The Atheist Alternative: The 10 Commandments.

reply to post by adjensen


Whilst i completely understand you point that morality could be considered relativistic. Morality is but to a tool, a measuring device, and of course, you need a mean to measure, a "moral compass" as some have reffered to it.

Morality can be a science if you just set yourself a simple goal.

For example "to improve human solidarity and prevent suffering and pain amongst our species"

It is my own empathy and love for my fellow species that i feel allows me to set this goal in the first place. Some may disagree with that goal, but what's there to disagree about if

a) you don't like suffering

AND/OR

b) you want to improve human relationships?

As i've now set myself a moral guideline i can work to answering moral questions.

-Is killing ok? Would it cause emotional or physical upset? Using my guideline this is immoral. Even my own feelings of empathy make killing a horrible idea.
-Is discrimination of someone's sexuality ok? No, immoral.

I urge you to watch some of Sam Harris lectures regarding the "Moral landscape" showing how morality can be scientific.



I'm sure you'll enjoy.

You may not like what he says thought. I promise you this man is no bigot. Again, i urge you to listen to arguments.

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
reply to post by adjensen

 

Whilst i completely understand you point that morality could be considered relativistic. Morality is but to a tool, a measuring device, and of course, you need a mean to measure, a "moral compass" as some have reffered to it.

Morality can be a science if you just set yourself a simple goal.

For example "to improve human solidarity and prevent suffering and pain amongst our species"

Ah, but this is a "how", not a "why". To what end do you want to "improve human solidarity", and why?

Preventing suffering and pain isn't really morality, it's an action which attempts to achieve a goal. Millions starve to death in Africa, and yet sending them food doesn't seem to help, they still starve to death, because the real problems are those of population, agriculture and (mostly) politics.

We could end the suffering and pain in a generation by the forced sterilization of everyone down there. Is this action moral?

Too many people confuse actions (such as promoting equality or feeding the poor) with morality, but morality is what underlies those actions, and makes them something "good". It is a motivation.

It is my own empathy and love for my fellow species that i feel allows me to set this goal in the first place.

A noble goal, but why are you empathetic? Can you will yourself to not care about people? If your empathy is voluntary, then it is arbitrary. If it is an inherent part of your character, then it points to something which is not subjective.

reply to post by adjensen

Ah, but this is a "how", not a "why". To what end do you want to "improve human solidarity", and why?

Why? My question would be why not? Who doesn't want that? Why would they not want this?

We are moral because we have done and will continue to be in order to survive, or if it get so bad that we kill each other and there is only a few remaining, we MUST be moral in order to survive, as a species.

Humans would not have progressed even as far as bibilical times without maintaining a sense of cooperation and solidarity. In a sense, you could say our innate altruism and empathy is a evolutionary advantage, something that has allowed us to survive in all conditions.

Of course the questions you pose to me could be sent back your way. What would be your answer? Because God said so? The point i make is that religious or non-religious we can be moral without the need for instruction.Like i've said, our species wouldn't have made it this far if we wern't cooperative and sharing.

Millions starve to death in Africa, and yet sending them food doesn't seem to help, they still starve to death, because the real problems are those of population, agriculture and (mostly) politics

Sending them food doesn't help because our economy is built on a capatilist monetary system. We have enough food and resources to feed the world many times over. It's our idealistic grip on the financial economy that allows people in one country to go fat, while others starve in foreign lands.

We could end the suffering and pain in a generation by the forced sterilization of everyone down there. Is this action moral?

And cause pain and suffering in the process? That would be against the goal i'd set myself. Even with a simple goal like i have, i can't rationalise depopulation as moral.

Too many people confuse actions (such as promoting equality or feeding the poor) with morality, but morality is what underlies those actions, and makes them something "good". It is a motivation.

The motivation could lie in one's goal to help humanity which stems from empathy and understanding. Motivation does not have to come from God, motivation or deterrants don't have to come in metaphysical fears and hopes such as Heaven and Hell.

There are many secular charities, many of their volunteers are atheist or people with no particular religious belief.

A noble goal, but why are you empathetic? Can you will yourself to not care about people? If your empathy is voluntary, then it is arbitrary. If it is an inherent part of your character, then it points to something which is not subjective.

Empathy can't be voluntary, you either feel it or you don't. You either feel emotion when imagining life in someone else's shoes or you don't feel it. It's no more subjective than love or fear.

Another reason you may help others or feel particularly empathic towards someone is if there is a mutual benefit. "He helps me with my crops, I'll teach him to code HTML". It's a method for communicating and sharing.

Another reason - Setting an example, you may want to help someone to show nobility so that others may be inspired. Why? Because it improves the goal of "peace" i have set myself. It's really simple.

There are many beneficial reasons for being "good".

Christopher Hitchens does not believe in God but his ideas in the video are still considered as conveying morality.

