I contend modern Western atheists have been so colored by a culture immersed in Christianity they do not know what they believe or disbelieve.
I have heard that morals and ethics have evolved, but by whose standards? Are the jihadists a step backward or forward? Was Stalin on the right track? Or Christ?
Is freedoom an inherent value or is it learned?
What about murder, stealing, adultery or envy?
How can one say these are wrong or should one even say it?
If someone doesn't say it's wrong what would prevent me from murdering you? I don't think you'll like that very much, would ya?
If someone doesn't say it's wrong what would prevent me from murdering you? I don't think you'll like that very much, would ya?
Ah yes, but what is the bigger point? Where did these values come from? Did they come from some evolution of mankind? Did they come from some athiest or agnostic philosopher? Did they come from religion?
I think that is the point Def is making (Good to see you again, Def how are ya???)
I would tend to think they come from the latter. However, I by no means take that to imply athiests or agnositcs are categorically immoral any more than I would assume religions people are categorically moral.
However, I by no means take that to imply athiests or agnositcs are categorically immoral any more than I would assume religions people are categorically moral.
I certainly hope that no one has made the mistaken notion that I believe atheists or agnostics are immoral because they happen to be atheists and/or agnostics. That notion is down-right silly.
Gandi, made one of the most profoundest statements I've ever heard: "I might be persuaded to become a Christian if it wasn't for the way Christians behave."
I certainly hope that no one has made the mistaken notion that I believe atheists or agnostics are immoral because they happen to be atheists and/or agnostics. That notion is down-right silly.
Gandi, made one of the most profoundest statements I've ever heard: "I might be persuaded to become a Christian if it wasn't for the way Christians behave."
No, I didn't think you had implied that, but I've seen that issue come up in similar threads so I wanted to make my POV clear on that score, lest someone accuse me of implying that.
I contend modern Western atheists have been so colored by a culture immersed in Christianity they do not know what they believe or disbelieve.
I have heard that morals and ethics have evolved, but by whose standards? Are the jihadists a step backward or forward? Was Stalin on the right track? Or Christ?
Is freedoom an inherent value or is it learned?
What about murder, stealing, adultery or envy?
How can one say these are wrong or should one even say it?
I talked about this on TWI's Sedativeto the Conscience thread and on Shifra's Agape or Arrogance thread – how there seems to be a common sense of decency and morality in people of any time and culture – we see that laws are usually made to protect life, promote honesty, protect ownership, etc. It appears to me that there is something inherent in people – that transcends culture and belief systems that enables folks to discern right from wrong. And perhaps it takes a deliberate act of the will or rigid conditioning to dull this function....of course, that's just my opinion.
Gandi, made one of the most profoundest statements I've ever heard: "I might be persuaded to become a Christian if it wasn't for the way Christians behave."
Someone else said (I wish I knew who), "Christianity is the greatest religion no one's ever practiced".
I consider myself an agnostic (surprise, surprise). I really wish I could believe there is an all knowing, all powerful being even mildly interested in my well being. However, given all the things happening in the world, I find it difficult to swallow.
Some say you can't know. Maybe. I don't know if one CAN know. Maybe.
Great thread, Oak! I enjoy learning about stuff like this. Unless I make a conscious effort to analyze a particular TWI viewpoint…a lot of their old BS just sits there in my head…great article, Larry – thanks for posting that.
I talked about this on TWI's Sedativeto the Conscience thread and on Shifra's Agape or Arrogance thread – how there seems to be a common sense of decency and morality in people of any time and culture – we see that laws are usually made to protect life, promote honesty, protect ownership, etc. It appears to me that there is something inherent in people – that transcends culture and belief systems that enables folks to discern right from wrong. And perhaps it takes a deliberate act of the will or rigid conditioning to dull this function....of course, that's just my opinion.
Well said, Tbone, but I don't know that it is inherent. If it were, why would we need the laws?
It would take a while to type it all out but I think that it seems logical enough to me that through the evolution of our species eventually rules were needed and an enforcement of those rules were needed in order to protect and further the clan/pack/group. Humans needed eachother to survive the animals, the weather, and other humans. Trial and error would show that protecting life, promoting honesty, and protecting ownership would be ways to further life within and of the clan/tribe/pack itself.
