K
kjvail
Guest
It’s called utilitarian morality. Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill were it’s primary writers. The basic principle is what is moral is what is makes the most people happy.
- Status
P
paul2
Guest
(emphasis mine)
Why?
(emphasis mine)
I came here because of a someone posted a link on an intellectual forum i frequent, and mentioned that there were alot of misconcieved notions about what atheists are. i decided i whould shed some light on the subject. Let me spin your argument around. On an atheist forum i frequent, we get drive-by theists, and we have a group of regulars. These theists are only going there because they doubt their faith, even though they may not admit it. Why else bother? A theist secure in his faith wouldn’t bother posting on an atheist forum.
C
Carl
Guest
PAUL2
These theists are only going there because they doubt their faith, even though they may not admit it. Why else bother?
Hasty generalization.
They could also be there to save you from your atheism. Isn’t that what missionaries do?
So are you a missionary coming from the other direction?
These theists are only going there because they doubt their faith, even though they may not admit it. Why else bother?
Hasty generalization.
They could also be there to save you from your atheism. Isn’t that what missionaries do?
So are you a missionary coming from the other direction?
P
paul2
Guest
That’s EXACTLY my point.
S
S.J
Guest
Kevin,
Would you consider sharing your conversion story?
Thanks!
C
Carl
Guest
PAUL2
*I came here because of a someone posted a link on an intellectual forum i frequent, and mentioned that there were alot of misconcieved notions about what atheists are. *
I wonder to whom your contact referred. There are at least two former atheists here who ought to know what atheism is. They know it so well that they recoiled from it.
*I came here because of a someone posted a link on an intellectual forum i frequent, and mentioned that there were alot of misconcieved notions about what atheists are. *
I wonder to whom your contact referred. There are at least two former atheists here who ought to know what atheism is. They know it so well that they recoiled from it.
S
S.J
Guest
For those who believe in strict evolution (I actually believe in a combination of creationism and evolution):
Why is it that there is such a large chasm between the animal man and the other animals in terms of intellect? Would you not think that there would be species of animals who would have made it to, say, Neanderthal-level intellect by now? Shouldn’t we be seeing adult chimps playing at the level of 7 year old children?
This may sound silly, but if you think about the incredibly huge gap in intellectual ability between man and even the smartest animals, it makes sense.
Why is it that there is such a large chasm between the animal man and the other animals in terms of intellect? Would you not think that there would be species of animals who would have made it to, say, Neanderthal-level intellect by now? Shouldn’t we be seeing adult chimps playing at the level of 7 year old children?
This may sound silly, but if you think about the incredibly huge gap in intellectual ability between man and even the smartest animals, it makes sense.
C
Carl
Guest
This may sound silly, but if you think about the incredibly huge gap in intellectual ability between man and even the smartest animals, it makes sense.
Yes, where’s the evolution? Looks like a giant leap to me.
Also, so far as I can see, we alone among all the animals have a conscience. We lie to ourselves. We sin. We feel guilt. We imagine other worlds. We worship. Etc.
More giant leaps!
Yes, where’s the evolution? Looks like a giant leap to me.
Also, so far as I can see, we alone among all the animals have a conscience. We lie to ourselves. We sin. We feel guilt. We imagine other worlds. We worship. Etc.
More giant leaps!
D
Dismas
Guest
I am a Catholic from Singapore, a Chinese actually. I would suggest that the non-believers do not use the word ‘Xians’ to denote Christians. Namely it’s bad english and secondly ‘Xian’ in a chinese dialect means boring. Just stating something really.
W
wildlifer
Guest
Which was it? Athiest or Secular Humanist? As there are thiests whom are secular humanists. Or did you mean Athiest AND Secular Humanist?
As far as I’m concerned, anyone who claims once to have been an athiest and then “converted,” was never an athiest in the first place, an agnostic maybe.
Well actually I was browsing the Evolution debate here and found this thread of not-too-bright assumptions.
W
wildlifer
Guest
S.J.:
IMO, the evolutionary advantage - the real gap - is in man’s ability to store/record knowledge, and not have to re-learn it every generation, so the each successive generation builds upon that knowledge base … or not as the case may be…
A little research might show you that “gap” is not as large as you suspect. (look at marine mammals) We see in chimp societies almost all aspects of human social interaction, from love to war.
