of the mill athiest viewpoint, is that relgious people are silly because they "arbitrarily" believe in God/god/gods/a higher power and do things based on that belief all the while athiests make arbitary decisions about what they think is right and what they want to place their "faith" in. If there is no God then we're all equally delusional.
Purpose is arbitrarily defined and meangingless if you accept that there is no God (or some other higher power/purpose outside of yorself). Believing in legacy is stupid... you're going to die. Scientific theory makes that pretty clear. Who cares if people think you're the greatest guy in the world if you're dead... or if they' think you suck... you're dead. You don't know, you get no benefit. Hoarding wealth while you're alive makes sense from an no-God standpoint because wealth equals power. More power means you can do what you want to do without being constrained by others. Of course you're still going to die and you're still going to lose it. Parenting and nurturing children is a choice you make, but some people like to raise cats, and some people like to burn down churches... if that makes you happy... no?
As to operating in society... yes absolutely none of us has absolute power so we can't oppress the masses and not expect mass revolt at some point in time... but that still doesn't make one thing "right" or "wrong". Morality becomes an arbitrary and really universally meaningless construct, it's just a societal artifact, you do what you have to do to get what you want and do as much as you can get away with. Believing anything else, seems to me, that you're just subjecting yourself to a false and arbitrary constraint.
What's sad is that we haven't learned from history and realized that women have smaller brains then monkeys and cannot be practically educated. Khazakistani scientists have proven it time and time again.:)
Paris Hilton should be on every list
on
Top Ten Geek Girls
·
· Score: 5, Funny
Paris Hilton is the loveable hateable icon of absurdity. She should be on every list. Sexiest woman (#47 Paris Hilton), best actress in a foreign film (#23 Paris Hilton), world's strongest man (#97 Paris Hilton), most downloaded interent video star (#3 Paris Hilton), most likely running mate for Barak Obama (#2 Paris Hilton), and people who remind you of the Olsen Twins (#1 Paris Hilton).
We laugh today... but I wouldn't be surprised if Paris isn't the first female US president... and most likely will be the first president to put electrolytes in the water supply.
Um, no not really. See, one thing that Evolution teaches is that men are just evolved creatures with no purpose. There is no higher morality. Morality is whatever people make it to be. The only check is what others would force upon me. If I lived in a society that permitted killing my neighbor and eating his flesh then that's ok. If I lived in a society that didn't and I managed to do it anyway and not get caught... that's ok too. Evolution makes it clear that there are no concepts of right and wrong, they are just human fabrications, and so to follow them is really to just do what you need to do to avoid being punished by those who have power. If I have all the power then I have all of the right.
Tell me something... is there any moral difference between
a) slicing the toes off of helpless orphans while scalding their hands with irons, and \ b) eating a TV dinner while watching reruns of Everybody Loves Raymond?
Your answer should be... "no... morality is irrelevant and a meaningless shackle put on mankind buy those in power." If anything man's moral code, empathy, love, compassion, caring, feelings, ideals of fairness, etc. are just a nice delusion to keep the masses under control so the truly ruthless can take power, rightly, for themselves. No?
Seriously... who cares? So some people built a museum... why is this news? If you got a distinct sense of pleasure in ridiculing these people and their museum maybe you should evaluate yourself and question why your world is so small.
Giving the federal government more control is giving up freedom. The question is always whether it's worth giving up that freedom in exchange for something else. My point, which I stated, was that to not know exactly what restrictions the government would place on individuals or corporations is idiotic. You suggested an "ideal" solution... which many might accept, but all I'm hearing is hysteria.
You're just suggesting placing a huge tax on fossil fuels to stop their use?
Read the news. Is organized religion currently a net win, or a dead loss?
I like your sig... it's just not accurate. You've focused to much on a particulary component of the larger problem and have failed to recognize the actual whole of the issue. Here's a correct understanding of the problem.
Read the news and some history. Is organized humanity currently a net win, or a dead loss?
Let's say humans are causing global warming and global warming will wreak worldwide economic disaster and kill off millions of people due to famine, flooding, etc. Here are the questions...