Again, please listen to Sam Harris's ideas on how science can determine human values.

Sending them food doesn't help because our economy is built on a capatilist monetary system. We have enough food and resources to feed the world many times over. It's our idealistic grip on the financial economy that allows people in one country to go fat, while others starve in foreign lands.

I agree my friend , its also sickening if you think about it that people who unselfishly give to charity are being duped .
TPTW (i say were now) have a serious desire to depopulate as you rightly say and this is but one of the methods to do so .
Good post A and A.

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
reply to post by adjensen

 

Ah, but this is a "how", not a "why". To what end do you want to "improve human solidarity", and why?

Why? My question would be why not? Who doesn't want that? Why would they not want this?

We are moral because we have done and will continue to be in order to survive, or if it get so bad that we kill each other and there is only a few remaining, we MUST be moral in order to survive, as a species.

Well, a selfish person wouldn't want that, I suppose. Why is the survival of the species, at personal expense, a moral deed? (I'm not saying that it is or it isn't, I'm asking why you think that it is.)

In a sense, you could say our innate altruism and empathy is a evolutionary advantage, something that has allowed us to survive in all conditions.

Quite the contrary, both of those run counter to "survival of the fittest", and so represent a biological evolutionary disadvantage. It's just been in the recent past that those who were physically weak but had other useful characteristics were more than a drain on society.

Millions starve to death in Africa, and yet sending them food doesn't seem to help, they still starve to death, because the real problems are those of population, agriculture and (mostly) politics

Sending them food doesn't help because our economy is built on a capatilist monetary system. We have enough food and resources to feed the world many times over. It's our idealistic grip on the financial economy that allows people in one country to go fat, while others starve in foreign lands.

Well, no, that has little, if anything to do with it. But that's a bit beyond the scope of the discussion, so I'll save you the lecture on politics and economics.

We could end the suffering and pain in a generation by the forced sterilization of everyone down there. Is this action moral?

And cause pain and suffering in the process? That would be against the goal i'd set myself. Even with a simple goal like i have, i can't rationalise depopulation as moral.

What pain and suffering? A little snip here, a little snip there, and no one has to watch their child starve to death before their very eyes. Do you quantify suffering? Is watching your child die of starvation preferable to just not having children? By what standard are you measuring the difference?

Too many people confuse actions (such as promoting equality or feeding the poor) with morality, but morality is what underlies those actions, and makes them something "good". It is a motivation.

The motivation could lie in one's goal to help humanity which stems from empathy and understanding. Motivation does not have to come from God, motivation or deterrants don't have to come in metaphysical fears and hopes such as Heaven and Hell.

There are many secular charities, many of their volunteers are atheist or people with no particular religious belief.

Not really sure where you're going with this, but you're missing the point -- it's not about God, and I'm well aware of the fact that there are secular (and atheist) groups that help other people. I support a number of them personally, in fact.

The point is that you cannot confuse a goal with the motivation behind the goal, because they are intrinsically not the same thing. One wants to end suffering because it is wrong, not because it is suffering. I end suffering because suffering is bad and I don't want people to suffer, because it makes them feel bad, it makes me feel bad, and so on.

But it is the "wrong" which represents morality, not the "ending suffering." And the question becomes what is the basis for judging right and wrong, if morals have nothing but a subjective basis?

A noble goal, but why are you empathetic? Can you will yourself to not care about people? If your empathy is voluntary, then it is arbitrary. If it is an inherent part of your character, then it points to something which is not subjective.

Empathy can't be voluntary, you either feel it or you don't. You either feel emotion when imagining life in someone else's shoes or you don't feel it. It's no more subjective than love or fear.

But you have said that there is no absolute or objective morality, so your empathy (along with love, and every other emotion, though that's an abyss you do not want to get into) must be subjective. It must be something that you choose to do.

Christopher Hitchens does not believe in God but his ideas in the video are still considered as conveying morality.

Again, please listen to Sam Harris's ideas on how science can determine human values.

I think that, somewhere along the way, you got sidetracked into thinking that this is about God. Though I am a theist, it is not, and I promise you that I'm not going back you into a corner and then slap a "Ha! You said this, therefore God!" card on the table. As I have said, many times, I do not care if you believe in God or not, and I think that TD, with whom I have had numerous similar discussions, would agree that I'm not that intellectually dishonest.

This is purely about whether, as you said, morality is not absolute or objective, but completely subjective. I do not believe that to be true, and that is born out from evidence and logic, not any assumptions about source.

reply to post by adjensen


Where do you get your objective morality? It's only objective if a human states it is so, but saying it so doesn't make it so.

Man's morality changes over time, some stay the same, others vastly improve. Society has become less xenophobic where absolutes have been protested.

Hatred of homosexuals is now a minority, most would consider it immoral to hate them, while many fundamenalists who follow objective rules find homophobia ripe and have no moral problem with it.

