BBS wrote:moral principles derived from reason/logic
Such as? Defining 'good' and 'bad' relies on just as much nonsensical circular logic as adherence to a holy book.
As OP says, atheistic morality is built on air.
Moderator: Community Team
BBS wrote:moral principles derived from reason/logic
mrswdk wrote:BBS wrote:moral principles derived from reason/logic
Such as? Defining 'good' and 'bad' relies on just as much nonsensical circular logic as adherence to a holy book.
As OP says, atheistic morality is built on air.
BigBallinStalin wrote:chang50 wrote:I think I understand shick now....he's judging atheists by how he would behave if he was one.This judging of other people of whom he has no empathy with has led him to his strange conclusions.I encourage someone with this stunted and limited perspective to continue with their present delusions as they would present a real menace to society if they embraced reality.It's unusual to see anyone condemn themselves with their own words as comprehensively as he has.
That and he doesn't understand the roll of profit-and-loss in motivating people to improve other people's lives while getting paid to do it in a manner which minimizes costs.
After reading that long post, it's like considering to climb the Great Wall of China...
chang50 wrote:I think I understand shick now....he's judging atheists by how he would behave if he was one.This judging of other people of whom he has no empathy with has led him to his strange conclusions.I encourage someone with this stunted and limited perspective to continue with their present delusions as they would present a real menace to society if they embraced reality.It's unusual to see anyone condemn themselves with their own words as comprehensively as he has.
BigBallinStalin wrote:mrswdk wrote:BBS wrote:moral principles derived from reason/logic
Such as? Defining 'good' and 'bad' relies on just as much nonsensical circular logic as adherence to a holy book.
As OP says, atheistic morality is built on air.
We shouldn't kill each other for shitty reasons. Here's a shitty reason: "I want your shoes, and I'll shoot you if you don't give them to me."
Seems pretty clear and much less nonsensical than "god said so, cuz it's true, cuz there's this book and in it it says that god's words are true and these are god's word."
notyou2 wrote:chang50 wrote:I think I understand shick now....he's judging atheists by how he would behave if he was one.This judging of other people of whom he has no empathy with has led him to his strange conclusions.I encourage someone with this stunted and limited perspective to continue with their present delusions as they would present a real menace to society if they embraced reality.It's unusual to see anyone condemn themselves with their own words as comprehensively as he has.
I think there are a lot of religious people like him. Kind of scary isn't it?
shickingbrits wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:chang50 wrote:I think I understand shick now....he's judging atheists by how he would behave if he was one.This judging of other people of whom he has no empathy with has led him to his strange conclusions.I encourage someone with this stunted and limited perspective to continue with their present delusions as they would present a real menace to society if they embraced reality.It's unusual to see anyone condemn themselves with their own words as comprehensively as he has.
That and he doesn't understand the roll of profit-and-loss in motivating people to improve other people's lives while getting paid to do it in a manner which minimizes costs.
After reading that long post, it's like considering to climb the Great Wall of China...
I don't believe in profit and lose to motivate people to improve their lives. I don't see how maximizing the military-industrial complex's profits, the prison complex, the cost of healthcare improves people's lives. I don't understand how planned obsolescence improves people's lives. I don't understand how charging sick people as much as possible improves their lives.
What I do understand is that when resources are maximized, profits are minimized. I understand that when a company makes something which lasts, the need for that company inherently disappears. I understand that if roads were built better, then the business of building roads, and the governments ability to tax people for using them would disappear. I understand that problems are the birthplace of the government and that maintaining them ensures the governments future.
I understand that a company which saves 70% of their operating costs by using an automated system only needs to offer a 10% discount to down its competitors. I understand that when there are a big 2, big 4 the synthesis resembles that of a monopoly. I understand that freeing markets does nothing to free them when there is a guy with the most chips. That prices always go up under privatization of utilities.
