 |
| |
|
|
Giancarlo
|
 |
Los Angeles
Apr 2000
time: 02:30
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Elok
Whatever, GC. I've already explained my reasoning, or tried to anyway, in my posts to Whaleboy. Look them up; we have a long history even before this thread but our current argument is similar to the long term, I was just unusually cranky at the start of this one. I've finally calmed down, sort of, and am trying for damage control now that I've got everybody's blood up with my insolence. Now refute me specifically (explain a non-theistic, consistent system of ethical reasoning) or kindly go away. If I'm not allowed to argue with unsupported assertions, neither are you, even if you are Fez. |
I've read your reasoning.. it is saying you religious fundamentalists and crackpots are the only ones capable of morality. This isn't the case as often christians are ones who have trouble with their own morality (crusades anyone?). You are attacking my morals and attacking my lack of beliefs. These are beliefs, not assertions. I have already refuted you... and I didn't have to do a lot of the work in order to do so.. you basically made yourself look bad.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Elok
|
 |
Land of Ramen Dragons
Mar 2003
time: 00:30
|
|
I am not a fundamentalist, for crying out loud. Orthodoxy, dude, Orthodox Christianity. As for the crusades, "Reign of Terror, anyone?" "Great Leap Forward, anyone?" "Stalin, anyone?" Any philosophy can be extorted into fodder for atrocity. There have been some atheist ones, lots of religious ones, but this is IMO largely due to the fact that religion has been predominant throughout most of history. Fast-forward a couple of centuries and you'll have plenty of barbarism based on philosophies that mention no God whatsoever. The only way to avoid such things, aside from constant social vigilance, is to have nobody believe anything strongly at all. Not likely. But congrats on finally citing a solid example.
BTW, what is frequently not mentioned in these medieval-church-bashing orgies is that the church initially went to a great deal of effort to discourage wanton bloodshed; there were early edicts establishing days of the week when fighting was forbidden, in the vain hope of semi-civilizing the knights. The code of chivalry, as you might notice, had a large religious piety element, involving mercy, loyalty, honesty, and protecting the weak, that was generally ignored because it caused inconvenience, much like the Bill of Rights after 9/11. Eventually the western church turned crooked with power, hence the Crusades and Inquisition and all that other nasty stuff that gets us worked up. Initially, in the dark ages, the church was for the most part a force of good, if an ineffectual one.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Elok
|
|
Land of Ramen Dragons
Mar 2003
time: 00:30
|
|
"Most fundamentalist"? Do you know anything about us beyond the name? We're traditionalists, but tend to be moderate on most issues, especially compared to real fundamentalists (Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Dubya, etc.) We're no more fundamentalist than the Catholics. I sincerely hope you're actually using the word fundamentalist to mean what it usually does, and not just "believes in stuff I don't agree with."
And I wasn't saying that Stalin was religious, I was citing him as an example of more or less completely nonreligious atrocity, as were the GLF and the Terror. Well, the Terror had some deist portions, but from what admittedly little I've read nobody but Robespierre was all that gung-ho on that part. It was part of his ludicrous distortion of Rousseau (Ohmigawd, I just realized, that must mean Rousseau is evil! Well, you're sufficiently conservative that you probably agree there, but it works as an example). At any rate, it wasn't Christianity or any conventional religion, that's for sure.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
molly bloom
|
 |
Lundenwic
Oct 2001
time: 15:30
|
|
" 'Tis the temper of the hot and superstitious part of mankind in matters of religion ever to be fond of mysteries & for that reason to like best what they understand least. "
Sir Isaac Newton
Although not professing a belief in a god or gods, I have yet to succumb to acts of wanton destruction, rape, theft, murder, parricide and matricide, forced incest et cetera, despite the absence of the threat of the 'ultimate lawgiver' in my life.