This is an example of how morality develops and is relativistic depending on faith, enviroment and culture.

Killing, theiving and murder are STILL morally contemptable in most societies, I don't mistake "thou shall not kill" "thou shall not steal" etc. as objective morals just because they are not admirable in any society.

Besides, what about robin hood, stealing from the corrupt rich? Is that moral? Some may consider it so.

Morality is relativistic this is my arguments. While some fundamentals key moral understandings in societies such as "not killing "raping" or "thieving" have remained the same for many years, this does not make them objective.

And it doesn't mean that depopulation can be rationalised any more so than raping a child just because you feel there is no right and wrong without objective morality. We have social responsibilities, expect karma in the form of social pressure if you are to act irresponsible.

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
reply to post by adjensen

 

Where do you get your objective morality? It's only objective if a human states it is so, but saying it so doesn't make it so.

I "get" it by observing that it is there. Consider again the little graphic that I made for you -- if morality is a spectrum, and we want to be more moral, what are we striving towards? A moving target? How can you determine whether our society is more moral than it was in the 1960s if you have nothing to measure against?

Man's morality changes over time, some stay the same, others vastly improve. Society has become less xenophobic where absolutes have been protested.

Hatred of homosexuals is now a minority, most would consider it immoral to hate them, while many fundamenalists who follow objective rules find homophobia ripe and have no moral problem with it.

This is an example of how morality develops and is relativistic depending on faith, enviroment and culture.

No, what you are citing are outside manifestations that you point to as evidence of us becoming more moral. They cannot be morality, because the measurement of something cannot be that something itself. Morality is the motivation for, say, gay rights -- I believe that it is right to be fair and equal to all, but morality is buried in the "it is right", not in the "be fair and equal to all."

Why is it "right" to be fair and equal to all? What is the basis for that determination?

Oscar Wilde was imprisoned for (and arguably, died as a result of) being a homosexual in 1895 in England. If you believe that morality is subjective, then Wilde's persecution was perfectly proper, absolutely moral for the time.

reply to post by adjensen

I "get" it by observing that it is there.

So what is objective and what is not? Do you have a list? A personal list of your own? Does it come from God? (or man who wrote God's law?)

Consider again the little graphic that I made for you -- if morality is a spectrum, and we want to be more moral, what are we striving towards?

Like Sam Harris has stated (if you'd care to watch and listen) morality isn't just left or right, north or south, moral or immoral. THere are grey areas, It's a moral landscape, it's not as easy as the duality of left and right.

I believe that it is right to be fair and equal to all, but morality is buried in the "it is right", not in the "be fair and equal to all."

But your "GOD" doesn't. We've already covered this. So who is deciding moral objectivism here, it's you, and it's completely subjective. If you were born in fundamentalist Islamic country, you would not be saying the same things about homosexuals.

If you'd grown up in Papa New Guinee 60 years ago, you wouldn't say that eating human flesh was "immoral" - Morality isn't objective, we only have the subjector deciding what is objective and what is not. Objective morality is an illusion.

Morality is relative and is a complex landscape when considering all cultures, all faiths, and people's circumstances.

Oscar Wilde was imprisoned for (and arguably, died as a result of) being a homosexual in 1895 in England. If you believe that morality is subjective, then Wilde's persecution was perfectly proper, absolutely moral for the time.

Again, you're arguing yourself. the very key word "for the time" stands in favour of my argument that morality evolves over time it changes, public opionion and understandings changes. It's subject to time, culture and many more social factors.

Many of us consider the word of "GOD" to be immoral now. You shouldn't kill your son just an answering back, women shouldn't be stoned, homosexuality is a form of love, it's not an abomination. We are defying God's original values showing that morality is not objective. Although some morals never change "not to kill" - You are only under the impression that they are objective.

Before we go repeating ourselves again, i urge you to watch some of the material i have presented throughout this thread, listen to some of free thinker's arguments, even if you disagree with them. Perhaps you could share your rebutals here.

Thanks

A&A

PS. I believe the fundamental reason you believe in objective morality is because of your core belief in a deity. You always will believe that there is someone almighty and all intelligent with all the answers, because of that, you must believe in objective morality. I understand.

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
reply to post by adjensen

 

I "get" it by observing that it is there.

So what is objective and what is not? Do you have a list? A personal list of your own? Does it come from God? (or man who wrote God's law?)

Once again, I would ask you to stop playing the "God" card and believing that anything I have said has anything to do with God, because it does not. You will never emerge from the box that you have stowed yourself into if you take every argument that someone who believes in God makes as being an argument for the belief in God.

If I drop a rock, I can observe the effects of gravity. I do not need to define what gravity is, or know its source, or even how it works, in order to ascertain that it exists. Similarly, if I observe that, sociologically and psychologically, people seem to want to do "good" and condemn "evil", even while they often do evil and eschew good, I can ascertain that morality exists, and that "good" and "bad" (or "right" and "wrong") not only exist, but are not subject to idle whim.

