Oh, it's definitely not unique to athiests. However some athiests believe they are outside the bounds of universal governance and cause and effects. And this thread is addressing whether athiests are moral or not.
what is universal governance?
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Firstly are you saying that because people are athiests they behave this way?
I have heard arguments from athiests saying their non-belief in a higher power gives them license to behave as they choose. They have, in essence, denied having a standard to live up to. This is their justification. That fact that people do unethical things is because they are humans making mistakes and not related to athiesm.
Because I would say that all of the behaviours in the first paragraph are just as applicable to the faithful in given circumstances.
I fully agree people of faith do similar types of things. I'm speaking about athiests, since this thread is about the morality of athiests. And it's a different situation when someone is saying they don't have to do something because they don't believe in God, than a Christian being called on not living up to a belief in God. Although obnoxious behaviour is the same, the situations and the justifications are different.
Ok and secondly, people do suffer randomly in life. Life is random. So I think it's perfectly understandable for people to wonder "why me?" Sometimes bad things happen to good people, for no reason at all other than they were in the wrong place at the wrong time or just because. I agree there are things that people have control over and that many times during a life you will not see how your actions can have consequences. But I also believe that random awful things do happen to people not because of anything they've done or not done, just because "shit happens". Never forget the universal law, "shit happens".
Fair enough. I personally see that people believe things are random. I understand that in their experience things seem random. I say that absolutely everything, 100% happens for an exact and specific reason on all levels.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
I've discussed that indepthly in a few of these threads. Some of it on pages 2 and 3 of the Mauldin thread, for example. I refer to the finely synchronized laws/principles, etc of the universe, where for our each action in thought, word or deed, we receive exacting consequences.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
There is nothing random. But I don't buy the karma kick.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
It's hilarious that you guys think that way.........
Sorry ahnimus, I keep forgetting this is all about you.
My mistake. Shouldn't have bothered, you're right, I am stupid and delusional, I keep expecting more from you and I'm always disappointed when you are incapable of delivering.
.........Have you seen my youtube videos? Body language and tone make up some 80% of communication.
Same would apply to every one else that you are communicating with, you can't see them, you don't know them so 80% of what you are responding to is an unknown to you. Doesn't seem to stop you laughing at people, or labelling them. If you don't want people to respond negatively to your words then perhaps choose them more carefully? Another dumb suggestion of mine.
Continue to ignore me.
I have heard arguments from athiests saying their non-belief in a higher power gives them license to behave as they choose. They have, in essence, denied having a standard to live up to. This is their justification. That fact that people do unethical things is because they are humans making mistakes and not related to athiesm.
these so called atheists are not representative of ALL atheists. they are just using their nonbelief as an excuse to justify their actions. but i don't see it as them making a mistake. they are conscious of the decisions they make. and they need to take responsibility for them. whether they are a believer or a disbeliever is irrelevant.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
I have heard arguments from athiests saying their non-belief in a higher power gives them license to behave as they choose. They have, in essence, denied having a standard to live up to. This is their justification. That fact that people do unethical things is because they are humans making mistakes and not related to athiesm.
Ok well I'm an athiest, and I do behave as I choose, but I choose to believe that I do have standards to live up to. My own. And those of the people that love me and have invested in my life to some degree.
But I agree that people do unethical things because they make mistakes, sometimes deliberate ones, but that is not always related to athiesm.
I fully agree people of faith do similar types of things. I'm speaking about athiests, since this thread is about the morality of athiests. And it's a different situation when someone is saying they don't have to do something because they don't believe in God, than a Christian being called on not living up to a belief in God. Although obnoxious behaviour is the same, the situations and the justifications are different.
I would agree with this mostly, except that how is the obnoxious behaviour of a person of faith using that faith as a justification any different to an athiest using their non belief as a justification for obnoxious behaviour?
The motivation is the same, belief or disbelief so that therefore the "rules do not apply" to the individual. To me a silly motivation. Perhaps not to others.
Fair enough. I personally see that people believe things are random. I understand that in their experience things seem random. I say that absolutely everything, 100% happens for an exact and specific reason on all levels.
Ok, well I would disagree with that I think, if I'm understand you correctly. :)Too many things that cannot be explained happen in this world for things not to be random or without reason.