Ethics can be any set of standards by which a community or city state or country decides to regulate its behaviour- I suspect that in prehistory banishment or exile would have been punishment enough for transgression, although I'm aware that hunter gatherer groups also employ methods of corporal and capital punishment.
There is no need to assume that without a god or gods suddenly communities lapse into lawlessness and immorality.
History has plenty of examples of societies whose 'moral codes' we would find reprehensible, and yet they worshipped a god or gods- indeed the Phoenicians and Carthaginians sacrificed infants to a god as did the Incas, and the Maya and Aztecs captured people from rival city states to sacrifice and thus propitiate their gods. Yet now we frown upon child murder (in or out of a religious setting) and on ritual sacrifice and cannibalism.
Despite professing a belief in a loving god, the Christian church could back campaigns of terror, destruction and forced conversion in which the innocent were killed along with the guilty- as the crusades against the Albigensians/Cathars, Waldensians, Lithuanians and Prussians, Moors in the Iberian peninsula and Muslims in the Middle East show.
Where was the threat of the Christian god-enforced moral code then ?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Elok
|
|
Land of Ramen Dragons
Mar 2003
time: 00:30
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Urban Ranger
I don't see why it would annoy you, because the parallel is certainly there. Umguf the invisible purple with pink polka dot unicorn is just as unprovable as YHWH. It may not be a sophisticated line of approach, but gets the job done.
Maybe you found it obnoxious because you can't muster a good counter against Umguf? |
I find it obnoxious because the purpose of debate is ostensibly not to score points with petty mockery. A good debate helps you understand your own beliefs better by seeing those of others. Yes, you think my beliefs are ridiculous. I'm aware of that. Maybe I think you're an amoral chancre, but I don't use....okay, so I do use that as an argument, but I'm not proud of it.
And for what I sincerely hope will be the last time, morality as I see it is more than just outward actions. Outward actions reflect inward contemplation. Hence the absolute provability of my beliefs does not seem all that important to me. The process works, and provides a valid and consistent moral view of the world. There is no godless counterpart to religion.
Evolutionary survival? Again, what do you care if your genes survive? You'll be dead, and won't see it. That's pointless. Would not the important thing be to enjoy what time you have? Hence, to use others to your advantage at least to a point?
With that aside, being immoral could be an even better survival trait from "an evolutionary POV." Rape, for example, allows many animals that could not otherwise find a mate to pass on their genes, and if done in secrecy will get the female's real "mate" to do the child-rearing and protection for you. Some female gulls make a tidy living by presenting themselves for mating to a male who has a fish, waiting for the male to start mounting, then turning, snatching the fish from his beak and flying off, leaving the poor guy bewildered. Ravens and crows, which I mentioned in another thread, are extremely successful precisely because they are opportunistic robbers. Ditto for lions, who wait for hyenas to do the hard work then drive them away from the kill. Ethical behavior is a survival strategy only a few can afford, and it's only useful when you are weak and others are strong.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Elok
|
|
Land of Ramen Dragons
Mar 2003
time: 00:30
|
|
Hand me a link then. In my experience there is no clear moral conclusion to be drawn from any form of paganism, since all they say about anything is "do no harm," which can be interpreted in a bajillion different ways. I imagine individual interpretation of scripture can have value, but when the length and breadth of "scripture" available is confined to that single maxim, there's not much use in it no matter how you interpret. If there's a branch of paganism that says something more meaningful than just DNH, I'd be glad to retract the statement, for that branch at least. It'll take some work to convince me that Wicca isn't ridiculous, though.
Your Cosmic Schoolmarm is a gross oversimplification of Christianity, of course, but I guess that was your point. Like I said, I started this discussion in a really wretched mood for reasons I can't even remember. I've calmed down quite a bit. I can only beg your pardon for the rant. Though I imagine I'll see a good many more posts that quote those old arguments without seeing my later words. I suppose it's what I deserve for going off like that.