You cannot continue to confuse actions -- cannibalism or homosexual rights -- with morality. They are not the same thing.

I believe that it is right to be fair and equal to all, but morality is buried in the "it is right", not in the "be fair and equal to all."

But your "GOD" doesn't. We've already covered this. So who is deciding moral objectivism here, it's you, and it's completely subjective. If you were born in fundamentalist Islamic country, you would not be saying the same things about homosexuals.

How can you possibly say that? Do you believe that there is no one in a fundamentalist Islamic country that believes in homosexual rights? Not even the homosexuals? Do you believe that, since those societies repress homosexuals, it is morally acceptable?

You're again trying to claim that your view of morality is objective (or absolute) but that everyone else's is subjective. If you believe that morality is subjective, then Iran is apparently justified in treating homosexuals the way that they do, because it is up to them to decide what is right, and what is wrong.

Again, you're arguing yourself. the very key word "for the time" stands in favour of my argument that morality evolves over time it changes, public opionion and understandings changes. It's subject to time, culture and many more social factors.

You're missing the point, once again. It doesn't matter what you think about the way that Oscar Wilde was treated in the past, or the way that the Spartans committed infanticide, or anything else that you're not a fan of today. If morality is subjective, then they were quite right and proper in what they did.

Before we go repeating ourselves again, i urge you to watch some of the material i have presented throughout this thread, listen to some of free thinker's arguments, even if you disagree with them. Perhaps you could share your rebutals here.

I do not generally watch videos, because I am interested in a conversation with another person, not listening to a lecture.

PS. I believe the fundamental reason you believe in objective morality is because of your core belief in a deity.

Thank you for the irrational judgement, but, as I have said, this is not about God. My observations on the nature of human behaviour predate my re-entry into theism, and are largely unrelated.

reply to post by adjensen

You cannot continue to confuse actions -- cannibalism or homosexual rights -- with morality. They are not the same thing.

Look, it's not confusing anything at all. I was highlighting how opinions on homosexuals and cannibilism show how people of different philosophy, religion and culture have different considered "rights" and "wrongs".

Morality (from the Latin moralitas "manner, character, proper behavior") is a sense of behavioral conduct that differentiates intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are good (or right) and bad (or wrong). A moral code is a system of morality (for example, according to a particular philosophy, religion, culture, etc.) and a moral is any one practice or teaching within a moral code. Immorality is the active opposition to morality, while amorality is variously defined as an unawareness of, indifference toward, or disbelief in any set of moral standards or principles

Let's just settle it at this, adjensen. You believe in objective morality, i do not - I believe it to be an illusion.

Thanks for the debate.

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
Let's just settle it at this, adjensen. You believe in objective morality, i do not - I believe it to be an illusion.

Cool. Keep that in mind the next time the government does something that you don't like, or someone steals from you, or you hear about any "injustice". Cut them some slack, because if they think it's right, you've given up any right to argue.

reply to post by adjensen


Cool story bro,

I can't take part in any rational political or humanist democracy because i don't believe in objective morality. HA, Tell that to politicians with non-belief.

You still havn't answered where you get your objective morality from. How do you decide what particular morals should be deemed objective?

Killing? What about if your relative is going to be killed, the only way to stop is to shoot the killer, possibly causing death?

Stealing? I've already mentioned Robin Hood.

Adultery? What if you partner concents it? (swingers for example)

All objective commandments set by the "almighty" God - and i can still present situations where they are not objective at all.

Good luck adjensen, I've enjoyed your insults and ignorance.

Re IAMIAM

You wrote:

["What is your starting point?"]

At the end of the say: Epistemology. And as this thread is now on the P, P and M subforum, I'll go that direction later if in accordance with the flow.

Quote: [" A democracy reacts to that which effects the majority. The minority ALWAYS remain oppressed until such time as they have become the majority."]

Your political philosophy sorely needs some brushing-up (and besides I have included the words egalitarian, liberal and secular so many times now in context with democracy, that my my definition of democracy should be obvious).

Quote: ["How many truly understand the power of their free will? Most do not even truly know what this is. All they know is what the system allows them to do with their will."]

And what do you intend to do about that?: "Sorry, but you MUST learn about and how to use free will". This is genesis 2 in a slightly different way: "You have free will to use as long as you use it my way".

IAM, you're a strange one. On one hand you have some rather polarized anarchistic ideals, on the other you try to introduce your own absolutes into the situation.

Quote: ["I did not make the subject, I merely responded to it without altering it."]

In the course of 'responding' you introduced your own absolutes.

Quote: ["What is love to you my friend?"]

Answer A/: Superglue. Answer B/: At the human level an expression of one of the basic principles present in the manifested cosmos.