And I dislike the idea that when things do happen to people that are random that they are somehow responsible for it. Feels like blaming people to me.
I think some things do happen for a reason and I think other things are random and just happen.
these so called atheists are not representative of ALL atheists. they are just using their nonbelief as an excuse to justify their actions. but i don't see it as them making a mistake. they are conscious of the decisions they make. and they need to take responsibility for them. whether they are a believer or a disbeliever is irrelevant.
I would never say it was all athiests. I know more than a few athiests who hold themselves to a very high standard.
What I mean about mistakes, is that people are flawed and make them all the time. I can understand that. I can even understand when people make mistakes and have them pointed out to them and are still in denial. I always agree that people are to be held to account for what they do, denial or not, or whether they hide behind justifications. I can understand their point of view, and still they are accountable for what they do.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Ok well I'm an athiest, and I do behave as I choose, but I choose to believe that I do have standards to live up to. My own. And those of the people that love me and have invested in my life to some degree.
But I agree that people do unethical things because they make mistakes, sometimes deliberate ones, but that is not always related to athiesm.
me too jeanie. i treat people and live my life to a very high standard. and it is MY standard. i'm not swayed by what other people, even those who love me, deem appropriate.
what is a deliberate mistake? sounds like an oxymoron to me.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Ok well I'm an athiest, and I do behave as I choose, but I choose to believe that I do have standards to live up to. My own. And those of the people that love me and have invested in my life to some degree.
But I agree that people do unethical things because they make mistakes, sometimes deliberate ones, but that is not always related to athiesm.
as I said, I refer to when they use non-belief as their justification.
I would agree with this mostly, except that how is the obnoxious behaviour of a person of faith using that faith as a justification any different to an athiest using their non belief as a justification for obnoxious behaviour?
The motivation is the same, belief or disbelief so that therefore the "rules do not apply" to the individual. To me a silly motivation. Perhaps not to others.
They are different types of situations. Different equalling different.
Ok, well I would disagree with that I think, if I'm understand you correctly. :)Too many things that cannot be explained happen in this world for things not to be random or without reason.
And I dislike the idea that when things do happen to people that are random that they are somehow responsible for it. Feels like blaming people to me.
I think some things do happen for a reason and I think other things are random and just happen.
If you stepped off of a curb at an odd angle and twisted your ankle, and you realized that the twisted ankle was a consequence of stepping of the curb at an odd angle, would you blame yourself for doing so?
The idea of truly understanding cause and effect is actually void of blame, as Ahnimus and I point out. The current psychology families operate from at this point where cause/effect is not appreciated and understood, blame is taught to us from birth, when it's actually inappropriate. Both Ahnimus and I, who see non-randomness around us, as well as the philosophers, scientists, etc, Ahnimus quotes on determinism, advocate releasing this blame/judgment paradigm so persistent and detrimental in our society.
When we can acknowledge our behaviours simply, on all levels, we can use this cause and effect to make changes and empower ourselves--meaning to fix problems. People are so bound up in blame and shame as things are, it's hard to see around it to the simple issues that we can learn from in our lives.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
I have been reading this post, at least trying, but for me it gets too philsophical with lots of weighty words and ideas, and I just hate having to think that hard as to why i am moral and don't have the fear of god or hell in me.
I feel its a lot simpler than all that weighty stuff.
Just living in society gives us morals and values. Laws keeps us moral, or at least fear of jail may. An just plain decency. Or what others tink of us. Plus, my reason, I want to live in a nice world. Thus, I need to live how I want others to live so we have a pleasant and safe society.
There are even things that are not laws, like eating dogs, that is just an unwritten norm in our society that we then don't do, not because of any God, but because society tells us what is right and wrong.
I do believe man is inherently good. We are born with a clean slate, (tabula rosa). Anything after that is learned. Whether belief in God or not, that is how we begin as humans and we learn from within our society what is acceptable. People do not have to believe in any supreme being to do what is right. Society tells us from that very beginning on our clean slate.
I do know this, belief in a higher power alone does not keep people moral. Lots of people do heinous things to others and will say they believe in a higher power. Likewise, there are many who have no belief and have very fine morals and values and live within societal norms or mores.
I don't get why some people think belief in a God has anything at all to do with morals or not when all evidence on what we see various people do show no evidence that their belief system had anything to do as to whether they kill, be immoral or not.
