M
Montalban
Guest
It’s so incisive!
Us?
As pointed out, I did ask you a question (actually more than one) in my opening post. Look for the words that are followed by a little “?” symbol - indicating a question
- Status
W
WildEyedAtheist
Guest
V
Valke2
Guest
THere is no real proof that nested dolls were first invented by the Japanese. If one is going to demand hard proof of the existence of God, then they should be able to provide hard proof of the origin of nested dolls.
W
WildEyedAtheist
Guest
Point conceded. Perhaps I should be more specific in my terminology.
However, the accepted sequence of events that led to the creation of the Russian nested dolls is as follows.
There are no historians who dispute these events (not even the Russians…) which is why it is “accepted”.
The story goes that Sergei Maliutin, a painter from a folk crafts workshop in the Abramtsevo estate of a famous Russian industrialist and patron of arts Savva Mamontov, saw a set of Japanese wooden dolls representing Shichi-fuku-jin, the Seven Gods of Fortune.
The largest doll was that of Fukurokuju - a happy, bald god with an unusually tall chin - and within it nested the six remaining deities. Inspired, Maliutin drew a sketch of a Russian version of the toy.
It was carved by Vasiliy Zvezdochkin in a toy workshop in Sergiyev Posad and painted by Sergei Maliutin.
It consisted of eight dolls; the outermost was a girl in an apron, then the dolls alternated between boy and girl, with the innermost – a baby.
In 1900, M.A. Mamontova, the wife of Savva Mamontov, presented the dolls at the World Exhibition in Paris and the toy earned a bronze medal.
Soon, many other places in Russia started making matryoshki of various styles.
Good analogy there, Skippy. However, no one in this thread has “demanded” hard proof of the existence of any god.
N
Nepenthe
Guest
Valke? Skippy?!?
Oh my stars…
Ahem. But hey, let’s return to our previously scheduled thread, uh, such as it was.
Anyways, Haldane’s invoking the brain-inna-jar shtick (ie Matrix, solipsism, and so on) isn’t very useful or relevant, now is it? And Lewis, while a fine writer, critic and so forth, was sometimes a bit logically wooly-minded. But then, you’ve posted those quotes before, montalban. While I am respectfully fond of their authors, they are not compelling arguments. They may seem to confirm and conform to the sentiments of those who want them to do so, but beyond that, well…nope.
Oh my stars…
Ahem. But hey, let’s return to our previously scheduled thread, uh, such as it was.
Anyways, Haldane’s invoking the brain-inna-jar shtick (ie Matrix, solipsism, and so on) isn’t very useful or relevant, now is it? And Lewis, while a fine writer, critic and so forth, was sometimes a bit logically wooly-minded. But then, you’ve posted those quotes before, montalban. While I am respectfully fond of their authors, they are not compelling arguments. They may seem to confirm and conform to the sentiments of those who want them to do so, but beyond that, well…nope.
W
WildEyedAtheist
Guest
Us.Originally Posted by Montalban
Us?
LOL.
J
Joel_Tunnah
Guest
Well, we know you can use google, and copy/paste.
yourdictionary.com/ahd/p/p0620700.html
I’ll take your “answer” as an admission that you were wrong to criticise my usage. Thanks.
You can now return to copying and pasting more uncited information on Hitchins, Humanism, and Japanese nested dolls.
Joel
M
Montalban
Guest
I asked you several questions.
You’ve evaded them till now - oh and I do appreciate the trivia about nested dolls coming from Japan. Anything to avoid those questions, eh?
Oh, and your answer to someone else’s question was amazingly insightful and said nothing - you’re basis is the same basis as all morality.
You may have missed the comments I made after this - I cited two commentators. You’ve made no reply.
So, when I ask you questions you avoid them. When I post INTERESTING commentary, you remain silent.
D
Dameedna
Guest
There is a lot that we don’t know about what makes us the way we are. We don’t know where the seat of our conciousness lies, we don’t know a great deal about love or sexuality etc etc. So suffice it to say, I do not think that we can provide any “hard” evidence on where our morality comes from. Doesn’t mean we won’t figure it out, just that we don’t really know now.
For me, I was raised Christian, but became an Athiest. I also live in a country that is Capitalist, with a lot of socialism mixed in. I was raised by parents who had certain morals and ethics.
All of these things, led to me having the set of rules and values that I do. I also think there is the ‘possibility’ of a genetic factor, tho this is a rather new area of study and one I don’t know a lot about.
I don’t think it really matters where the morality comes from so much as wether or not it exists within each of us. I have met many christians, who claim that a person simply cannot be good, unless they have a set of rules to follow and a God to please and reward them. What they are REALLY saying, is that THEY cannot be good, without a set of rules to follow and a belief in reward and punishment. They really simply cannot understand how a person can be good, and choose to try and become better without a “reason”.