Quote: [ Originally posted by bogomil
So continue your direct transmission, and don't mix it with social concepts.


IAM: Impossible. It is social in nature.]

Don't mix it with 'FORMAL' social concepts, such as politics. Besides nothing prevents you from being 'social' in direct transmission, which is the preferred method of non-invasive and optional religionism.

Originally posted by bogomil
Don't mix it with 'FORMAL' social concepts, such as politics. Besides nothing prevents you from being 'social' in direct transmission, which is the preferred method of non-invasive and optional religionism.

You are correct my friend. Thank you for steering me straight.

I seemed to have gotten sidetracked as the subject has drifted to politicised morality. I do not deal in politics, I aim to dismantle them. So, I will graciously bow out.

You have done me a service my friend.

Thank you!

With Love,

Your Brother

Awake_and_aware wrote:

["Morality can be a science if you just set yourself a simple goal.

For example "to improve human solidarity and prevent suffering and pain amongst our species"

It is my own empathy and love for my fellow species that i feel allows me to set this goal in the first place. Some may disagree with that goal, but what's there to disagree about if"]

Though I would prefer to use the 'tool' logic for this situation, science will do. Science doesn't claim final answers, but work towards such an ideal. Thus: It's perfectly in accordance with scientific principles to state an aim and use its systematic methodoly trying to get there. E.g. tailormade medicine.

"Improve solidarity and prevent suffering and pain etc". That's the chosen aim, which doesn't need sanction from any subjectively declared varieties of 'absolutes'.

Those not wanting to be at the recieving end of such can refuse so.


Adjensen wrote:

["Ah, but this is a "how", not a "why". To what end do you want to "improve human solidarity", and why?"]

For some people, usually those with absolute values somewhere, 'why' seems to be more important than the how. Pauline 'faith above mundane manifestation'. The introduction (and possibly request) of a 'why' is a way of justifying the pre-determined answer from absolute ideology. Arranging the semantic settings around the situation, so only the absolute can be the outcome.

Mundane: If I e.g.give some money to a beggar, the effect on his/her life will be the same, no matter my motives or deeper reason for it. I can even feel a little smug and self-important, but bread can still be bought for the money given. There's no 'why' necessary.

Quote Adjensen: [" Preventing suffering and pain isn't really morality, it's an action which attempts to achieve a goal."]

What's 'REAL' morality? Your god-based absolutes? .....Semantics.

Quote Adjensen: ["Millions starve to death in Africa, and yet sending them food doesn't seem to help, they still starve to death, because the real problems are those of population, agriculture and (mostly) politics."]

Those recieving the help, get help. Others don't. So until the population, agricultural and political problems are solved, do we just stop helping in the meantime?

Quote Adjensen: [" Too many people confuse actions (such as promoting equality or feeding the poor) with morality, but morality is what underlies those actions, and makes them something "good". It is a motivation."]

Too many people confuse their self-appointed absolutes and faiths with reality, and invent their own semantics, logic and ethics based on these 'absolutes'. Speaking from inside the holy bubbles, where the only 'true criteria' exist. Just a big circle-argumentation.

Quote Adjensen: ["A noble goal, but why are you empathetic? Can you will yourself to not care about people?"]

Again that tactical semantic 'why'. Personally I can say, that I have a strong empathy with animals, children and the weak in society, but practically none with the average adult. But I'm still able to function socially with adults without any 'why-explained' or 'willed' morality. It's just sensible to do it, because together is more effective than alone.

Quote Awake....["Humans would not have progressed even as far as bibilical times without maintaining a sense of cooperation and solidarity. In a sense, you could say our innate altruism and empathy is a evolutionary advantage, something that has allowed us to survive in all conditions."]

Even in very brutal environements, where the actual choices only are 'bad' or 'worse', a kind of intrinsic human moral sense often manifests as an expression of survival instincts, choosing 'bad' instead of 'worse'; rather based on pragmatism than on absolutes.

Quote Awake.... [" Sending them food doesn't help because our economy is built on a capatilist monetary system. We have enough food and resources to feed the world many times over. It's our idealistic grip on the financial economy that allows people in one country to go fat, while others starve in foreign lands."]

Very good example of useless 'absolutes' (this time in economy). While biological life certainly manifests more predation than symbiosis, the capitalist system isn't a direct extension of predation, but a twisted formalized version of it. In 'natural' predation, survival skills such as strength, intelligence, adaption ability etc decides the outcome. In capitalism a powerbase already exists through elitist privileges.

I actually get paid not to grow my farm (as do many of my farming neighbours), to keep up food-prices. As I'm too old to farm anyway, I'm grateful for the money, but think the system is idiotic.

Basically another version of fascism, and it's not so surprising, that the christian right often goes hand in hand with big money.

Quote Adjensen: [" Why is the survival of the species, at personal expense, a moral deed? (I'm not saying that it is or it isn't, I'm asking why you think that it is.)"]