1) What is your proposal to completely resolve the problem and avoid the economic and loss of life consequences?
2) How much will it cost (include high & low estimates) to solve the problem? What is the time scale for the costs?
3) What confidence level does the solution have in actually solving the problem? Is there a general consensus in the solution, costs, and liklihood of success?
4) As a last resort... considering this is a global problem and assuming the solutin must be executed on a global level if one country or group of countries refuses to comply with the solution and jeoporadizes the success of the entire solution are military actions acceptable in order to avoid the economic and loss of life consequences?
Al Gore and Co. may be right (I'm still sceptical) but their asking for trillions of dollars and massive control at a global level through indirect control of economies and comitments to payment. They're saying "give us your freedom and money" and we'll help solve this hideous problem we've shown you, but haven't shown you a solution. Before anyone in their right mind would want to give up their freedom and money they should know what they're getting...
Slashdot Mirror
Thank goodness all Democrats don't walk around with a 3" pipe up their ass like you do. My gosh man... lighten up.
Colbert/Obama '08!
Oh I'm sorry... I didn't realize that exchanging humorous and somewhat clever (hopefully) jabs had to end after one jab. Silly me.
What are you talking about? Religious people choose to be believe what they believe. I don't have to do anything God says... that's actually one of the key points of the Christian faith. We're free to do anything we want, God gave us a free will. I choose to trust Him and obey Him, but I don't have to.
Michael Richards is that you?
Yes, without a religion to decree it, there is no "right" or "wrong" (except for 2+2=5)
Are you kidding me? One, I didn't say religion has to "decree" everything for it to be true. Two, are you so dumb as to equate observed principles with moral value applied to choices? Maybe I'm just not getting what you're trying to say.
Solidifies it into a meaningful and non-arbitrary construct.
No. First I said "universally meaningful". Doing what is "right for you" is completely and totally irrelevant to me. You might thing it's only right to eat tofu. I might think it's only right to eat meat. Given no universal standard, which a no-God/higher power theory requires, your view of right has no bearing on me. Of course if everyone thinks that only eating tofu is right and I choose to eat meat then you'd call me "wrong" and I may be punished. The point is that "right" and "wrong" become universally meanginless, they're entirely and totally relative to you and only enforceable by those who have the power to enforce them.
Again, my point is not that you can't abstract some useful principles about how to live your life or operate in society or that humans haven't managed to do that or that if you don't have a Bible you're going to just fall over and die because you have no way to live... I'm simply saying that non-God/higher power theories have absolutely no universal moral standards. All "right" and "wrong" choices are entirely pragmatic, or should be, anything else... claims to higher "right", platitudes about future legacies, etc. are all as arbitrary as you would believe people "arbitrarily" believe in God. Non-god theories are inherently pragmatic, there is no unverisal right and wrong for anything at all ever... if you believe that the two can co-exist or someone tells you there they do you're buying into a total sham.
Thank you, miss (or small minded man), for pointing out my grammatical error. I do hope that you are able to find some type of cleaning work after you lose your job as a secretary or copy editor (a profession women and small minded men are apparently very good at). The advent of these new fangled computerized grammar genies (I hope by explaining this in terms you're familiar with you can grasp the concept) will make your career search much more challenging. Best of luck.
Well no, evolution doesn't "teach" anything, evolution is a fact.
Sorry, thanks for the symantic check there... let's just say that one thing a person should derive from evolution then... does that work for you?
About higher morality: Your example is wrong. Througout history humans have killed their leaders, overthrown their own governments, etc. Although in general practice one guy killing his neighbor has always been considered wrong, toppling governments, killing Caesars, etc. is frequently just considered part of the deal. At best though, all you're saying is there is a pragmatic principle that tends to work most of the time but really isn't any sort of absolute and the only reason you would follow it is that the consequences of not following may be greater then the benefits (for example I have no desire to actually kill my neighbor).