I don't think belief is factor at all. I do not believe people live by morals because of their beliefs in a god. They may, but evidence shows otherwise.
All that belief tends to do is make them feel guilt or fear, yet doesn't stop them.
Look at the evidence. Lots of people who believe in god kill, rape, steal. etc. Not all, of course, but many. Lots of people without any belief don't do these things. Again not all, but I think its a quite even amount, thus taking the whole belief thing out of it, and I feel its more society that determines our morals and values and some people just go against that regardless of their belief.
If you truly believe nothing is random, there is no "but".
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Just living in society gives us morals and values. Laws keeps us moral, or at least fear of jail may. An just plain decency. Or what others tink of us. Plus, my reason, I want to live in a nice world. Thus, I need to live how I want others to live so we have a pleasant and safe society.
now this concept interests me. one could also say that laws FORCE morality upon us.
in the early days of the colony of new south wales, it was the morality of the anglican church that was forced upon the convicts and free settlers of this fledgling society. catholics were forced to worship along the guidelines of the anglican church. catholic services were outlawed.
the lower classes were expected to follow the morality of the ruling class. in the lower classes, it was acceptable for a man and woman to live in a defacto relationship. and many had done so for much longer than some married couples. this was seen as anathema to any civilised society. and so these couples were discriminated against and either forced to marry or ostracised. upon death of the man, the woman was also denied her rights as the surviving partner.
i now take great pleasure, even though i am an atheist, in being able to take in the sight of the largest house of worship in that colony of sydney now being a catholic church.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
now this concept interests me. one could also say that laws FORCE morality upon us.
in the early days of the colony of new south wales, it was the morality of the anglican church that was forced upon the convicts and free settlers of this fledgling society. catholics were forced to worship along the guidelines of the anglican church. catholic services were outlawed.
the lower classes were expected to follow the morality of the ruling class. where it was acceptable for a man and woman to live in a defacto relationship this was seen as anathema to any civilised society. and so these couples were discriminated against and either forced to marry or ostracised.
i now take great pleasure, even though i am an atheist, in being able to take in the sight of the largest house of worship in that colony of sydney now being a catholic church.
Laws do keep some moral, and yes forced. I guess for those who haven't been able to internalize it for themsleves.
I have been reading this post, at least trying, but for me it gets too philsophical with lots of weighty words and ideas, and I just hate having to think that hard as to why i am moral and don't have the fear of god or hell in me.
I feel its a lot simpler than all that weighty stuff.
Just living in society gives us morals and values. Laws keeps us moral, or at least fear of jail may. An just plain decency. Or what others tink of us. Plus, my reason, I want to live in a nice world. Thus, I need to live how I want others to live so we have a pleasant and safe society.
There are even things that are not laws, like eating dogs, that is just an unwritten norm in our society that we then don't do, not because of any God, but because society tells us what is right and wrong.
I do believe man is inherently good. We are born with a clean slate, (tabula rosa). Anything after that is learned. Whether belief in God or not, that is how we begin as humans and we learn from within our society what is acceptable. People do not have to believe in any supreme being to do what is right. Society tells us from that very beginning on our clean slate.
I do know this, belief in a higher power alone does not keep people moral. Lots of people do heinous things to others and will say they believe in a higher power. Likewise, there are many who have no belief and have very fine morals and values and live within societal norms or mores.
I don't get why some people think belief in a God has anything at all to do with morals or not when all evidence on what we see various people do show no evidence that their belief system had anything to do as to whether they kill, be immoral or not.
I don't think belief is factor at all. I do not believe people live by morals because of their beliefs in a god. They may, but evidence shows otherwise.
All that belief tends to do is make them feel guilt or fear, yet doesn't stop them.
Look at the evidence. Lots of people who believe in god kill, rape, steal. etc. Not all, of course, but many. Lots of people without any belief don't do these things. Again not all, but I think its a quite even amount, thus taking the whole belief thing out of it, and I feel its more society that determines our morals and values and some people just go against that regardless of their belief.