I know that the inventors of nuclear power envisioned energy that was too cheap to meter, that Tesla had the same idea, that the inventors of the nuclear bomb worked to end all wars. I understand that there was no profit in "improving people's lives" that providing free energy was of no interest to Morgan, that the military didn't want to give up their day-jobs and that thorium research wasn't pursued.
I understand that the common man is motivated by far more than money. That doctors existed before they were wealthy, that artists painted at their own cost, that inventors created to enhance their world view. But I also understand that those who didn't share their worldview played possum only to snap up the technology and knowledge because of a lack of morality and an insistence that they deserved more than the rest.
What I mostly understand is that your understanding of the world has been written by the wealthy winners. That most of the ivy league schools were funded with opium war dollars, they are restrictive and promote a worldview in line with that of their founders.
So no, I don't understand the need for treating each other with carrots and sticks, turning neighbours into competitors and rewarding betrayal, enriching destruction and hiding and hoarding human innovation.
mrswdk wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:mrswdk wrote:BBS wrote:moral principles derived from reason/logic
Such as? Defining 'good' and 'bad' relies on just as much nonsensical circular logic as adherence to a holy book.
As OP says, atheistic morality is built on air.
We shouldn't kill each other for shitty reasons. Here's a shitty reason: "I want your shoes, and I'll shoot you if you don't give them to me."
Seems pretty clear and much less nonsensical than "god said so, cuz it's true, cuz there's this book and in it it says that god's words are true and these are god's word."
One man's shitty reason is another man's good reason. A starving man probably doesn't consider his hunger to be a shitty reason for stealing food or stealing money to buy food with. Maybe to you his hunger is a shitty reason to steal, but just because you consider his actions petty, distasteful or disproportionate doesn't make them 'immoral'. What you're doing there is confusing 'things I don't like' with 'things that are immoral'.
There are many pragmatic reasons for arguing in favor of laws that prohibit murder, theft, selling poisonous beef and so on, and those reasons are much more academically sound than 'because it's wrong'.
warmonger1981 wrote:I used to hang with some shifty people. One of those shit bags killed a dude for less than $10 and a pager. Wanna know he killed that dude. Because when that dude was getting robbed by my friend said you should of shot me. Guess what? He shot him. So who was in the wrong? The one who shot or the one who said "you should of shot me "?
warmonger1981 wrote:My bad my friend shot guy for $10 and pager.
mrswdk wrote:'Secular schools can never be tolerated because such schools have no religious instruction, and a general moral instruction without a religious foundation is built on air. Consequently, all character training and religion must be derived from faith.' - Hitler
Discuss.
āHence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: - by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lordā ā Adolph Hitler
"We were convinced that the people needs and requires this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out." -- Adolf Hitler
"We want to fill our culture again with the Christian spirit ā¦ We want to burn out all the recent immoral developments in literature, in the theater, and in the press. . .we want to burn out the poison of immorality which has entered into our whole life and culture as a result of liberal excess." -- Adolf Hitler
mrswdk wrote:asellas1025 wrote:Indeed, religion is made by men and rewritten over the years to better suit the ever evolving world. As far as morals go, that is on the individual, not any institution to say. After all, people are diverse for a reason.
Does people making up their own morals not prove that their moral codes are irrelevant bunk?
BigBallinStalin wrote: Constraint on bad behavior can be independent of religion since religiously derived moral principles have substitutes--like moral principles derived from reason/logic. So... I don't understand your contention against a morality that doesn't appeal to a god's authority (and which doesn't rely on a circular argument about a holy book being the word of the lord because the holy book says that it is).
warmonger1981 wrote:My friend robbed the guy. When the guy was walking away he said "you should of shot me ". So my friend shot and killed him. Who was in the wrong?
shickingbrits wrote:Do you sincerely believe that a starving person is engaging in a voluntary exchange?
We have done nothing to increase competition. That company who develops the automated system and decreases their costs by 70% will drop the price by 10% until their competitors either create their own system, which will reinforce the the original price, or drop out of competition which will then cause the price to increase.