It is an interesting question, as to why a person would truly try and become a good person. Why would an Athiest bother? Is it a biological human trait such as empathy? Is there something in our genes?
I just hope, that many people of faith DO realize that people of all beliefs and lack thereof have the capacity for being moral and ethical. Most of us even want the same result. We just disagree on the means to get there.
I sit with the unknown. I have lots of ideas on where our morality may come from, but I don’t know. I’m okay with that. If other’s are fearful of this, then I’m sorry they feel that way but nothing i can do about it.
Regards
J
Joel_Tunnah
Guest
People who do not reference their morality to God are capable of doing absolutely anything in the name of helping people. This includes eugenics, medical experimentation, euthanasia, farming fetuses, and abortion - just to name a few. All of these things came from a twisted, but earnest, desire to make people’s lives “better”. All of these things were advocated by people who considered themselves moral and ethical.
T
Texas_Roofer
Guest
Well, if you like these definitions we could dismiss ethics as it is being defined as a subset of morals. However defining morals as good may be a problem. We could simply say what then constitutes good? This may be a problematic approach because I personal do not believe good and moral are synonymous. Example: Ice cream may be on the good list but absent on the moral list. How about
Ethics = the principle of treating others with an equal or slightly superior respect than one’s self.
Moral (theist) = the principles indwelled in man by God through both innate design and infuse of human characteristics.
Moral (non-theist) = ??
And thus the problem, if you feel comfortable with your earlier definition we could proceed anyway?
FYI concerning Natural Law it involves the innate principles dwelling within us.
T
Texas_Roofer
Guest
I have a problem here. I do not see this question as valid. I see the valid version as “Why would an Atheist perform a task which does not reward himself?” ( long-term or short term)
sorry but another issue. If empathy is in our genes could it be chemical, probably not, so what is the nonchemical force being transferred?
This is the Natural Law question again. If Natural Law is indwelled in humans they all have this connection. So where did it come from; this non chemical, non energy, godly property. If Natural Law does not exist ,how do we have empathy, conscious, etc?
V
Verisimilitude
Guest
Someone so smug is often A hole.
When were “you” ever underground and who put you there?
I have seen and heard your ilk all of my life so when were you ever out of sight?
There are objective truths and subjective truths. Gravity is an objective truth. You can say you do not believe in it but if you step off a 30 story building your belief matters very little when you hit the ground.
God is an objective truth because love is His proof. If you have ever loved or wanted to be loved by another, you have experienced God though you deny it.
Luckily for you when you hit the ground someone (Christ) will lift you up though you don’t know it. Prudence would tell you to recognize that, but impudence is the atheists cloak, and subjective truths are your shield.
My direct questions are rhetorical.
Who is “us”?…The whole “America was founded on Christian values” speech we seem to hear far to often has become just too much for us to continue to remain underground and out of site.
When were “you” ever underground and who put you there?
I have seen and heard your ilk all of my life so when were you ever out of sight?
There are objective truths and subjective truths. Gravity is an objective truth. You can say you do not believe in it but if you step off a 30 story building your belief matters very little when you hit the ground.
God is an objective truth because love is His proof. If you have ever loved or wanted to be loved by another, you have experienced God though you deny it.
Luckily for you when you hit the ground someone (Christ) will lift you up though you don’t know it. Prudence would tell you to recognize that, but impudence is the atheists cloak, and subjective truths are your shield.
My direct questions are rhetorical.
T
Texas_Roofer
Guest
perhaps not, it seems more realistic the atheist is tired of dancing around core issues.
is that correct 3 minutes yet you nor others can write a 3 minute plan without abandoning it? It seems all Atheist know a name who can provide the answer, yet they can never provide the answer themselves. Yet the name changes ever post. I call this the “Bigfoot approach” You heard about, some say it exists, others claim to have seen it, but you have no proof it exists. Now for the real Bigfoot that can be fun or funny but you claim to live your life on a base which is unknown to yourself, and I can accept that. However the idea that I should abandon my base to accept your unknown base is about as weak an argument can existThese are all powerful bases for a system of ethics and morals that do not require belief in the supernatural, or some peculiar notion of rewards and punishments after death. Only the beginning, of course, but three minutes of checking into those concepts will give you the general outline, Texas Roofer.
Now having said the above please try to understand there is a real core issue here. I do not know the answers to the core issue. On what do an atheist/ non-theist build a moral base?
T
Texas_Roofer
Guest
Maybe it would be better if I made a statement to allow many of these irrelevant off shoot issues to be dismissed.
