M
MindOverMatter2
Guest
Why is being true to yourself an obligation?
- Status
S
Sair
Guest
I would suggest it isn’t - the commenter was merely having a swipe at what he thinks is the defining characteristic of atheism, ie: self-absorption; a misconception I’ve often seen from people who try to sneak in the assumption that the only bases for morality are either selfishness or following divine law - not anything comparatively subtle and complex like membership of a community of interdependent individuals. We’ll take our arguments black or white, thanks, not in shades of grey…
B
babylonsfalling
Guest
The legality of abortion is a disgrace but that doesn’t prevent it from being a Christian nation, it means the Christians who control this nation aren’t doing what they should be doing.
D
domandcarols
Guest
M
MindOverMatter2
Guest
No. It means that the principles that underly the functionality of the legal system is not intrinsically Christian.
You seem to be denying a split between church and state.
B
babylonsfalling
Guest
No, Christians have the power to control the laws.
M
MindOverMatter2
Guest
They have no more power than anyone else.
B
babylonsfalling
Guest
They have roughly 75% of the power…the country is basically run by Christians.
S
Sparkythedog
Guest
Sitting back and watching the fireworks!
M
MindOverMatter2
Guest
If the foundation of Americas political institution is intrinsically Christian in nature, then the laws would conform to Christian theology. It would be impossible for gay marriage to become institutionalized. Its precisely because the core of Americas political institution is not intrinsically Christian, that it is possible for gay marriage and other none Christian ideologies to gain political support. Its got nothing to do with there being “bad Christians”, and its got everything to do with the nature of the system which underlies politics.
S
Sparkythedog
Guest
It’s interesting that someone who holds to “absolute moral values” would say that a certain group should be excluded from having certain rights just because of their beliefs, or lack of beliefs, in this case. The comments here seems to speak more about the person making them than about those to whom these comments are being directed.
M
MindOverMatter2
Guest
I never said that a certain group should be excluded from their objective moral right.
T
tonyrey
Guest
S
Sair
Guest
One person’s rationality is another’s wishful thinking.
Sure, that’s part of it. Behavioural similarity is also part of it. What is the basis of your inference of ‘intrinsic’ human worth? Someone else’s written text?
Makes no sense whatsoever. You fail to recognise the distortion of human nature inherent in ‘civilisation’.
Oh, that’s right. Only humans kill unnecessarily and for spurious, imaginary reasons conjured by religious beliefs.
Actually, rights are generally upheld by those who observe their own self-interest. They understand the nature of the social contract and realise they can only gain through reciprocity.
What is amoral about recognising mutual interests and preferences? That is an idea that could only be developed by someone who thinks human morality comes from an extrahuman source.
I realise it’s fashionable amongst religious types to quote these as examples of ‘atheist’ morality, but the fact of the matter is that each of the leaders you list set themselves up as demigods, to be unquestioningly obeyed regardless of any rational or moral considerations. Sound familiar?
It’s very easy to ignore crimes against humanity committed in the name of religion, isn’t it? By all means, demonstrate that we have an ‘eternal’ fate that is compromised by ending a nonsentient life, by choosing to end one’s own life when it no longer seems worth living, or by sharing sexual pleasure with others, and then we might take notice.
What do you know of secular morality? You are too wedded to religious mores to even comprehend the notion that human social interaction naturally gives rise to moral behaviours.
Hardly. One can achieve far more of what is desirable in this world by working with others, rather than against them.
You underestimate ‘beasts’.
Why do you need an author to dictate your reasons? Don’t you have a life?
Humans cannot but ‘live like animals’ - we are animals. It is only human arrogance that seeks to separate us from our hairier brethren.
Where is the ‘must’ in Catholic morality? You can do anything you like as long as you sincerely repent and confess it, right? Why should our morality be qualitatively different from that of other animals, as opposed to being an expansion thereof by virtue of our more complex cognitive functions? Because we believe we are superior? Right. Find me one other animal that has exercised such conscious destruction of its environment as humans have, then I might take your ‘categorical imperatives’ seriously.
You think natural selection is a myth? Then truly you are as ill-informed as the authors of Chick Tracts - fundamentalist Christian cartoon strips aimed at evangelising the deeply ignorant. They are particularly adamant that evolution is a myth. As for exploding the myth of the noble savage, you may find the following article instructive - rewild.info/anthropik/2007/05/the-savages-are-truly-noble/index.html
B
babylonsfalling
Guest
Not everything needs to conform to Christian morality in order for the society to be Christian. America is a Christian society despite the fact that it is not perfectly Christian.
T
tonyrey
Guest
A false generalisation which doesn’t alter the fact.
The other part?
The reality of objective value and purpose.
In the rejection of the principles of the UDHR.
Only humans kill unnecessarily because they reject any higher authority and worship themselves…
Self-interest is not synonymous with selfishness.
When it suits them…
Its expediency and lack of a rational foundation.
From the recognition that curious freaks of nature have to invent devices for saving their own skins.
**All those **who reject or ignore the existence of a Supreme Being set themselves up as demigods answerable to no one but themselves…
They demonstrate the hypocrisy of their perpetrators not the falsity of religion.
Your request illustrates “Let My Will be done!”
An ad hominem which has no basis in fact. You are too immersed in anti-religious propanganda to comprehend that **metaphysics **is independent of religious belief.