That is similar to my beliefs. I believe in tabula rasa to a degree. Recent research has shown some hard-wired altruism, but I question whether this wiring is innate or due to conditioning. I guess that would depend whether or not prairie vole have societal conditioning. Still, in the most part I think it's a blank slate, though many have disowned this theory as of late. It doesn't seem that either of the alternative theories-innate purity, or original sin-have been owned. It's rather varying degrees of innate morality, in light of new evidence.
Yet, I still hold that much of what we believe is learned. For example, honoring age of consent laws is definitely learned behavior. It violates our natural tendencies, as ironic as that may seem. When a woman reaches the age of adolescence they are ripe in the eyes of nature. Therefor the moral obligation prohibiting such behavior is learned.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
That is similar to my beliefs. I believe in tabula rasa to a degree. Recent research has shown some hard-wired altruism, but I question whether this wiring is innate or due to conditioning. I guess that would depend whether or not prairie vole have societal conditioning. Still, in the most part I think it's a blank slate, though many have disowned this theory as of late. It doesn't seem that either of the alternative theories-innate purity, or original sin-have been owned. It's rather varying degrees of innate morality, in light of new evidence.
Yet, I still hold that much of what we believe is learned. For example, honoring age of consent laws is definitely learned behavior. It violates our natural tendencies, as ironic as that may seem. When a woman reaches the age of adolescence they are ripe in the eyes of nature. Therefor the moral obligation prohibiting such behavior is learned.
Do you notice that learned behaviour has to do with that universal cause and effect? If we aren't born with something, it's molded in us from our environment and therefore is natural, as well. So no matter whether it's from inside or outside, we develop morality as a way of adapting to our lives and our environment and the challenges life brings us. Whether we have societal conditioning or not, we are always being environmentally conditioned.
As for the subject of age of consent, nature considers a woman "ripe" at a certain age, physically, and nature, via humans, has taught us certain life principles through our environments, that have equipped us, naturally, with logical cases that have shown us a woman is not mature mentally or emotionally for "consent" until a later date and thereby we've adapted. Whether something is inherent through universal life flowing through us biologically, or whether we internalize it from what our environments have taught us, it's all natural and for adaptive purposes.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Still, in the most part I think it's a blank slate, though many have disowned this theory as of late. It doesn't seem that either of the alternative theories-innate purity, or original sin-have been owned. It's rather varying degrees of innate morality, in light of new evidence.
Do you have links to some of this new evidence? Or the seeming prevailing theories of this time regaring innate morality?
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
I can't wait until the biologists inadvertently reproduce the Ten Commandments!
Some questions come to mind: To what degree can the rules for morality be written solely as a function of evolution? It may be an interesting problem to discern between evolved moral traits, and those acquired socially.
I wonder about another component of this. Do animals love, and hate, as we do? Even if animal behavior can all be reduced to this hormone, or that stimulated response, can't human reactions be reduced in a similar manner? Why would we be fundamentally different in how we feel about each other, or about our pets for that matter, as compared to how they feel? Honestly, I find it hard to believe that my cats don't really love me.;)
The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance,
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
Genetic analysis showed that both species of vole posses identical receptors for oxytocin and vasopressin, leading investigators to believe the difference was in the placement of the receptors. If an area of the brain contains these receptors the activity associated with that part of the brain would become stimulatede if vassopressin or oxytocin were introduced. In the prairie vole, oxytocin receptors were found in different locations of the brain than the Montane vole. Researchers have therefore theorized that the section of the brain enabliing monogamy is present in the area of the brain possessing the receptors of oxytocin and vasopressin in prairie voles. Researchers have likewise theorized that the area of the brain containing vasopressin receptors in Montane voles is responsible for grooming habits. Current research is trying to create transgenic mice that will have the vole vasopressin receptor, presumably making them monogamous.
There is more to it than this article covers, but I don't have time to find a better source. Just know that human brains are different as well. A neuroanatomist can tell the difference between a european brain and an african brain just by looking at them. There is diversity within lineages as well.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I can't wait until the biologists inadvertently reproduce the Ten Commandments!
Some questions come to mind: To what degree can the rules for morality be written solely as a function of evolution? It may be an interesting problem to discern between evolved moral traits, and those acquired socially.