It seems to me that religion and gods served two purposes from the start: to explain the unknown and to enforce the rules. That combination in a vacuum might be ok, but in a dynamic world where more and more people interact with eachother and learning explodes exponetially, a group that strictly adheres to that combination becomes a violent one.
When considering the idea of a species with an evolving intellect it would be hard to say which came first the rules or the gods, perhaps they came about at the same time. I don't know.
I also consider myself as an atheistic agnostic. Somewhat of an evolution of my own. I am, of course, willing to change that position, god willing.
I understand what you're saying, Lindyhopper – I was actually trying to address Def59's questions by observation of generalities. And I think they're some really tough questions at that! Maybe our species' moral capacity is a combination of inherent and learned qualities…like other functions of the brain. It has the capacity for abstract thought and language – but where someone is born and raised determines concepts they'll grasp and their native tongue….My theistic viewpoint believes the moral capacity of man is there by design. But thinking about it from a non-theistic viewpoint – it could be something that evolved – sort of like our immune system. Man's tendency to protect aspects of life driven by self-preservation….I'm not saying how the moral capacity got there – I'm just saying it looks to me like it's always been there.
The last few posts got me thinking on Hammurabi's code and such. After a quick google ( d*mn it's so great not to have to go to the library but just type in hammurabi instead), i found a interesting article comparing Hammurabi code, Mosaic Law, and Justinian Law.
The similarities are striking even though they are centuries apart. An interesting exercise would be comparing Eastern Law (as in Chinese) with these to see any similarities and or differences. Thereby setting aside most contamination.
Your assignment Mr.Phelps if you so choose is to compare these. Of course if any of you are captured during this assignment I will disavow any knowledge of you.
I’m glad Grease Spot is not a Christian website! It dawned on me one day that GSC is one of the ways for a recovering TWIt-for-brains like me to get back into enjoying the real world. As life goes on – I’m thinking more and more it’s unhealthy to keep my belief system in a vacuum. More than doctrinally, I think Grease Spot has had a HUGE impact on my worldview.
Some things that continue to have a curious effect are ideas that occurred to me during Garth’s thread Talkabout something that turns PFAL on its head. I realized how narrow minded my understanding of the Bible and Science is. And there’s more to it than that – I’m still sorting it out – will get back to ya later with more details …There’s a lot of food for thought on this thread. Back in my TWI daze it was very comfortable to live in a make-believe world where I had “all the answers.” It was also stifling, boring – and especially frustrating when my mental map of life had nothing to do with reality…I don’t know why I’m posting this stuff – not sure if I qualify to contribute on this thread…As life goes on – I’m finding out there’s more I don’t know…
Great folks here at Grease Spot! Thanks a million for the perspective you all bring here! And I do apologize for the times I’ve been disrespectful on threads.
Recommended Posts
Larry N Moore
If someone doesn't say it's wrong what would prevent me from murdering you? I don't think you'll like that very much, would ya?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
Ah yes, but what is the bigger point? Where did these values come from? Did they come from some evolution of mankind? Did they come from some athiest or agnostic philosopher? Did they come from religion?
I think that is the point Def is making (Good to see you again, Def how are ya???)
I would tend to think they come from the latter. However, I by no means take that to imply athiests or agnositcs are categorically immoral any more than I would assume religions people are categorically moral.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry N Moore
I certainly hope that no one has made the mistaken notion that I believe atheists or agnostics are immoral because they happen to be atheists and/or agnostics. That notion is down-right silly.
Gandi, made one of the most profoundest statements I've ever heard: "I might be persuaded to become a Christian if it wasn't for the way Christians behave."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
No, I didn't think you had implied that, but I've seen that issue come up in similar threads so I wanted to make my POV clear on that score, lest someone accuse me of implying that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
I talked about this on TWI's Sedative to the Conscience thread and on Shifra's Agape or Arrogance thread – how there seems to be a common sense of decency and morality in people of any time and culture – we see that laws are usually made to protect life, promote honesty, protect ownership, etc. It appears to me that there is something inherent in people – that transcends culture and belief systems that enables folks to discern right from wrong. And perhaps it takes a deliberate act of the will or rigid conditioning to dull this function....of course, that's just my opinion.
