Freethought & Rationalism Archive

trendkill · 06-24-2007, 01:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riverwind

So what do we do about these 'biological differences' that cause one person to kill 500,000 people and one to say that's 'immoral'? Nothing,

Why does it follow from one person's morality that he should kill 500,000 people, but when it comes to the person who disagrees, no course of action can be suggested by his morality? This is special pleading. Takes a little more thought, I'm afraid.

HelpingHand · 06-24-2007, 01:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riverwind

Then you will admit that your 'basis' is subjective and arbitrary, that is, mere opinion?

It is subjective, no doubt about thta, but arbitrary?

Quote:

Then why do you call it "humanism"? Are you not following the originator of that term?

If not, then what does your version of "humanism" entail and why? Pure personal preferance?

Humanism is what's good for humanity. And it's not absolute.

Quote:

Many do. There are many, again, who understand the difficulties with 'morality' and have developed very elaborate 'guides' for living a 'moral' life. These 'moral guides' are used by many who have no religious beliefs.

I know that, but I follow no particular guide. Of course I'm influenced by many people, but i do not follow one 'guide', I like to think for myself.

Quote:

You say "Jesus", but I'm sure that you mean only the teachings of Jesus with which your personal preferences happen to agree? Am I correct? Or are you a follower of Jesus?

You're correct. Don't you do that too?

Quote:

Have you always found yourself to be without 'error' in making 'moral' decisions? What makes your 'own judement' a 'good' basis? Have you read and do you understand everything there is about 'ethics' and 'morals'?

No, I haven't always found myself without error. Have you?
It's not just my judgement.
No, have you?

Quote:

Further, even if you see your judgement as excellent in matters of 'ethics' and 'morality', can we equally rely on everyone's judgement in matters of 'ethics' and 'morality'?

No, we can't. There is not one infallible morality.

Quote:

No problem. There are many 'types' for sure, but I happen to believe that the majority of those 'types' share a core set of "fundamental saving beliefs". Nominally, I am a Southern Baptist, and that is the 'type' of church I attend. Some would call me a "fundamentalist" and some would not, but this is another term of generalization that doesn't really mean much. I would classify myself as a "fundamentalist" in the sense that I believe in the "fundamentals" of the Bible. However, I would not classify myself as a "fundamentalist" in the sense that many seem to mean it in a derogatory sense these days...I rarely agreed with all the thoughts and methods of Falwell or several other of the very public Christian leaders. The only exception to that case, in my eyes, would be Billy Graham, whom I think the world of as an example of a 'good' Christian man.

I happen to believe the majority of human beings share a core set of moral values.
If you rarely agree with the thoughts of 'several others of the very public Chrsitian leaders', it's clear you also let your personal preferences in to decide which thoughts you follow. See, we are not that differnt after all.

Quote:

The common fundamentals of the Bible, as I see them, are (1) Love God (and Jesus is the only way to God) and (2)Love your neighbor as yourself. This is how Jesus summed up the "Law" of the OT, so criticisms of other parts of it, as some attempt, mean little or nothing to most Christians. For, with the above summation, they must say, when they are not scared of sounding unconfident, that they do not understand what is written about God in some parts of the Bible. Some look for reasons, and that's fine by me, but I don't have a problem in saying that I don't understand them and that Jesus' summation overrides them anyway.

Great, so another thing we agree on. I do not love God (since I don't believe in Him) but I try to love my neighbours as myself.

Quote:

That's just a snippet of what I believe, but it is a likely fault summary of my beliefs. I won't talk further about them in this thread, because I am focusing on why some here think I should give up my 'good' beliefs to follow their equally subjective beliefs.

I certainly don't think you should give up your subjective beliefs, just don't force them upon me.

Quote:

They may not (and I can certainly appreciate that), but I guess I'm trying to point out (to others if not to you) that this 'morality' is as subjective and relatively baseless as religious 'morals', at least from an atheistic/agnostic viewpoint.

That has always been my point. All morals are subjective, whether based on religion or not.

Greetings

Walter

JamesBannon · 06-24-2007, 01:08 PM

Quote:

....Love your neighbor as yourself.

This is just a rewording of GR. It is not uniquely Christian. While we're on the subject there are Christians who take the OT "wrath of god" type stuff seriously.

HelpingHand · 06-24-2007, 01:22 PM

[QUOTE=Riverwind;4561563]

Quote:

However, even 'humanism' (however one defines that) is also just someone's term for a 'belief'. And, until well-defined, I cannot accept that it is something that should be at the base of all human 'morality'.