As said above, I have much empathy with animals. And without any theistic considerations whatsoever, I incude animals in my personal category of those who deserve moral treatment. Why on earth would I need to ask a 'faith' upheld 'god' about this?

Quote Adjensen: ["Quite the contrary, both of those run counter to "survival of the fittest", and so represent a biological evolutionary disadvantage. It's just been in the recent past that those who were physically weak but had other useful characteristics were more than a drain on society."]

One of the strongest points in mankind's relating to 'survival of the fittest' is its ability to function collectively. So while the human individual often was of lesser importance, the herd-instincts were a survival factor and implied a strutured form (as with all hive- and herd biological life).

Quote Adjensen: [" But it is the "wrong" which represents morality, not the "ending suffering." And the question becomes what is the basis for judging right and wrong, if morals have nothing but a subjective basis?"]

You return to this again and again, and I actually get the feeling, that you're confused about the issue yourself. Your 'god' and his abolutes are spooking in the background all the time, and you try to make this less obvious by inventing new 'perspectives'.

"...if morals have nothing but a subjective basis...". And the 'objective' alternative....? The decrees of some subjectively claimed invisible entity.

Quote Adjensen: ["But you have said that there is no absolute or objective morality, so your empathy (along with love, and every other emotion, though that's an abyss you do not want to get into) must be subjective. It must be something that you choose to do."]

That's what's called 'free will', which is part of the official christian explanation of redemption doctrine. (Unless you're Calvinist and believe in predestination). And for the umpteenth time: SO WHAT?

If charity or egalitarian, liberal, secular morality hasn't got official approval from your self-appointed divine authority it's 'technically' below your brand? Now I don't believe you as a person spend all your time on your knees, asking for forgiveness, but I do consider it rather arrogant to even theoretically imply, that secular morals and charity etc are kind of inferior to your 'god'-given ones (which you ofcourse constantly sneak in disguised as 'ultimate' in your posts).

Quote Adjensen: ["I think that, somewhere along the way, you got sidetracked into thinking that this is about God. Though I am a theist, it is not, and I promise you that I'm not going back you into a corner and then slap a "Ha! You said this, therefore God!" card on the table. As I have said, many times, I do not care if you believe in God or not, and I think that TD, with whom I have had numerous similar discussions, would agree that I'm not that intellectually dishonest."]

As you know, I'm far from being convinced of your intellectual honesty. Actually I consider you one of the most demagogic contributors on these forums. So, your quote:

["This is purely about whether, as you said, morality is not absolute or objective, but completely subjective. I do not believe that to be true, and that is born out from evidence and logic, not any assumptions about source"]

Before you venture into that discussion, you need to sort out how you and other people use the concepts 'absolute', 'objective' and 'subjective'.

Quote Awake....: ["Where do you get your objective morality? It's only objective if a human states it is so, but saying it so doesn't make it so."]

My point exactly. Ad doesn't seem to be willing or able to answer on this.

Quote Adjensen: [" Consider again the little graphic that I made for you -- if morality is a spectrum, and we want to be more moral, what are we striving towards?"]

Your graphic was not an exact reproduction of an actual situation, but your suggestion of a perspective. This you have now elevated to evaluation-background. As usual: You decide on rules and homeground.

Quote Adjensen: ["How can you determine whether our society is more moral than it was in the 1960s if you have nothing to measure against"]

The 'measure-tape' in the secular system HAS ALREADY been established, and its position in this system explained. Why do you go back to it? Debate-tactics?

Quote Adjensen: ["They cannot be morality, because the measurement of something cannot be that something itself."]


That's what I've been telling you and other religionists for a year now. Circle-argumentation INSIDE the holy bubble is worthless, except as a 'faith'. So what you're quibbling about now is the WORD morality per se? Maybe secular use of the word infringes on some theistic copyright?

Quote Adjensen: ["Cool. Keep that in mind the next time the government does something that you don't like, or someone steals from you, or you hear about any "injustice". Cut them some slack, because if they think it's right, you've given up any right to argue."]

Are you quite sure Ad, that this isn't the 'persecuted' christian whining? I'm a metaphysicist, with some practical contact with authorities on the subject, and I've been treated more than fairly (and that's apart from my very nice life on a more mundane level).

Re IAMIAM

You wrote:

["I seemed to have gotten sidetracked as the subject has drifted to politicised morality. I do not deal in politics, I aim to dismantle them. So, I will graciously bow out."]

I will correspondingly be more conciliatory in my tone.

It's difficult to avoid being carried away on some subjects (and that certainly includes me also), so I've decided on 'throwing pies', relating from 'relative realities' (e.g. social contexts), trying to establish 'academic abstractions' as a common communication platform and even suggesting 'going beyond' epistemologically. As clearly defined as possible as to 'where I come from' in specific situations.