IMO, the evolutionary advantage - the real gap - is in man’s ability to store/record knowledge, and not have to re-learn it every generation, so the each successive generation builds upon that knowledge base … or not as the case may be…
W
wildlifer
Guest
That of course would be devolving.
No, I deny your diety is the source for Natural Law. I state that Natural Law was a result of an evolution of moral philosophies, from theists - like Locke, to diests - like Jefferson.
(I have seen some arguments Locke too, was a diest, but the results were ambiguous)
Now I admit to generally scanning through this thread, but if anyone stated Evolution replaces any moral code they are absolutely incorrect. Evolution is a mechanism. It’s like saying Cumbustion replaces and fuels one’s morals. Or maybe you’re arguing a strawman?
Wasn’t that Anpu and Bata?
No murder wasn’t taboo, non-God sanctioned murder was taboo. And when God quit “speaking” directions to man, man found reasons to justfy murder in the name of God. And they still do.
Well you sure have a point there. A much kinder, gentler slavery indeed.
Jesus, while on the Mount, had a very good opportunity to abolish the immoral practice of slavery, but alas, no such moral clarity was forthcoming.Tough one here, but as a male, it’s not my place to tell a woman what she must allow happen to her body.
Oh yes, and the Catholic Church has set a fine moral example here haven’t they?
That’s why there’s an off switch on the TV.
As it should be. All consenting adults should be allowed to persue life, liberty and happiness. Not just the life, liberty and happiness based on someone else’s superstitions.
Again, as it should be. Why should one group’s offensive superstitious beliefs be imposed on others through government sanction?
God used in public is just as offensive to me, as the words imfamized by George Carlin probably are to you.
Wrong decade. the 50s was the era of McCarthy’s communist (read atheist) witch hunts.
What? Do you actually mean to suggest those “images” weren’t available until today? That no one spoke like that in their homes? I’ve seen some 1940s “comicbook” porn that even make me blush.
Love and respect? More like bigoted male dominance and subjugation. Just look at how women and minorities are portrayed in those “great” old movies.
S
S.J
Guest
Not so fast. Man as an animal species has intellectual abilities that are far superior to even the most intellectually advanced animal species. It is not that we are not on the same page; we are not even in the same book. Are chimps and marine animals writing letters or formulating basic mathematical equations?
W
wildlifer
Guest
S.J.:
Did man begin from Day One with Einstein’s Theory, or was it built upon a base of knowledge? On works of generations preceeding him?
Well of course not. That’s as I said, They can’t record and conserve knowledge. Which is our advantage.
Did man begin from Day One with Einstein’s Theory, or was it built upon a base of knowledge? On works of generations preceeding him?
K
kjvail
Guest
I was athiest until about 11 years ago then I got into new age paganism which is a form of secular humanism.
I was definitely an athiest, or more accurately an anti-theist, my thoughts were not only is there no God but you are a moron for believing it in the first place. I believed religion was a crutch for those that couldn’t handle reality. Pretty prideful huh?
Remeber I said a few posts ago those that do not humble themselves will be humiliated? Well a drug and alcohol addiction will humiliate a man. After squandering the advantages I had been given: an upper middle class upbringing and a college education I wound up homeless and broken in a treatment center run by the Salvation Army at the age of 23 (this was 1993). I was, at that point, given the greatest gift of my life - desperation.
The program offered to me for recovery from my addiction was spiritual in nature (Alcoholics Anonymous) and at first I wanted nothing to do with it. I refused to go to the chapel offered at the SA treatment center and did some “ethics worksheets” instead (required to do one or the other).
I was finally convinced to open my mind just a little, so I went to a nearby Unitarian church, the people were very kind and they gave me this cool sea-shell necklace. They didn’t ask alot of questions and offered no judgments, so I went back a few times. It was the first time anyone had been kind to me in a long time.
AA asks you to find a “power greater than yourself” and a “God of your understanding”. The program was written by Christians in a Christian country were no other religions were even discussed (America of the 1930s), so the bias is there but it’s not today a Christian program.
I didn’t go to the Unitarian church for very long, I moved from the treatment center and didn’t have a car for a while. I just held on to the concept of the fellowship of Narcotics Anonymous as my higher power, after all they could do something I could not on my own - stay off drugs.
That worked for awhile but I’m an intellectual kind of guy, I like to understand things and my concept of spirituality at that point was so vague there was nothing to understand, it was just a feeling.
So I got interested in religion on an intellectual level. Interestingly enough I read about dozens of religions but not Christianity, wouldn’t touch it. I don’t even know that I was aware of my bias at the time. I just managed to read everything else.