About morality and strength: You didn't address the question, you attacked me. Which is fine. I've been misunderstood on this point. I'm not saying that I want to burn the world and roast marshmallows on the flesh of my enemies, I'm not saying that most people do. I am saying however that people have their own interests at heart all of the time. When presented with an opportunity to steal from their company... the person can ask themselves is it "right". If they believe in a higher power they would ask if the action aligns with their higher power's moral standard. If they do not, and believe that morality is a social construct, then they ask themselves... what would the consequences of this action be if I am caught and am I willing to accept those consequences. Now they might have all sorts of factors they they consider as consequences... legal issues, they've trained themselves to feal bad about stealing, etc. but the point is the decision is there's and attributing "right" or "wrong" to it isn't all that important. It just becomes a way to show how the culture feels about a certain type of activity... it's not so much a guide for anyone's actions.
You're a funny one Mark. You have to go with an ad hominem attack there huh?
The point Mark is that many people are enjoying bashing religious people because of their "arbitrary" beliefs, and yet are unwilling to accept that they themselves believe in a lot of arbitrary concepts and ideas themselves. They've simply accepeted them.
The implication of your statement is that you believe you are intrensically "good" and so you act out of that. Why are you this way? Assuming I'm not intrensically "good", why am I not? Why are you better then me?
No, what evolution predicts is that moral norms would form as part of societal evolution and complexity. Morality becomes a cultural function. What is clear is that there is never any universal "right" or "wrong". These ideas are just mental constructs. At one point is ok to slaughter children as sacrifices to imaginary gods... evolution would deem that the moral norms at the time permitted it. In our society it is no longer acceptable to slaughter living babies. Right is determined not by sometype of intrensic moral norm that is always true, but is determined by those who have the power to enforce their view on others.
Ultimately, following a non-God/higher power view of the world. You need to recognize two things. One, you're going to die and any pleasure you can gain for yourself while you're here is all you're going to get so maximize it and then die. Two, moral norms are constraints that have been formed by society. You are only bound to them by your fear of being caught and punished. Do what you will and take what risks you want, there is no "right" or "wrong".
I don't buy it... I believe there is a God... but I think it's funny how on one hand athiests/agnostics/etc. like to bash religious people for being arbitrary and yet don't accept their own arbitrary beliefs in hapiness for all, and human goodness, and the "rightness" of things. Without a higher power, strength and power are what makes one "right".
What exactly do you have faith in mankind about? The point is that morality and "faith" from an athiests standpoint are arbitrary decisions. Choose to believe in a higher power, choose to believe god, choose to believe there are aliens in an asteroid who want to take you to the town of Nanujibar... who fucking cares, it doesn't really matter because there is no foundational right and wrong.
I did not say athiests have no morals. Their morality is arbitrary and if there is no God then it's just as valid as anyone elses... of course your decision to light children on fire is not any better then my decision not to light children on fire. The decision about whether lighting children on fire is right or wrong is now determined by those with power to enforce their viewpoint.
What amuses me is that general conversation here, what I would percieve to the run of the mill athiest viewpoint, is that relgious people are silly because they "arbitrarily" believe in God/god/gods/a higher power and do things based on that belief all the while athiests make arbitary decisions about what they think is right and what they want to place their "faith" in. If there is no God then we're all equally delusional.
Purpose is arbitrarily defined and meangingless if you accept that there is no God (or some other higher power/purpose outside of yorself). Believing in legacy is stupid... you're going to die. Scientific theory makes that pretty clear. Who cares if people think you're the greatest guy in the world if you're dead... or if they' think you suck... you're dead. You don't know, you get no benefit. Hoarding wealth while you're alive makes sense from an no-God standpoint because wealth equals power. More power means you can do what you want to do without being constrained by others. Of course you're still going to die and you're still going to lose it. Parenting and nurturing children is a choice you make, but some people like to raise cats, and some people like to burn down churches... if that makes you happy... no?
As to operating in society... yes absolutely none of us has absolute power so we can't oppress the masses and not expect mass revolt at some point in time... but that still doesn't make one thing "right" or "wrong". Morality becomes an arbitrary and really universally meaningless construct, it's just a societal artifact, you do what you have to do to get what you want and do as much as you can get away with. Believing anything else, seems to me, that you're just subjecting yourself to a false and arbitrary constraint.
What you failed to mention is that your joystick hasn't been used by anyone other than you since 1983.