I wonder about another component of this. Do animals love, and hate, as we do? Even if animal behavior can all be reduced to this hormone, or that stimulated response, can't human reactions be reduced in a similar manner? Why would we be fundamentally different in how we feel about each other, or about our pets for that matter, as compared to how they feel? Honestly, I find it hard to believe that my cats don't really love me.;)
The part of our brain that deals in emotion and instinct is the limbic system, otherwise known as the mammalian brain. These traits are shared with other mammals, so yes, animals have emotions.
Evolution stems from the less dense levels of reality/existence. Ultimately evolution stems from what is eternal and timeless beyond the evolution. These levels are perceived subjectively. They cannot be objectively quantified. People often use vehicles like religion/philosophy, or practices such as meditation and prayer to grasp these truths.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Genetic analysis showed that both species of vole posses identical receptors for oxytocin and vasopressin, leading investigators to believe the difference was in the placement of the receptors. If an area of the brain contains these receptors the activity associated with that part of the brain would become stimulatede if vassopressin or oxytocin were introduced. In the prairie vole, oxytocin receptors were found in different locations of the brain than the Montane vole. Researchers have therefore theorized that the section of the brain enabliing monogamy is present in the area of the brain possessing the receptors of oxytocin and vasopressin in prairie voles. Researchers have likewise theorized that the area of the brain containing vasopressin receptors in Montane voles is responsible for grooming habits. Current research is trying to create transgenic mice that will have the vole vasopressin receptor, presumably making them monogamous.
There is more to it than this article covers, but I don't have time to find a better source. Just know that human brains are different as well. A neuroanatomist can tell the difference between a european brain and an african brain just by looking at them. There is diversity within lineages as well.
This kind of stuff is heavy on the research, light on the explanation. I work best in understanding with the opposite--stuff that is explained in lay-person's terms supported by evidence.
Did I understand you correctly, though, that theories of innate morality are emerging? Or are looking like they are considered the prevailing view at this time? I did find some stuff online, saying new theories are looking in this direction.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
This kind of stuff is heavy on the research, light on the explanation. I work best in understanding with the opposite--stuff that is explained in lay-person's terms supported by evidence.
Did I understand you correctly, though, that theories of innate morality are emerging? Or are looking like they are considered the prevailing view at this time? I did find some stuff online, saying new theories are looking in this direction.
There are two species of voles, one is called the prairie vole and the other is called the montane vole; they don't interbreed, they're similar in many respects but here is a respect in which they differ. The prairie voles are monogamous pair bonders; after the first mating they bond for life. They are also bi-parental nurturers, they both take care of the pups, and they take care of them for a long time. In this respect the montane voles differ. They are promiscuous pair bonders and they are mono-parental and the mothers don't take care of the pups for as long as the prairie voles.
Now you might think that this is a social behaviour that's extremely complex, that maybe needs to be mediated by culture, by religion. It turns out that it's actually regulated in the brain by a very simple peptide called vasopressin, and whether you're a monogamous pair bonder or a promiscuous pair bonder is a function of the receptor density, the receptors for vasopressin in a very specific part of the brain. You change that receptor density in the prairie vole, they become promiscuous, you change it in a montane vole and they become monogamous.
So we have learned something very important about social attachment and in a comparable way we're learning very important things about aggression and the various neural chemicals and pathways that mediate aggression, co-operation, altruism, mutual defence and so forth. And what this means is that it's giving ethics, or the whole domain of what it is to be a moral agent a very different look. http://www.abc.net.au/rn/inconversation/stories/2007/1852346.htm
You may have to click "View Transcript" on the linked page.
Patricia Churchland is a neurophilosopher.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
"But with an atheist, what stops them from killing another person?Or stealing? They don't have morals. Why would they?"
One of the most ridiculous, ignorant, and unfounded comments I've had the unfortunate luck to be around and hear.
Has any other atheist around here had their morals questioned with this argument? Why do people come up with this shit? And how can they really believe that?
yep, ignorant, that's all it is.
i've said it a million times....the meanest people i have ever met have been the "religious types". or at least types who thought they were the most upstanding individuals. but they're really just astronomical assholes.
atheists & non-religious types don't need some crazy "religion" to guide their morality. common sense rules the day.
doing what's "right" doesn't need some invisible faith-kinda-based approval for....thinkers.
Except this neurophilosopher has shown a mind/body bias in materialism.
As long as the material aspects are accurate that's okay for my purposes, so I can suspend judgment on the materialist bias.