I stumbled across new age paganism, Wicca to be precise. It appealed to me - I’m a fantasy buff, I had a girlfriend in college that was a Wiccan and it’s very non-dogmatic. Essentially you can make it up as you go along but it gives you a framework to work from.
I read everything I could about it, I still have some of those books. I thought I was following some ancient, pre-Christian belief system. I came to believe Christianity was just a tool of social control, it didn’t make any sense to me since I refused to study it in any way. To be frank I thought it was ignorant and simplistic and I was so much smarter than that.
I have to go to work now, I’ll finish when I get there.
C
Carl
Guest
WILDLIFER
As far as I’m concerned, anyone who claims once to have been an athiest and then “converted,” was never an athiest in the first place
That’s like saying anyone who was a Christian and became an atheist was never a Christian in the first place. You can’t have it both ways. By this logic, such a person cannot claim to have any knowledge or experience of Christianity because he was always an atheist, and therefore doesn’t know what he’s talking about when he mouths off against it.
As far as I’m concerned, anyone who claims once to have been an athiest and then “converted,” was never an athiest in the first place
That’s like saying anyone who was a Christian and became an atheist was never a Christian in the first place. You can’t have it both ways. By this logic, such a person cannot claim to have any knowledge or experience of Christianity because he was always an atheist, and therefore doesn’t know what he’s talking about when he mouths off against it.
C
Carl
Guest
WILDLIFER
I commented on the decline of morals over the last fifty years by pointing to NAMNLA. To which you answered:
Oh yes, and the Catholic Church has set a fine moral example here haven’t they?
Well, you’ve made my case, haven’t you? Moreover, the sins of pedophilia were committed by certain bishops and priests, not by the Catholic Church. You own the shallow assumption that the Church is the clergy. The Church is much bigger than that clergy. It is even much bigger than the laity. It is the Body of Christ on Earth and in Purgatory and in Heaven.
I commented on the decline of morals over the last fifty years by pointing to NAMNLA. To which you answered:
Oh yes, and the Catholic Church has set a fine moral example here haven’t they?
Well, you’ve made my case, haven’t you? Moreover, the sins of pedophilia were committed by certain bishops and priests, not by the Catholic Church. You own the shallow assumption that the Church is the clergy. The Church is much bigger than that clergy. It is even much bigger than the laity. It is the Body of Christ on Earth and in Purgatory and in Heaven.
C
Carl
Guest
WILDLIFER
How can you make so many false statements in one post?
No murder wasn’t taboo
Read the story of Cain and Abel, where God appeals to Cain’s conscience and urges him to follow it.
How can you make so many false statements in one post?
No murder wasn’t taboo
Read the story of Cain and Abel, where God appeals to Cain’s conscience and urges him to follow it.
S
S.J
Guest
I would contend that man was endowed with the necessary tools to reason and yes, evolve, to an intelligence that other animals are not capable of. The intelligence of the most primitive of men was still far superior to the animals of today. You may look to random evolution and natural selection to explain this glaring discrepancy - whereas I attribute it to further evidence of our Divine nature. There is something very special about man - we are not the by-product of random biological and chemical reactions. BTW, there are more than a few evolutionary biologists who are stumped by the argument that I have presented here.
C
Carl
Guest
WILDLIFER
Wrong decade. the 50s was the era of McCarthy’s communist (read atheist) witch hunts.
Hmmmmm.
Then, of course, the Soviet Union later had its own little Communist witch hunt, didn’t it?
After which you go on to comment on pornographic comic books in the 1940’s and 50’s. I was born in 1940. Never saw them. Which makes my point, that children were generally protected from the sordid aspects of that sub-culture. But the sub-culture today has become the super-culture. Children today have easy access to pornography, and child pornography is rampant in a way unimagineable in the 1940’s.
Wrong decade. the 50s was the era of McCarthy’s communist (read atheist) witch hunts.
Hmmmmm.
Then, of course, the Soviet Union later had its own little Communist witch hunt, didn’t it?
After which you go on to comment on pornographic comic books in the 1940’s and 50’s. I was born in 1940. Never saw them. Which makes my point, that children were generally protected from the sordid aspects of that sub-culture. But the sub-culture today has become the super-culture. Children today have easy access to pornography, and child pornography is rampant in a way unimagineable in the 1940’s.
- Status