Well humanism as I see it, is the basic concern for the well-being of humanity in general and all human beings in particular. What I mean is, I think belief or religion is very good, as long as it serves the interest of humanity.
My humanistic belief (yes, I guess you could call it that), tells me that if there is a God ,He is there to serve humanity and not the other way round.

Quote:

Thanks for your questions and statements, seriously. It bothers me that I come across angry and confrontational...and I'm sorry if it is so. I tend to "speak" strongly and to ask very tough questions that can likely sound harsh.

That said, I am seriously asking "What is 'right'"?

Well, it doesn't bother me. You don't come across angry to me, maybe confrontational, yes, but this is a discussion board after all, and I believe everybody is entitled to his own opinion.
I can't give you an answer to 'what is right'? We 'll have to jugde in each situation. If I really thought the Bible, e.g. would give us the only correct solution, I would take it as my guide.
I must tell you, I was born and raised a catholic, and both my parents still are devout catholics, as are many of my friends and relatives, so I am not on a crusade against Christianity, althouh there are things in i a do not agree with.

Greetings

Walter

Riverwind · 06-24-2007, 01:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ephemerid

You don't need a rational or pseudo-rational system of thought in order to recognise suffering.

No, but you do need one in order not to be indifferent. ...and if you should decide to bring up the 'natural empathy and moral intution' again, please realize that I do not believe there is such a thing...I believe you were taught that empathy. I have created another thread in the Morals forum to deal with this subject in more depth if you care to post there.

Quote:

Then you are a callous person who is not willing to recognise that suffering, turn a blind eye to it.

If those suffering people do not benefit me in any way that I can see, then so what? For instance, if I was part of a strong ethnic group that hated another weak ethnic group (for something other than religious reasons...they steal our crops...they're purple people, strange, and scary...I don't understand their actions and think they're dangerous whether they are or not...you can come up with other things), then I see nothing wrong with ridding my land of that weaker ethnic group. Then everyone is mostly like me and thinks like me. Yes, I see their suffering, but I am indifferent to it. They're "disappearance" will make my life more pleasant and I will never have to deal with them again. My society will not punish me, they will also be happy. There is no God who will judge me, and there is no real reason to think I did anything 'wrong'.

Quote:

Plenty of religious people do that, BTW, so obviously being religious does not make one moral.

I'm not arguing that, although I believe they are every bit as 'moral', in their understanding of 'morality' as atheists/agnostics are in theirs, whatever that means.

Quote:

Being religious does not make one moral. Being irreligious does not make one moral. Being religious does not make one immoral. Being irrelgious does not make one immoral.

Once again, someone is getting it, so I'm probably wasting my breath (fingers) on these issues with most...it's just the Charlies and Johnnys of the world (forums) who don't seem to get it.

Quote:

Refusing to allow oneself feelings of empathy is the issue. Not 'depth of thought.'

Why bother with 'empathy'? You may feel free to bother with a sort of 'conscience' or 'empathy' that allows you to feel for those who benefit you in some way, but not in a general 'empathy' for everyone. That, I believe, is a behavior learned from societal values (that is, from the values of societies who actually believe in a general sort of 'empathy' for all...no all societies do not, obviously). As I mentioned, I believe 'empathy' is learned.

Quote:

A nice cynical view of humanity you've got there. Not to say that there aren't plenty of sorry bastards out there who do think that way. But that is because they haven't reflected on themselves, suppressing their empathy. When I say 'reflected' I don't mean adhered to or built a philosophical or theological system to live by.

"Suppressing their empathy"? There is no empathy to begin with. Do you have children? If there are people who can say this with a straight face after raising children, I have no idea how they can believe such a thing.

Quote:

Empathy is what CUTS THROUGH all that bullshit to see the human being(s) before them.

That is not a definition that is going to "CUT THROUGH" anything for me. As I mentioned to someone else, I started another thread to address this issue. There is no such thing as 'natural empathy'.

Quote:

I think CC's criticism is you've got plenty of American Christians who are comfortable in their own little existence, turning a blind eye to suffering,

Sure. Does he send his money or aid to those countries to help out in some way, to repair the damage? If he does, then wonderful. I suspect that he is just as complacent other than desiring to pin his dislike of circumstances on some group other than himself.

Quote:

Back in the late 90's I was living in Dallas & read an article about a HUGE Baptist church (in Ft. Worth if I recall). Now this was a church loaded with money & the congregation was gigantic. The pastor there was fairly new-- he'd been there for a couple years & he wanted to start up a soup kitchen & some other programmes for the homeless. The congregation was dead set against the idea. It finally had gotten so bad the pastor resigned. And I don't think I need to point out the irony there...