EDIT: Whoops, looks like what Laz quoted was relatively recent. Well, maybe I have male PMS, who knows. Please yell at me if I start getting nasty again, folks.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Lazarus and the Gimp
|
 |
Whale-raping abomination
Aug 2000
time: 05:30
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Elok
In my experience there is no clear moral conclusion to be drawn from any form of paganism, since all they say about anything is "do no harm," which can be interpreted in a bajillion different ways. I imagine individual interpretation of scripture can have value, but when the length and breadth of "scripture" available is confined to that single maxim, there's not much use in it no matter how you interpret. If there's a branch of paganism that says something more meaningful than just DNH, I'd be glad to retract the statement, for that branch at least. It'll take some work to convince me that Wicca isn't ridiculous, though.
|
I'm certainly on your side when it comes to Wicca- it was the work of a couple of early 20th century weirdos looking for a way to encourage impressionable women to take their clothes off.
Paganism as I experience it is very much more than the avoidance of harm-doing. It is an attempt to understand some of the biggest issues about why we are humans and not just naked apes. Sometime about 40,000 years ago, we changed. There was a subtle change in the architecture of our brains (I think this was a residual effect of inbreeding in the aftermath of our near-extinction, but that's another story), and we started coming up with weird stuff like religion and abstract thought. It's a key part of what denotes us as modern humans, if you want my opinon.
Now I'm a historian. I'm a historian because I want to understand what I am and how I reached this current state. A key shaping point to that is the influence of faith (whether you share it or not). Where the bloody hell did that come from? That archetypal faith- that moment when we started thinking "There is more to life than this" is probably the most powerful and important point in defining what we are and how we came to this state. And we know next to nothing about it. So I won't be offering any links.
You can't go looking in books- there aren't any relevant ones. You can't trust dogma- most of it was designed by people with ulterior motives and hidden agendas. You can listen to friends, if you want, but always with an open mind. Ultimately, as far as I can see it, the only true way towards getting an inkling of understanding is to experience it for yourself and see where it takes you.
So on the solstices and equinoxes I head out to the places where people went thousands of years ago, and I celebrate. I go to the old earth temples that predate the henges, or to the henges themselves- I stay up all night and when the sun comes up I'm dancing around and screaming like a big ****ing banshee. And maybe I'm barking up the wrong tree, but it feels completely brilliant so I'm not going to stop. I'm also far from alone- go up Glastonbury Tor on midsummer's eve and you'll meet hundreds of people like me.
We're trying to understand what makes us human. We're trying to understand where we fit in to the grand scheme of life and death (if it is a scheme at all). There probably isn't any two among us who have identical beliefs or personal dogma, but that's the beauty and strength of it. It's a deeply personal journey of development with no rulebooks or referees. We call ourselves "Pagans" because that's what we are- it just means "Country person", after all. And I'll heartily encourage anyone else to do the same, because I think it makes one a happier and more positive person, more inclined to a respect for their surroundings, roots and fellows. Yup- I'm firmly convinced the world would be a nicer place if we all did the same.
And that, I'm sure you'll agree, goes way beyond mere harm-avoidance.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
BlackCat
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Elok
I wasn't implying that you need religion to reflect per se, I meant that outward "morality," the reason for most of the stuff you quoted from Molly, is not the true nature of morals. That's more a matter of obedience to law, and very few "real religions," to use the phrase you love so much, are entirely concerned with legalistic obedience.
|
You get it the wrong way, moral/etic isn't based upon law, it's the other way around. Whenever there are a change in m/e, you can see that reflected in the laws.