/. you were asking for it :)
Come one... this
Plutonium was created in the 1940's. Marie Curie died in the 1930's.
Holy shit... are you saying Marie Curie could travel back in time!? WTF? OMG?!
What's sad is that we haven't learned from history and realized that women have smaller brains then monkeys and cannot be practically educated. Khazakistani scientists have proven it time and time again. :)
Paris Hilton is the loveable hateable icon of absurdity. She should be on every list. Sexiest woman (#47 Paris Hilton), best actress in a foreign film (#23 Paris Hilton), world's strongest man (#97 Paris Hilton), most downloaded interent video star (#3 Paris Hilton), most likely running mate for Barak Obama (#2 Paris Hilton), and people who remind you of the Olsen Twins (#1 Paris Hilton).
We laugh today... but I wouldn't be surprised if Paris isn't the first female US president... and most likely will be the first president to put electrolytes in the water supply.
Only people who believe in gods think that way.
Um, no not really. See, one thing that Evolution teaches is that men are just evolved creatures with no purpose. There is no higher morality. Morality is whatever people make it to be. The only check is what others would force upon me. If I lived in a society that permitted killing my neighbor and eating his flesh then that's ok. If I lived in a society that didn't and I managed to do it anyway and not get caught... that's ok too. Evolution makes it clear that there are no concepts of right and wrong, they are just human fabrications, and so to follow them is really to just do what you need to do to avoid being punished by those who have power. If I have all the power then I have all of the right.
Tell me something... is there any moral difference between
a) slicing the toes off of helpless orphans while scalding their hands with irons, and \
b) eating a TV dinner while watching reruns of Everybody Loves Raymond?
Your answer should be... "no... morality is irrelevant and a meaningless shackle put on mankind buy those in power." If anything man's moral code, empathy, love, compassion, caring, feelings, ideals of fairness, etc. are just a nice delusion to keep the masses under control so the truly ruthless can take power, rightly, for themselves. No?
I'm a Christian... and that was funny! Oh man that was funny.
Seriously... who cares? So some people built a museum... why is this news? If you got a distinct sense of pleasure in ridiculing these people and their museum maybe you should evaluate yourself and question why your world is so small.
Giving the federal government more control is giving up freedom. The question is always whether it's worth giving up that freedom in exchange for something else. My point, which I stated, was that to not know exactly what restrictions the government would place on individuals or corporations is idiotic. You suggested an "ideal" solution... which many might accept, but all I'm hearing is hysteria.
You're just suggesting placing a huge tax on fossil fuels to stop their use?
I like that question too... maybe a little more cynical than mine, but probably an easier way to get to the inconvenient truth :).
Read the news. Is organized religion currently a net win, or a dead loss?
I like your sig... it's just not accurate. You've focused to much on a particulary component of the larger problem and have failed to recognize the actual whole of the issue. Here's a correct understanding of the problem.
Read the news and some history. Is organized humanity currently a net win, or a dead loss?
Cool... sounds like a good solution to me. If someone can develop a better system that works for people who WANT to use it great.
Germans love David Hasselhoff
Let me tell you... it's not just the Germans!
Let's say humans are causing global warming and global warming will wreak worldwide economic disaster and kill off millions of people due to famine, flooding, etc. Here are the questions...
1) What is your proposal to completely resolve the problem and avoid the economic and loss of life consequences?
2) How much will it cost (include high & low estimates) to solve the problem? What is the time scale for the costs?
3) What confidence level does the solution have in actually solving the problem? Is there a general consensus in the solution, costs, and liklihood of success?
4) As a last resort... considering this is a global problem and assuming the solutin must be executed on a global level if one country or group of countries refuses to comply with the solution and jeoporadizes the success of the entire solution are military actions acceptable in order to avoid the economic and loss of life consequences?
Al Gore and Co. may be right (I'm still sceptical) but their asking for trillions of dollars and massive control at a global level through indirect control of economies and comitments to payment. They're saying "give us your freedom and money" and we'll help solve this hideous problem we've shown you, but haven't shown you a solution. Before anyone in their right mind would want to give up their freedom and money they should know what they're getting...