Here's what I believe. Christians/people of religion/atheists/agnostics/etc. are no different when it comes to 'morals'. We all do the same dumb stuff to each other. The difference, for Christians, is that (1) they are 'forgiven' while still expected to do better, and (2) that they (not always) believe there is a God who disapproves of 'bad' behavior, and so they have a reason to regret such things a homocide or genocide (and contrary to Charlie, Johnny, and some others, I don't know any Christians to whom God has appeared and told them to go kill a bunch of people, nor do I know any Christians who kill a bunch of people based on some OT verses where God is stated to have done such a thing).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riverwind

But the bottom line is choosing the empathy within us rather than cruelty or indifference.

Again, I don't believe in 'empathy' unless one is in a culture that has taught 'empathy' (and I believe that usually comes from (1) religion or (2) what I would term 'local empathy').

So, my ultimate question would be "Why?" Cruelty would be relatively meaningless, and indifference would simply be indifference, neither 'good' nor 'bad'.

Quote:

And there is no system of thought that can guarantee that result. Only individual self honesty can do that.

I don't know what 'self honesty' is for you, but when people honestly examine their motives for the things they do (and it is not an easy thing to admit), they find that they are, at base, selfish. You can try to suppress this nature or eliminate it (I don't think that's possible), but "Why"? That selfishness is part of self-preservation. Most people will slight others to save themselves. Are there examples of altruism? Yes, but I, personally, believe there is even a certain selfishness in those acts...called posterity. We're all gonna die some day. Why not leave a wonderful legacy and have people remember you well.

Riverwind · 06-24-2007, 01:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by trendkill

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riverwind

So what do we do about these 'biological differences' that cause one person to kill 500,000 people and one to say that's 'immoral'? Nothing,

Why does it follow from one person's morality that he should kill 500,000 people, but when it comes to the person who disagrees, no course of action can be suggested by his morality? This is special pleading. Takes a little more thought, I'm afraid.

Yes, it does. If we were the one with the 'biological differences' that cause us to kill 500,000 people, then I assume we'd also just kill those who disagree with us.

It takes quite a lot of thought. I see no "special pleading". I'm simply stating things as I see them.

The 'biological differences' idea is 'special pleading'.

StarryNight · 06-24-2007, 01:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riverwind

Nope, no jest. I believe that there are "atheists who love humanity" but only through faulty reasoning and through "turning a blind eye" toward the reality of their situation with no God in sight. "Too strawy to discuss further?" It certainly wasn't too strawy to discuss for most philosophers, the existentialists being the only honest ones of the bunch, IMHO.

If there is a pin in my foof I will pull it out. Your and my pain are alike. Humanity is a one body. Therefore if there is a pin in your foot (or an error in your thinking) I will remove it.

JamesBannon · 06-24-2007, 01:32 PM

Quote:

I don't know what 'self honesty' is for you, but when people honestly examine their motives for the things they do (and it is not an easy thing to admit), they find that they are, at base, selfish.

Correction. Humans are egocentric and this need not necessarily mean that they are inherently selfish.

Ephemerid · 06-24-2007, 01:43 PM

And as far as selfishness goes, what is more selfish than to do good to avoid eternal punishment from the Metaphysical Policeman ('God'), and even more selfish, to aspire to an everlasting life heaven?

If you think human behaviour is based on selfishness, then the notion of 'God' doesn't change a thing.

By your logic, the only reason one would even become a Christian is for selfish reasons-- because they're gonna get the carrot or the stick-- not in THIS life, but in the afterlife. But that's all religion appears to offer, the carrot or the stick. Its a black & white reductionist view of reality that, based on my experience, misses the boat.

Riverwind · 06-24-2007, 01:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JamesBannon

Correction. Humans are egocentric and this need not necessarily mean that they are inherently selfish.

Please elaborate, as I see little difference. Why do you see humans as 'egocentric' rather than 'selfish', and what is the difference to you?

How do you think this 'egocentricity' played a role in evolution if it was not 'selfish'?

06-24-2007, 01:43 PM	#89
Ephemerid Regular Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: USA (but my heart is in New Zealand) Posts: 125	Carrot or the stick mentality And as far as selfishness goes, what is more selfish than to do good to avoid eternal punishment from the Metaphysical Policeman ('God'), and even more selfish, to aspire to an everlasting life heaven? If you think human behaviour is based on selfishness, then the notion of 'God' doesn't change a thing. By your logic, the only reason one would even become a Christian is for selfish reasons-- because they're gonna get the carrot or the stick-- not in THIS life, but in the afterlife. But that's all religion appears to offer, the carrot or the stick. Its a black & white reductionist view of reality that, based on my experience, misses the boat.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.