It's not "my" phrase, it's yours - you introduced it and I asked you to explain what you meant. I don't belive in supernatural gods whatever they are called, but I respect that others has their beliefs (one exception is when they harm other people), and your degrading of people beliving in religions that are not "real" isn't what I will call nice.
quote:
A "real religion" by my standards is one with a well-thought-out and internally consistent ideology of morals, regardless of whether I approve of the specifics of them. Paganism is exempted for offering basically no moral guidance beyond "do no harm." Wow, that's helpful. Must improve your life to no end to tell yourself, Do No Harm. The fanatical branches of true religions, like wahhabism or the evangelicals, are inconsistent in their application of beliefs, and appear to be the result of unsettled or unhappy time periods. They'll eventually die out, and be replaced by a different set of lunacies the next time a crisis occurs. Satanism is amoral, cults are, well, cults, and atheism obviously is not strictly speaking a religion. Simple enough, or so I think.
|
What you describe has nothing to do with religion, or rather, it's a variant. Religion is the belief in a supernatural entity (or entities). Connected to each of these thousands of religions that has existed through history, there has been a codex for how to live correct according to the priestship and tradition. Each of these religions has a coherent structure in morality and way to live, although I admit that they probably are unacceptable in current days - I don't think that sacrificing of living creatures whatever it is animals or humans will be accepted.
Once again you are pretty unclear when you use the term "paganism". Take f.x. greek, roman or nordic godbeliefs, they are all included in the paganism definition, but none of them are in any way inconsistent allthough I will admit that they don't fit into yours.
quote:
While I admit it is possible to reflect on your own morals without a god (maybe you do, I don't know you), I must say it seems unlikely. Without a creed forcing them to inspect themselves, people tend to act without care, which is to say not entirely good or bad most of the time. For me at least, religious belief is at least nine-tenths spiritual discipline. It's a very active process if you really put your heart into it (I admit I often fail to), much more than just stopping periodically to wonder if you're acting like an ass. Ideally, I am supposed to smother evil thoughts such as jealousy or self-congratulation the moment they happen. And that's the most superficial aspect. In every religion I've bothered to investigate, including my own, the ultimate goal is an altered state of consciousness of some sort. It's extremely hard to keep doing, which is why I'm very much inclined to doubt that you can do it without deliberate concentration and a creed that explains it. And you need faith for both. Look up some deeper theology than the 700 Club, or wherever it is you got your idea of my beliefs.
|
Well, you do it one more time - diss people who doesn't share your beliefs. It is utterly rediciously to say that people who doesn't believe in supernatural enteties isn't able to have m/e thoughts or act accordingly to them. What you are describing is plain human interaction and has nothing to do with sn beliefs.
I have no prejudicies to your beliefs other that what you state here.
quote:
I don't know if you "need" religion to be moral/ethical, but "The Ladder of Divine Ascent" contains a lot more practical and useful advice than, say, what I just read of the writings of Kant in Wikipedia. Or Rousseau, or Mill. They're nothing but outward show. External behavior is bound to reflect inward being. Satanism is concerned with inward being, but in a very bad way. It preaches self-aggrandization, thinking entirely of your own gain, which very strongly discourages honest reflection. I do that sometimes, but at least I know I shouldn't, for crying out loud... |
Of course religion isn't needed to be a m/e person - those concepts are related to human interaction, not religion.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
molly bloom
|
|
Lundenwic
Oct 2001
time: 15:30
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Elok
There is no godless counterpart to religion.
|
A statement that makes hardly any sense.
I'm unaware that my 'a-theism' is meant to be a counterpart to religion- you won't find ritual, holy books, deities, invisible beings, houses of worship, holy 'ground', fasting, special forms of attire, invocations, chants or songs. So if someone religious is looking for a counterpart to their religion, they won't find it in atheism, will they ?
You will find a moral code, or a set of ethics that I expect to live by however. And so far, despite the absence of the threat of damnation (eternal or otherwise) or the sudden lightning bolt from the sky, I have yet to launch myself on a criminal career.