Your friend Bogo

Re Bismos:

You wrote:

["so atheism finally shows it does intend to be a religion."]

This special perspective you present (and which in my opinion is a 'slogan'), has already been cheewed over on half a dozen threads.

Personally I'm willing to relate to your opinion on it, if you make a bit of homework first, and acquaint yourself with the concept 'inductive categorization'. Otherwise your input is just a semantic blind alley of little use.

reply to post by bogomil


Epic response. It's really frustrating and disapointing that user's disapear at the first sign of intelligent argument.

Keep up the good writing bogomil.

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
reply to post by adjensen

 

Cool story bro,

I can't take part in any rational political or humanist democracy because i don't believe in objective morality. HA, Tell that to politicians with non-belief.

You still havn't answered where you get your objective morality from. How do you decide what particular morals should be deemed objective?

Since Adjensen is a Biblical faithist who is rambling on about "objective morality," and the subject of this thread is about Christopher Hitchens Alternative to The 10 Commandments, I would like to add a few points to Hitchens' criticisms of the 10 Commandments; commandments which allegedly represent, to Biblical faithists, part of what they mean by the "objective morality" of their unchanging, perfect psychopathic tribal diety.

Do not have any other gods before me.

You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.

You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me,but showing steadfast love to the thousandth generation of those who love me and keep my commandments.

You shall not make wrongful use of the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not acquit anyone who misuses his name.

YHVH was of course, never a monotheistic deity until much later in the history of Judaism, when the definition of the Israelite's tribal deity was exported onto the concept of a monotheistic deity. "Do not have any other gods before me." implies that there were many other tribal deities; it does not state "these other deities are non existant; I am the one and only monotheistic deity;" in other words YHVH is not "God" by modern definition; he is just one of many tribal deities who was allegedly bigger, badder and better than all the others.

Just as in modern systems of law, there are laws and there are sentencing guidelines for such laws; the sentencing gudeilines for the first 10 of the 613 Mosaic Laws are to be found elsewhere in the Torah and are usually not included in the 10 commandments, possibly because they are rather embarrasing; most of the 10 commandments are in fact executionable offences, and the first two commandments are genocidal offences.

The penalty for blaspheming against YHVH, or for worshipping other deities is execution or genocide, and since the vast majority of humankind in that era probably had never heard of YHVH and worshipped other tribal deities, this would apply to almost the entirety of humankind, apart from one small tribe of Bronze age religious fanatics.

Making a statue of a fish or an animal or a bird or a human being is also forbidden.

Thus when the Biblical faithists speak about the "absolute morality" of their unchanging, perfect god, this religious morality would probably result in the mass genocide of the almost the entire human race of the 21st century, apart from a few Jewish religious fanatics; no Christian would be spared either, since they worship a dead human being as an object of idolatry.

Remember the Sabbath day and keep it holy.

For six days you shall labour and do all your work.

But the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God; you shall not do any work—you, your son or your daughter, your male or female slave, your livestock, or the alien resident in your towns.

For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but rested the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and consecrated it.

It is also an executable offence to profane the Sabbath (Friday Sunset until Saturday Sunset); this is the "absolute morality" which Christians speak about, even if they work on Friday evenings and Saturday daytimes themselves; most of them simply don't even believe in this type of "absolute morality" themselves anyway, and are just personifications of hypocrisy.

Honor your father and your mother, so that your days may be long in the land that the Lord your God is giving you.

This is also an executionable offence. Thus "absolute morality" in terms of the Biblical god's moral laws would allow parents to execute disobedient chidlren.

"You shall not kill".

This is not to be taken literally of course; it really refers to "unlawful killing," but "lawful killing" includes executions for disobeying numerous Biblical laws; thus executing homosexuals, profaners of the Sabbath and worshippers of other deities is not "unlawful killing."

You shall not commit adultery.

This is one of the most misunderstood commandments; it has nothing to do with the modern Christian concept of marriage and monogamy. The culture which the ancient Israelites allegedly sprang from was a polygamous culture; a man could have as many wives and sex slaves as he could afford; they were simply his private property and if one of his sex slaves or wives had sex with anyone else, they could be put to death. Women were not free to follow their heart's desire; they were simply private property to be bought and sold.

I have an aquaintance who is a Christian and whose husband is not a Christian and she was complaining to me that her husband has a mistress and that she is furious with him and no longer sleeps with him; I explained to her that she is the "sinner," from a Biblical perspective, not her husband, since she is just her husband's property to do with as he pleases, and there is nothing unlawful about him having a mistress; she could not accept this of course.

You shall not steal.

This simply means that one should not steal from a member of one's own tribe, but the Isaelites were commanded to commit genocide on other tribes and to capture their livestock, lands, possessions and to take young virgin females (i.e., children) as sex slaves; so it is OK to steal from anyone outside the tribe; almost any gang of organised criminals or football hooligans would probably have a simiar code.