I do not believe salvation is the reward for which we work, ie the stick and carrot method. I do not believe all other Gods are false God except mine. Here is how I see it: We are designed with morals indwelled in us before we are born. These morals guide us, yet we can violate these morals using Free Will. So when a man abandons his family he violates his indwelled moral role as a father, husband, provider, protector. In this violation he injuries himself, his children, his wife, and God. Now if you try to simply drop God out of the above you have several problems 1) how did the moral become indwelled? 2) Since he now either violates nothing, or violates a nonbinding agreement, then who does he injure? Did he owe it to his children to raise them, if so how? He can not violate a social or human contract, this is play on words, a contract requires several things to exist, and these things are clearly not present. Is he violating empathy? Well the problem then is his injure must be confined to himself because by definition empathy is generated within him. So the children can not suffer from his empathy.
I hope that helps others understand the reason I asked the eariler question
I do not believe salvation is the reward for which we work, ie the stick and carrot method. I do not believe all other Gods are false God except mine. Here is how I see it: We are designed with morals indwelled in us before we are born. These morals guide us, yet we can violate these morals using Free Will. So when a man abandons his family he violates his indwelled moral role as a father, husband, provider, protector. In this violation he injuries himself, his children, his wife, and God. Now if you try to simply drop God out of the above you have several problems 1) how did the moral become indwelled? 2) Since he now either violates nothing, or violates a nonbinding agreement, then who does he injure? Did he owe it to his children to raise them, if so how? He can not violate a social or human contract, this is play on words, a contract requires several things to exist, and these things are clearly not present. Is he violating empathy? Well the problem then is his injure must be confined to himself because by definition empathy is generated within him. So the children can not suffer from his empathy.
I hope that helps others understand the reason I asked the eariler question
D
Dameedna
Guest
This is a little too simplistic for me.
People have and will do things in the name of “GOD”, that are horrific and dreadful. Once people have “GOD” on their side(or at least think they do), they are capable of absolute atrocities. We have a lot of examples of this and saying “well they aren’t REALLY following God” is to ignore these people’s beliefs that they really ARE doing what is asked of them.
The type of God people believe in, pretty much defines who THEY are, and describes very little about the nature or reality of God him/herself regardless of the religion.
Just as people are capable of bad or evil “in the name of god” they are also capable of bad or evil “In the name of man”.
This is what humans do and until we truly accept that, we will blame religion or lack there-of for what is going wrong with the world instead of taking a good look at ourselves.
D
Dameedna
Guest
It does reward us, simply not with a “place” in heaven.
For a simple example, one might say if we choose not to steal, then we are trying to create a community of trust and sharing. This is a much better way to live than stealing…since if we steal, other’s can steal from us as well. Do we REALLY want to spend our time simply protecting what we have?
I agree with the Golden rule, I just don’t think it comes from a God, but rather from human beings that have to a degree determined what makes us live together in a way that is beneficial for us and the world around is.
From a deeper perspective, thinking well, and trying to live well makes us stronger and more competant in life, which in turn enables us to help create an even better home life, community life and human society in general.
I AM a selfish human being. I’ll accept that. I want a world that is nurtured by man and not destroyed by us and I will selfishly do what I can to try and achieve that, even if it means delaying gratification and choosing to give up things I really want.
I have seen friends of mine, fundamentalists, who will do what their “church” tells them because of a reward they are promised to recieve. I see very little thought put into what they are actually doing. When I ask other christians about it, they say “well he isn’t really christian” and wipe their hands of it.
I think if you are honest with yourself, you will at least admit that “believing” in a God, does NOT make a person a good person, nor does any one religion, or denomination within that religion. Even within Catholisism, people venemently disagree with one another.
And a non-believer , can be a decent human being without a belief, and we can read things like “sermon on the mount” and agree with it’s basic message. We don’t need a God, to recognize what is good.
Human nature is SO incredibly complex. Just because we don’t alway’s understand one another, doesn’t mean we have to make-up the answers so that we can keep a solid world-view in front of us.
Perhaps you can simply say “you don’t understand where the athiest moral compass comes from” instead of denying it actually exists.
S
Sixtus
Guest
This is a rough opening for a thread. I did read some of the post it is loaded with quite a condescending attitude. I enjoyed some of the attitude. SO
I have been asking for some time for an atheist to explain their moral base of a lack there of, if you would like to say ethics base instead of morals that is fine. Actually as I am looking for content I will only be evaluating the content.
Just, FYI I looking at Natural Law and whether real atheists exist . Or a written betterfor a condescending attitude is; whether I will accept the existence of true atheists. Thank you for any help you can provide.
M
Montalban
Guest
So you have faith that they’ll find it, someday
Sorry to hear that
Which were based on what?
So the fact you believe something is right isn’t because its right (per se) but because you’re compelled to by chemicals?
Of course it matters. IF I believe something is right, and you wrong, but it’s neither right nor wrong per se but simply relatively right or wrong - depending on which chemicals are affecting us then you have no real ‘right to’ tell me I’m wrong, and vise versa.
W
WildEyedAtheist
Guest
The source or sources from which one derives information does not invalidate its legitimacy.
Don’t be such a poor loser.
- Status