Clearly I'm not doing this godlessness thing right.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Urban Ranger
|
|
Apolyton Duke of Off-Topic
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Elok
I find it obnoxious because the purpose of debate is ostensibly not to score points with petty mockery. |
That is not petty mockery - that is called an analogy. Your god is unprovable, so are any number of assertions and entities. The unicorn one became popular through chance. Kuciwalker's dancing elves on eletrons work just as well.
quote:
Originally posted by Elok
A good debate helps you understand your own beliefs better by seeing those of others. |
I pointed this any number of times before, but here it goes again. For any unsubstantiated assertion A, you can have one of the two positions:
S: reject A until shown otherwise
G: accept A until shown otherwise
You cannot accept A1 and reject A2 at the same time, doing that is arbitrary, which is an undefensible position.
quote:
Originally posted by Elok
And for what I sincerely hope will be the last time, morality as I see it is more than just outward actions. Outward actions reflect inward contemplation. |
Most people don't even think of murdering people, because they just know it is wrong.
quote:
Originally posted by Elok
Hence the absolute provability of my beliefs does not seem all that important to me. The process works, and provides a valid and consistent moral view of the world. |
First of all, there is no real world evidence for your assertion. If nonreligious folk were in fact less ethical/moral than religious ones, such a fact would appear on statistics of crimes and criminals. Yet it is not there.
quote:
Originally posted by Elok
There is no godless counterpart to religion. |
Of course not. Then again, your statement is a tautology - true, but utterly meaningless.
quote:
Originally posted by Elok
Evolutionary survival? Again, what do you care if your genes survive? You'll be dead, and won't see it. That's pointless. |
On the contrary, Elok, on the contrary. There is plenty of evidence that everything an organism - with Homo sapiens sapiens a possible exception - is to ultimately pass on its genes. Why do you think bull sea elephants clash each other for females, and the losers often resort to rape?
For social animals, a group that look after each other will defeat one that doesn't, even if the individuals of the latter group are stronger on the average. An example is killer bees. They have been successfully competing against other bees.
quote:
Originally posted by Elok
Would not the important thing be to enjoy what time you have? Hence, to use others to your advantage at least to a point? |
How did you get the latter from the former?
quote:
Originally posted by Elok
With that aside, being immoral could be an even better survival trait from "an evolutionary POV." Rape, for example, allows many animals that could not otherwise find a mate to pass on their genes, and if done in secrecy will get the female's real "mate" to do the child-rearing and protection for you. |
It's not just about passing genes, but about passing good ones. Evolution is supposed to weed out the weaker individuals, otherwise the species is just going to toast.
quote:
Originally posted by Elok
Some female gulls make a tidy living by presenting themselves for mating to a male who has a fish, waiting for the male to start mounting, then turning, snatching the fish from his beak and flying off, leaving the poor guy bewildered. Ravens and crows, which I mentioned in another thread, are extremely successful precisely because they are opportunistic robbers. |
None of these are social animals. Social animals have additional restraints.
quote:
Originally posted by Elok
Ditto for lions, who wait for hyenas to do the hard work then drive them away from the kill. |
You got it backwards. Hyenas wait for lions to bring down an animal, then attempt to grab a piece.
quote:
Originally posted by Elok
Ethical behavior is a survival strategy only a few can afford, and it's only useful when you are weak and others are strong. |
Again, as I pointed out, the examples you have used are not social animals, such as ants, bees, wild dogs, and primates.
Wild dogs can survive successfully on the harsh African plains against much other bigger predators such as lions and leopards precisely because they look after each other. They hunt in packs, and any wounded member of a pack would be given a share of food. This gives the dog a much greater chance to recover to contribute to the pack later on. Thus, ethical behaviour enables the entire pack to do much, much better than any single individuals.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:30.
Apolyton Time is 00:30. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
16-03-2005 07:03
You are pretty close to some of the most fundamentalist sects of christianity. I think it is right I bring up the evil past of christianity and its way of manipulating people. Again Stalin was moreso influenced by his delusions that everybody was out to get him, then any religious factors. He did go after jewish doctors I believe but that was moreso personal delusions.
|