You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.

This was probably quite necessary since there were so many silly executionable offences that one could accuse one's neighbour of.

You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or male or female slave, or ox, or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor

As Hitchen's argues this is just a "thought crime" which is impossible to police, and further it goes against the grain of the Capitalist system and the desire to accumulate material possessions, and since most Christians are anti-Communists, I doubt if they really accept this.

So these are the 10 commandments, and this is part of the basis of what Christians refer to as "absolute morality;" an absolute morality which would have genocidal consequences for probably the entire human race, and these are only the first 10 of the 613 "absolute moral laws," which constitute Mosaic Law. I have not even begun to speak about the laws which legalise slavery, which demand the execution of betrothed women who are found not to be virgins, laws prohibiting the cutting of one's beard and hair, etc.

Since the Christians don't accept all the Mosaic Laws or the sentencing guidlines of the 10 commandments, what they refer to as "absolute morality" is usually just their own personal selective "quote mining" and "cherry picking" of the Biblical Laws; whatever suits them, whatever is easiest, whatever does not apply to them and whatever conforms to their own personal bigotry and usually executing homosexuals is somewhere at the top of the list of favorites, and profaning the Sabbath is usually at the bottom of the list, since most Christians don't observe the Sabbath and probably would not want to be executed for that.

I see that you have the resident Biblical fanatic Adjensen on this thread who is referring to you as a "bigot" for attacking his precious Biblical Laws. Of course the question is begged," What do you call a person who believes in Biblical Laws which would result in the genocide of almost the entire human race? There are quite a few nouns beginning with a "b" that I could think of.

Lux

reply to post by awake_and_aware


ten commndments
grew up in cathonlicism and it was too easy
not to enforce on everyone,for that there's sharia law,sweepin the world by storm.
but in a free country, and especially in a free mind within a free country,
we have the potential to be more than just a civilian,
swept up in the clouds of pleasure seeking,
as it seems is the natural human condition.
in a free mind in a free country we have the potential to be magical,
to choose a set of rules and become strong, like bruce lee,
and when looking for a set of rules to make you rise up out of the default mess,
the ten commandments didn't provide much guidance, sitting around not murdering
anybody and honoring my parents, I still wondered what I really could be
doing to become more magical. I found buddhism, the 4 this and the 8 that,
liked that a little better for a while, then a few years ago found the Statutes of
Mystery Metropolis, a set of fourth century taoist laws that teach the religious taoist
how to become magical, by teaching him what to do and what to think, with what principles,
all the time, there's 300 commandments at one point, everything from don't walk in the mountains alone with the opposite sex to don't do farming of animals to don't allow the solar or lunar eclipse to happen, and there's a 58 mindful prayers list, everything you might encounter and what you pray for, when you encounter a beutiful woman you pray they will emerge from their prison of love and beauty and set their mind on the precepts - that 300 commandment thing.

So if you're looking for easy going secular society with mutual respect, we have that, the simple rules of simple villiages, love one another and go ahead and live and indulge, that's the citizenry. But there are societies, of the US Marines, who have stricter laws, the various religious sects, each with their own set of laws to rise above the fray. Having been studying shamanism for a long time, and the buddhist taoist poetry of ancient china, the statutes of mystery metropolis was the religious sect with the best explained disciplinary codes. There's even a list of ten commandments for demons, us taoists have to trap and analyze the demon, sit him down in class, washed and dressed in white, and explain the ten laws for demons, and then set him into his proper place protecting society like a guard dog and not causin any more mischief. Hard to find that Statutes of mystery metoroplis. There was a book, livia kohn, I think, in Berkeley where I'd been getting several of her books. This book referenced the statutes of mystery metroplois in a footnote. You had to send a ten dollar personal check to livia kohn to get the e-book download of this incredible stuff I've been pouring over for years, and the bad karma for me is I got all these statutes, one of the three hundred was not to steal, not anything no matter how small, I remember when thinking 'should I grab a few napkins for later', but that ten dollar check of mine bounced, I got a few emails a bout it, and livia kohn gave up on me. How dangerously karmic was that, I always thought. But it's five years later, so far I'm ok, and master of my own magical destiny.

And I know the post started off about an atheistic alternative; the taoism isn't really theistic, atleast not mono theistic; mono theism taught be how to worship god, taoism taught how to become a god, or i now say the pope of my own religion, we have 700 year old taoist immortals, i think the san francisco chinese new year rabbit year parade is tomorrow, closest thing in the modern world to my native aztec culture, largest chinese new years parade outside of china, and we'll see the 12 immortals, led by lu dong bin, an irrationalist hero of mine; so this isn't monotheism, but it is irrational, irrationality being what they call schizophrenia in my american culture, but there is a defense to be made for madness within civilization, I would like to post mine here, but they say I have to do 20 posts first, so onward I post....