You'd be hard up to find a philosopher these days that ascribed to any form of supernaturalism.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
You'd be hard up to find a philosopher these days that ascribed to any form of supernaturalism.
Ken Wilbur, among others, is a very well known philosopher and very into the higher levels of perception, that entail a Maslow-type self-actualization and connections with those peak experiences described by Maslow:
"Feelings of limitless horizons opening up to the vision, the feeling of being simultaneously more powerful and also more helpless than one ever was before, the feeling of ecstasy and wonder and awe, the loss of placement in time and space with, finally, the conviction that something extremely important and valuable had happened, so that the subject was to some extent transformed and strengthened even in his daily life by such experiences."
Maybe the problem is in the term "supernatural". Those who experience these experiences know how natural they are and that they are our birthright as humans, even though this ability to tap into life to such a degree is dormant in most, due to life-situations. This potential still lies just beneath our life experiences.
It looks like you and I connect with very different philosophers.....
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Ken Wilbur, among others, is a very well known philosopher and very into the higher levels of perception, that entail a Maslow-type self-actualization and connections with those peak experiences described by Maslow:
"Feelings of limitless horizons opening up to the vision, the feeling of being simultaneously more powerful and also more helpless than one ever was before, the feeling of ecstasy and wonder and awe, the loss of placement in time and space with, finally, the conviction that something extremely important and valuable had happened, so that the subject was to some extent transformed and strengthened even in his daily life by such experiences."
Maybe the problem is in the term "supernatural". Those who experience these experiences know how natural they are and that they are our birthright as humans, even though this ability to tap into life to such a degree is dormant in most, due to life-situations. This potential still lies just beneath our life experiences.
It looks like you and I connect with very different philosophers.....
There is a material explanation for that. Remember Newberg?
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Comments
what is universal governance?
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
I fully agree people of faith do similar types of things. I'm speaking about athiests, since this thread is about the morality of athiests. And it's a different situation when someone is saying they don't have to do something because they don't believe in God, than a Christian being called on not living up to a belief in God. Although obnoxious behaviour is the same, the situations and the justifications are different.
Fair enough. I personally see that people believe things are random. I understand that in their experience things seem random. I say that absolutely everything, 100% happens for an exact and specific reason on all levels.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Sorry ahnimus, I keep forgetting this is all about you.
My mistake. Shouldn't have bothered, you're right, I am stupid and delusional, I keep expecting more from you and I'm always disappointed when you are incapable of delivering.
Same would apply to every one else that you are communicating with, you can't see them, you don't know them so 80% of what you are responding to is an unknown to you. Doesn't seem to stop you laughing at people, or labelling them. If you don't want people to respond negatively to your words then perhaps choose them more carefully? Another dumb suggestion of mine.
Continue to ignore me.
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
these so called atheists are not representative of ALL atheists. they are just using their nonbelief as an excuse to justify their actions. but i don't see it as them making a mistake. they are conscious of the decisions they make. and they need to take responsibility for them. whether they are a believer or a disbeliever is irrelevant.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Ok well I'm an athiest, and I do behave as I choose, but I choose to believe that I do have standards to live up to. My own. And those of the people that love me and have invested in my life to some degree.
But I agree that people do unethical things because they make mistakes, sometimes deliberate ones, but that is not always related to athiesm.
I would agree with this mostly, except that how is the obnoxious behaviour of a person of faith using that faith as a justification any different to an athiest using their non belief as a justification for obnoxious behaviour?
The motivation is the same, belief or disbelief so that therefore the "rules do not apply" to the individual. To me a silly motivation. Perhaps not to others.
Ok, well I would disagree with that I think, if I'm understand you correctly. :)Too many things that cannot be explained happen in this world for things not to be random or without reason.
And I dislike the idea that when things do happen to people that are random that they are somehow responsible for it. Feels like blaming people to me.
I think some things do happen for a reason and I think other things are random and just happen.
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
What I mean about mistakes, is that people are flawed and make them all the time. I can understand that. I can even understand when people make mistakes and have them pointed out to them and are still in denial. I always agree that people are to be held to account for what they do, denial or not, or whether they hide behind justifications. I can understand their point of view, and still they are accountable for what they do.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
me too jeanie. i treat people and live my life to a very high standard. and it is MY standard. i'm not swayed by what other people, even those who love me, deem appropriate.
what is a deliberate mistake? sounds like an oxymoron to me.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
They are different types of situations. Different equalling different.