De Beers hoards their diamonds and if a competitor comes along, they have the most interest in swooping it up.
Sure, decreasing a doctors wages by 95% will decrease the number of doctors if their social status is dependent on their income, becoming a doctor is costly and if there are other nations paying higher wages that can take in a lot of doctors.
Again, Tesla was not looking for profit for providing energy, and Morgan had already financed it. Morgan was operating on a worldview. I don't do shit unless the reward is greater than my input. He didn't see elevating the world as a reward. He saw elevating himself as a reward. He didn't see raising the level of equality as a fit end, he saw raising inequality as a fit ends.
As for making a car that last 20 years, the great depression was caused by making products too good in a system that didn't reward durability.
You are living in a fairytale.
mrswdk wrote:'Secular schools can never be tolerated because such schools have no religious instruction, and a general moral instruction without a religious foundation is built on air. Consequently, all character training and religion must be derived from faith.' - Hitler
Discuss.
stahrgazer wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote: Constraint on bad behavior can be independent of religion since religiously derived moral principles have substitutes--like moral principles derived from reason/logic. So... I don't understand your contention against a morality that doesn't appeal to a god's authority (and which doesn't rely on a circular argument about a holy book being the word of the lord because the holy book says that it is).
You have a reasonable point, here, BBS, especailly, "the holy book being the word of the lord because the holy book says it is."
Our (mankind's) first written ideas of what constitutes morality was written in parable form in a series of scrolls, documents, letters, etc., by men who claimed they were writing the word of God. It's possible they were writing based on some humanistic moral conscience, the type of inner moral compass that you claim atheists may possess, and that you claim is independent of any God.
Well, basically then,the question is: Where does "conscience" derive?
If you've ever studied Catechism - the Catholic teachings about their religion - the claim is that conscience is a little seed of "God's will" inside all humans. The "good" that can oppose the "evil" of satan.
But we only have those old scrolls, documents, letters, etc. to go by as "proof" that this is the origin of the conscience. And, frankly, those scrolls, documents, letters, etc., are suspect because we know that back then, typically only the clergy was educated enough to write such lengthy treatises.
So, essentially, you have the indoctrinated writing the doctrines, and testifying that the doctrines are indeed the Word.
So, you have a point.
Then again, because folks who believe in a religious/God origin of the conscience have more "proof" than those who do not; so if it's "proof" you require, they win.
AAFitz wrote:mrswdk wrote:asellas1025 wrote:Indeed, religion is made by men and rewritten over the years to better suit the ever evolving world. As far as morals go, that is on the individual, not any institution to say. After all, people are diverse for a reason.
Does people making up their own morals not prove that their moral codes are irrelevant bunk?
Does people making up their own religions not prove that their religions are irrelevant bunk?
BigBallinStalin wrote:mrswdk wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:mrswdk wrote:BBS wrote:moral principles derived from reason/logic
Such as? Defining 'good' and 'bad' relies on just as much nonsensical circular logic as adherence to a holy book.
As OP says, atheistic morality is built on air.
We shouldn't kill each other for shitty reasons. Here's a shitty reason: "I want your shoes, and I'll shoot you if you don't give them to me."
Seems pretty clear and much less nonsensical than "god said so, cuz it's true, cuz there's this book and in it it says that god's words are true and these are god's word."
One man's shitty reason is another man's good reason. A starving man probably doesn't consider his hunger to be a shitty reason for stealing food or stealing money to buy food with. Maybe to you his hunger is a shitty reason to steal, but just because you consider his actions petty, distasteful or disproportionate doesn't make them 'immoral'. What you're doing there is confusing 'things I don't like' with 'things that are immoral'.
There are many pragmatic reasons for arguing in favor of laws that prohibit murder, theft, selling poisonous beef and so on, and those reasons are much more academically sound than 'because it's wrong'.
Do you sincerely believe that a starving person is morally justified in killing your best friend so that he can steal his shoes to sell them?
Return to Practical Explanation about Next Life,
Users browsing this forum: No registered users