Edited by T-BoneLink to comment
Share on other sites
Sushi
Someone else said (I wish I knew who), "Christianity is the greatest religion no one's ever practiced".
I consider myself an agnostic (surprise, surprise). I really wish I could believe there is an all knowing, all powerful being even mildly interested in my well being. However, given all the things happening in the world, I find it difficult to swallow.
Some say you can't know. Maybe. I don't know if one CAN know. Maybe.
(How's that for fence sitting?
)
Edited by SushiLink to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
Sushi, my love, I wouldn't recommend sitting on the fence. It tends to give one a splinters in the tushy!
:o
Edited by AbigailLink to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Great thread, Oak! I enjoy learning about stuff like this. Unless I make a conscious effort to analyze a particular TWI viewpoint…a lot of their old BS just sits there in my head…great article, Larry – thanks for posting that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lindyhopper
Well said, Tbone, but I don't know that it is inherent. If it were, why would we need the laws?
It would take a while to type it all out but I think that it seems logical enough to me that through the evolution of our species eventually rules were needed and an enforcement of those rules were needed in order to protect and further the clan/pack/group. Humans needed eachother to survive the animals, the weather, and other humans. Trial and error would show that protecting life, promoting honesty, and protecting ownership would be ways to further life within and of the clan/tribe/pack itself.
It seems to me that religion and gods served two purposes from the start: to explain the unknown and to enforce the rules. That combination in a vacuum might be ok, but in a dynamic world where more and more people interact with eachother and learning explodes exponetially, a group that strictly adheres to that combination becomes a violent one.
When considering the idea of a species with an evolving intellect it would be hard to say which came first the rules or the gods, perhaps they came about at the same time. I don't know.
I also consider myself as an atheistic agnostic. Somewhat of an evolution of my own. I am, of course, willing to change that position, god willing.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
I understand what you're saying, Lindyhopper – I was actually trying to address Def59's questions by observation of generalities. And I think they're some really tough questions at that! Maybe our species' moral capacity is a combination of inherent and learned qualities…like other functions of the brain. It has the capacity for abstract thought and language – but where someone is born and raised determines concepts they'll grasp and their native tongue….My theistic viewpoint believes the moral capacity of man is there by design. But thinking about it from a non-theistic viewpoint – it could be something that evolved – sort of like our immune system. Man's tendency to protect aspects of life driven by self-preservation….I'm not saying how the moral capacity got there – I'm just saying it looks to me like it's always been there.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bulwinkl
The last few posts got me thinking on Hammurabi's code and such. After a quick google ( d*mn it's so great not to have to go to the library but just type in hammurabi instead), i found a interesting article comparing Hammurabi code, Mosaic Law, and Justinian Law.
See
http://www.hyperhistory.net/apwh/essays/co...bijustinlaw.htm
The similarities are striking even though they are centuries apart. An interesting exercise would be comparing Eastern Law (as in Chinese) with these to see any similarities and or differences. Thereby setting aside most contamination.
Your assignment Mr.Phelps if you so choose is to compare these. Of course if any of you are captured during this assignment I will disavow any knowledge of you.
John
Link to comment
Share on other sites
What The Hey
Agnostic? I think some have gone back to atheist.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
I’m glad Grease Spot is not a Christian website! It dawned on me one day that GSC is one of the ways for a recovering TWIt-for-brains like me to get back into enjoying the real world. As life goes on – I’m thinking more and more it’s unhealthy to keep my belief system in a vacuum. More than doctrinally, I think Grease Spot has had a HUGE impact on my worldview.
Some things that continue to have a curious effect are ideas that occurred to me during Garth’s thread Talk about something that turns PFAL on its head. I realized how narrow minded my understanding of the Bible and Science is. And there’s more to it than that – I’m still sorting it out – will get back to ya later with more details
…There’s a lot of food for thought on this thread. Back in my TWI daze it was very comfortable to live in a make-believe world where I had “all the answers.” It was also stifling, boring – and especially frustrating when my mental map of life had nothing to do with reality…I don’t know why I’m posting this stuff – not sure if I qualify to contribute on this thread…As life goes on – I’m finding out there’s more I don’t know…
Great folks here at Grease Spot! Thanks a million for the perspective you all bring here! And I do apologize for the times I’ve been disrespectful on threads.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.