If you stepped off of a curb at an odd angle and twisted your ankle, and you realized that the twisted ankle was a consequence of stepping of the curb at an odd angle, would you blame yourself for doing so?
The idea of truly understanding cause and effect is actually void of blame, as Ahnimus and I point out. The current psychology families operate from at this point where cause/effect is not appreciated and understood, blame is taught to us from birth, when it's actually inappropriate. Both Ahnimus and I, who see non-randomness around us, as well as the philosophers, scientists, etc, Ahnimus quotes on determinism, advocate releasing this blame/judgment paradigm so persistent and detrimental in our society.
When we can acknowledge our behaviours simply, on all levels, we can use this cause and effect to make changes and empower ourselves--meaning to fix problems. People are so bound up in blame and shame as things are, it's hard to see around it to the simple issues that we can learn from in our lives.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
I feel its a lot simpler than all that weighty stuff.
Just living in society gives us morals and values. Laws keeps us moral, or at least fear of jail may. An just plain decency. Or what others tink of us. Plus, my reason, I want to live in a nice world. Thus, I need to live how I want others to live so we have a pleasant and safe society.
There are even things that are not laws, like eating dogs, that is just an unwritten norm in our society that we then don't do, not because of any God, but because society tells us what is right and wrong.
I do believe man is inherently good. We are born with a clean slate, (tabula rosa). Anything after that is learned. Whether belief in God or not, that is how we begin as humans and we learn from within our society what is acceptable. People do not have to believe in any supreme being to do what is right. Society tells us from that very beginning on our clean slate.
I do know this, belief in a higher power alone does not keep people moral. Lots of people do heinous things to others and will say they believe in a higher power. Likewise, there are many who have no belief and have very fine morals and values and live within societal norms or mores.
I don't get why some people think belief in a God has anything at all to do with morals or not when all evidence on what we see various people do show no evidence that their belief system had anything to do as to whether they kill, be immoral or not.
I don't think belief is factor at all. I do not believe people live by morals because of their beliefs in a god. They may, but evidence shows otherwise.
All that belief tends to do is make them feel guilt or fear, yet doesn't stop them.
Look at the evidence. Lots of people who believe in god kill, rape, steal. etc. Not all, of course, but many. Lots of people without any belief don't do these things. Again not all, but I think its a quite even amount, thus taking the whole belief thing out of it, and I feel its more society that determines our morals and values and some people just go against that regardless of their belief.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
now this concept interests me. one could also say that laws FORCE morality upon us.
in the early days of the colony of new south wales, it was the morality of the anglican church that was forced upon the convicts and free settlers of this fledgling society. catholics were forced to worship along the guidelines of the anglican church. catholic services were outlawed.
the lower classes were expected to follow the morality of the ruling class. in the lower classes, it was acceptable for a man and woman to live in a defacto relationship. and many had done so for much longer than some married couples. this was seen as anathema to any civilised society. and so these couples were discriminated against and either forced to marry or ostracised. upon death of the man, the woman was also denied her rights as the surviving partner.
i now take great pleasure, even though i am an atheist, in being able to take in the sight of the largest house of worship in that colony of sydney now being a catholic church.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
oh i agree. laws also make some immoral in the legal sense, though not in a conscientious sense. does that make sense?
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
That is similar to my beliefs. I believe in tabula rasa to a degree. Recent research has shown some hard-wired altruism, but I question whether this wiring is innate or due to conditioning. I guess that would depend whether or not prairie vole have societal conditioning. Still, in the most part I think it's a blank slate, though many have disowned this theory as of late. It doesn't seem that either of the alternative theories-innate purity, or original sin-have been owned. It's rather varying degrees of innate morality, in light of new evidence.
Yet, I still hold that much of what we believe is learned. For example, honoring age of consent laws is definitely learned behavior. It violates our natural tendencies, as ironic as that may seem. When a woman reaches the age of adolescence they are ripe in the eyes of nature. Therefor the moral obligation prohibiting such behavior is learned.