Tell that to all those who exploit others and are responsible for the poverty and starvation of one third of the people on this planet. They will laugh at you… or have you eliminated…
How can I when the law of the jungle prevails in the political, financial and economic institutions in this world? Bestiality has more than one meaning…
Where do you get your reasons from?
That question reveals the mentality of a dominatrix!
Humans cannot but live like animals when they are convinced they are animals - as we see from the sick society in which we live - which you blame on civilisation!
A common misinterpretation which merely evades the issue:
**Freaks of nature can live only in accordance with natural causes.
**
Find me the rules in the UDHR which stipulate the obligation to promote the destruction of the environment. Such is the success of the secular foundation of morality with its futile appeal to empathy, faith in the social contract and the realisation that they can only gain through reciprocity!
You must be unaware that the exaltation of natural selection as the primary cause of development is rejected by many scientists.
You may find it instructive to remember that the lives of our earliest ancestors was dominated by a struggle for food and competition for resources in a harsh world in which the most ruthless dominated the scene and survived by brute force and cunning - without pausing to ask questions for the simple reason that they were incapable of speech, syntactic communication and diplomatic overtures…
M
MindOverMatter2
Guest
And you say this because there are more Christians in America?
It seems to me that you are one of those people who want to Americanize your Christian faith because you “love America” soooooooo much, and therefore cannot accept the idea that the political system you embrace is not fundamentally Christian in nature.:sad_yes:Do i detect a bit of idol worship?:sad_yes:
S
Sair
Guest
You make plenty of these yourself, I notice.
Where are these ‘objective’ values and purposes to be found and observed?
Do you know how recent in our history the UDHR was formulated and ratified?
Oh, look - a false generalisation! Humans kill unnecessarily even when they think it’s necessary, often because someone else told them to do so, or indoctrinated them to believe that some people should not be suffered to live, or are merely expendable.
Never said it was.
Expediency itself is rational. It’s all about doing what needs to be done with such resources as are available.
So you admit that religion is a human invention…?
And there’s another false generalisation. I might not consider myself answerable to an imaginary deity, but I am nonetheless responsible for my actions and answerable to those who are affected by them. I don’t believe I may simply do as I please with no accountability.
What’s the good of a belief that doesn’t have any bearing on one’s actions?
Metaphysics is an exercise in building castles in the air, as far as I can see. I need no anti-religious propaganda to teach me to recognise imaginary BS for what it is.
Ah, yes - the highly civilised West growing fat on the impoverished struggle of the developing world. Did I neglect to mention the corrupting effects of civilisation? I don’t think so…Tell that to all those who exploit others and are responsible for the poverty and starvation of one third of the people on this planet. They will laugh at you… or have you eliminated…
All highly civilised institutions, I might add…
You have just indicated that you see many of the signs of corruption inherent in civilised societies. If we lived more like the animals we are, many of these sicknesses would abate.
Sure. What’s your point? That you think we’re somehow ‘better’ than nature? That’ we’re not ultimately part of it?
As I said, the UDHR is a very recent gloss upon human civilisation. The innate morality we possess as a species is corrupted by the stresses of civilised society. That’s why we’ve had to keep inventing things like religions and international treaties to keep ourselves toeing the line. We’ve detached ourselves so far from our true nature that we’ve forgotten how to live except by lists of rules.Find me the rules in the UDHR which stipulate the obligation to promote the destruction of the environment. Such is the success of the secular foundation of morality with its futile appeal to empathy, faith in the social contract and the realisation that they can only gain through reciprocity!
Debated, I think you’ll find - not rejected.
Wow - that tirade could have come straight from Stephen Pinker. That is the standard narrative peddled by those who insist, for whatever ideological reason they prefer, that things are better for us than they’ve ever been. The rules of the free-market economy are projected onto the lives of our prehistoric ancestors as if that’s the way things have to be, and people just swallow it like good little sheep because that’s the way things are now and have been in living memory - without considering the evidence that points to a very different way of life to the ‘nasty, brutish and short’ existence stereotypically ascribed to early humans. By the way, did you read the article? It’s long, but you don’t have to read all of it to get the gist. Oh, and also - speech capability goes at least as far back in our evolutionary history as Homo erectus…to say nothing of the fact that we barely recognise, today, the kinds of subtle non-verbal communicative abilities that our ancestors would likely have employed as a matter of course.
B
babylonsfalling
Guest
I’m Catholic which is not Amercanized Christianity. A person who wants Americanized Christianity has tons of choices in this country, Catholicism is not a good choice to make from that perspective. The reality is that I left non Catholicism where it would be easy to find Americanized Christianity and returned to Catholicism. Sorry to pop your bubble, but I actually think I have a better perspective on America (both the negative and positive) than someone who doesn’t live here.And you say this because there are more Christians in America?
Do i detect a bit of idol worship?:sad_yes:
You’re not very good at the psycho-analytical schtick. It really is possible to have a Christian society even though the society isn’t perfect in it’s following of Christ, and without any of your weird psychological stuff. I don’t know what schtick you have next in this ongoing attempt of yours at defining someone else’s society but thus far, you’re going downhill fast.
M
MindOverMatter2
Guest
I never said that it was. The question is, why would you want to imply that i did. Or perhaps you just haven’t been bothered to read my posts properly because you think you know better, thus revealing your confusion.
- Status