Do you notice that learned behaviour has to do with that universal cause and effect? If we aren't born with something, it's molded in us from our environment and therefore is natural, as well. So no matter whether it's from inside or outside, we develop morality as a way of adapting to our lives and our environment and the challenges life brings us. Whether we have societal conditioning or not, we are always being environmentally conditioned.
As for the subject of age of consent, nature considers a woman "ripe" at a certain age, physically, and nature, via humans, has taught us certain life principles through our environments, that have equipped us, naturally, with logical cases that have shown us a woman is not mature mentally or emotionally for "consent" until a later date and thereby we've adapted. Whether something is inherent through universal life flowing through us biologically, or whether we internalize it from what our environments have taught us, it's all natural and for adaptive purposes.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Here is an interesting article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/20/science/20moral.html?ex=1332043200&en=84f902cc81da9173&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss
I can't wait until the biologists inadvertently reproduce the Ten Commandments!
Some questions come to mind: To what degree can the rules for morality be written solely as a function of evolution? It may be an interesting problem to discern between evolved moral traits, and those acquired socially.
I wonder about another component of this. Do animals love, and hate, as we do? Even if animal behavior can all be reduced to this hormone, or that stimulated response, can't human reactions be reduced in a similar manner? Why would we be fundamentally different in how we feel about each other, or about our pets for that matter, as compared to how they feel? Honestly, I find it hard to believe that my cats don't really love me.;)
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
http://www.brookscole.com/chemistry_d/templates/student_resources/0030223180_garrettgrisham/HotTopics/Love.html
This states:
Genetic analysis showed that both species of vole posses identical receptors for oxytocin and vasopressin, leading investigators to believe the difference was in the placement of the receptors. If an area of the brain contains these receptors the activity associated with that part of the brain would become stimulatede if vassopressin or oxytocin were introduced. In the prairie vole, oxytocin receptors were found in different locations of the brain than the Montane vole. Researchers have therefore theorized that the section of the brain enabliing monogamy is present in the area of the brain possessing the receptors of oxytocin and vasopressin in prairie voles. Researchers have likewise theorized that the area of the brain containing vasopressin receptors in Montane voles is responsible for grooming habits. Current research is trying to create transgenic mice that will have the vole vasopressin receptor, presumably making them monogamous.
There is more to it than this article covers, but I don't have time to find a better source. Just know that human brains are different as well. A neuroanatomist can tell the difference between a european brain and an african brain just by looking at them. There is diversity within lineages as well.
The part of our brain that deals in emotion and instinct is the limbic system, otherwise known as the mammalian brain. These traits are shared with other mammals, so yes, animals have emotions.
Evolution stems from the less dense levels of reality/existence. Ultimately evolution stems from what is eternal and timeless beyond the evolution. These levels are perceived subjectively. They cannot be objectively quantified. People often use vehicles like religion/philosophy, or practices such as meditation and prayer to grasp these truths.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Did I understand you correctly, though, that theories of innate morality are emerging? Or are looking like they are considered the prevailing view at this time? I did find some stuff online, saying new theories are looking in this direction.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Try this:
You may have to click "View Transcript" on the linked page.
Patricia Churchland is a neurophilosopher.
yep, ignorant, that's all it is.
i've said it a million times....the meanest people i have ever met have been the "religious types". or at least types who thought they were the most upstanding individuals. but they're really just astronomical assholes.
atheists & non-religious types don't need some crazy "religion" to guide their morality. common sense rules the day.
doing what's "right" doesn't need some invisible faith-kinda-based approval for....thinkers.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
As long as the material aspects are accurate that's okay for my purposes, so I can suspend judgment on the materialist bias.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
You'd be hard up to find a philosopher these days that ascribed to any form of supernaturalism.
"Feelings of limitless horizons opening up to the vision, the feeling of being simultaneously more powerful and also more helpless than one ever was before, the feeling of ecstasy and wonder and awe, the loss of placement in time and space with, finally, the conviction that something extremely important and valuable had happened, so that the subject was to some extent transformed and strengthened even in his daily life by such experiences."
Maybe the problem is in the term "supernatural". Those who experience these experiences know how natural they are and that they are our birthright as humans, even though this ability to tap into life to such a degree is dormant in most, due to life-situations. This potential still lies just beneath our life experiences.
It looks like you and I connect with very different philosophers.....
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
There is a material explanation for that. Remember Newberg?