It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Atheists Moral Pledge

page: 10
8
<< 7  8  9    11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 15 2013 @ 06:45 AM
link   
reply to post by puzzlesphere
 


With no true good or bad, there is no remorse or rights to ponder. You can do whatever pleases you while disregarding any negative emotions.



posted on Oct, 15 2013 @ 07:05 AM
link   

Bleeeeep
reply to post by puzzlesphere
 


With no true good or bad, there is no remorse or rights to ponder. You can do whatever pleases you while disregarding any negative emotions.


That is only true if you have developed an ability to detach yourself from your emotions- then you have become a psychopath.

It is not easy to do, but some religions have beliefs and practices which can make that possible. When they teach that emotion is "unreliable" , not to be trusted, "irrational therefore wrong", and have ritual or practice in learning to detach from ones emotions, that is the goal.

A psychopath has no natural repulsion from causing harm and suffering to others, so then a substitute is necessary- an external conscience-entity.

That is what I mean by religions push forward ideas which create a need/market for their product.


It is also why when I hear.read comments like the one further up, in which a person claims that without their fear of God, they would be dangerous, I want to say, "Please, keep your fear of God then! For the sake of others around you!"

I may lack a belief in God, but I certainly do not think we should put others under pressure to get rid of theirs... they might need that!



posted on Oct, 15 2013 @ 07:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Bleeeeep
 




Bleeeeep
With no true good or bad, there is no remorse or rights to ponder.


You're falling back to your old argument... I thought we got past that a couple posts ago?

What do you mean by "true" good or bad? You are back to trying to interrogate the concepts of good or bad without any context. Good and bad only exist within the context of the situation or idea, and then they only exist within context to each other.

Of course there is rights and remorse to ponder... did you not read my anecdote in the previous post? There's lots of remorse, and my fellow humans rights are definitely inherently ponder-able.


Bleeeeep
You can do whatever pleases you while disregarding any negative emotions.


Yes... as religious people do all the time... as humans do most of the time. However, I choose, regardless of any religious beliefs I may hold, to NOT disregard any negative emotions that may arise from myself or those around me.

My choice... no god needed in that particular choice.
edit on 15-10-2013 by puzzlesphere because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 15 2013 @ 07:21 AM
link   

Bleeeeep

About your examples: I was not asking a loaded question by asking "how do you justify it", I only wanted to know how, while expressing that, whatever it was, whatever the justification is, it was an emotional thing. There is no justification without saying that something is good or bad - thus nonspiritual atheists use and depend on the very system that they deny. And to that I ask, why do that? It is irrational/illogical to practice what is denied - but people keep trying to give me rational and logical answers, where there are none without the use of the very system they deny.


I guess I don't get it still. I personally, don't deny the value of emotions, so there is no inconsistancy there. I find a certain sort of logic to emotions- though that might not be evident right away. My emotions associate with events and entities in the present, but they can always be traced back to past events somehow when I turn attention to them. They then begin to emerge from the depths of consciousness, like a iceberg which begins to float up out of the sea.

The idea that emotions are "random" or incomprehensible repeatedly shows to be a mistaken or false illusion. They have reason for being. Introspection shows that as a reliable principle.

In the same way that most exterior, observable phenomena can be discovered and comprehended eventually, even if it is not right away. An event may seem "magic" or "miraculous" to us at one point in history, but science is able to learn it's mechanisms at a later point.

I suspect we have a "collective subconscious" in which all concepts and ideas reside, even before we as individuals, or even as a collective, are consciously aware of them- and they may be giving birth to this reality. This is where science and spirituality join for me. As we discover our shared reality we discover our selves.

But a separate deity? Separate from ourselves, from the world? With a personality and personal preferences, jealousy, anger, likes and dislikes? No, don't believe in that, so I guess I am a spiritual atheist, so my discourse might not fit into what you are wanting to question!



posted on Oct, 15 2013 @ 07:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Bluesma
 


No detachment, just reprogramming.

If whatever it is is okay, then there is no need to detach from it.

What does the word psychopath mean in a world absent of true bad?



posted on Oct, 15 2013 @ 07:37 AM
link   
Now I think about it... it seems to me that Christians and religious in general suppress negative emotions more than non-religious (spiritualist and atheists for example). It is almost a precept in religion to not think certain thoughts. It is also cyclical... your god says you are bad for thinking it, which generates more negative thoughts in yourself, which means you are bad for thinking it, which generates more negative .... etc. etc...

It is most likely why I find resonance with the atheist viewpoint more than most aspects of religion, (even though technically I am not exactly atheist) because atheists are generally more likely to address negative emotions objectively, without preconceived notions affecting an objective analysis and reaction to a given situation.

Non-religious are also more likely to explore taboo concepts, and ideas outside of the traditional "God" paradigm... and are willing to discuss with a view to knowledge and deeper understanding ideas that contradict many religious ideas.

For the best description of God, read:
Olaf Stapledon's "Star Maker"



posted on Oct, 15 2013 @ 07:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Bleeeeep
 



Psychopathy (/saɪˈkɒpəθi/) (or sociopathy (/ˈsoʊsiəˌpæθi/)) is a personality disorder characterised partly by enduring anti-social behavior, a diminished capacity for empathy or remorse, and poor behavioral controls

psychopathy

The term sociopath is commonly used currently to distinguish causes that are external (social factors or early environment), as contrasted to causes of lack of empathy which might be biological or genetic in origin.

In our discussion here, we are kind of suggesting the two are interlaced.




If whatever it is is okay, then there is no need to detach from it.


I don't agree.. or perhaps you'd have to specify what "okay" means!
A negative emotion can be picked up from another- you sense their distress, you feel it.
It does not feel "good". It feels negative, uncomfortable.
Then should ones ability to experience that need to be detached from?

Because despite it being a "bad" feeling, it also has usefulness- it gives information on the state of another, which could allow you to bring them comfort, good feelings. It give you feedback on how successful you two are getting to that state of mutual 'goodness' .

It can also be "remorse" , which helps you determine if a choice you make is not good for another...

So cutting oneself off from their negative emotions can be pleasurable for someone- the promises some religions have, of freedom from suffering are possible- but then cannot guarantee OTHERS will be free from you causing them suffering then!
edit on 15-10-2013 by Bluesma because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 15 2013 @ 08:00 AM
link   
reply to post by puzzlesphere
 


You asked what choices you had and I answered.

You should read my post again. I think maybe you have become subject to confirmation bias.

I was not agreeing that there is no true good, only that I personally saw that everything was trying to produce good. I still hold that some things do in fact fail byway of producing unjust good.

If unjust good is a better definition of bad, it doesn't change the fact that bad is bad. It doesn't make it just, by defining it better.

p.s. Do you realize you are pleasing yourself by finding religion bad for finding other things bad? Pot meets kettle?

You may not need a god to use morality and conscience, but you may need a god to use them correctly.



posted on Oct, 15 2013 @ 08:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Bluesma
 


I used the word to express that if there is no bad or remorse, then there is no such thing as psychopath. If the world had no bad, it wouldn't create psychopaths, it would destroy them - they can't exist without a bad thought. They would be good Samaritans - everything would be.

bad guy - bad = guy
edit on 10/15/2013 by Bleeeeep because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 15 2013 @ 09:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Bleeeeep
 



I want to know what you think - not how pretentious you can be.

You say "we" as if their is something to admire about collective idiocy.

And you're even brass enough to set up a strawman about a man who sets up strawmen. wtf?

If you do not want to bring your understanding to the post, then don't, but do not send me to read pages and pages of hyperbole about ant and ape social behaviors.

If civil argument can't get you out of the hole you've dug yourself into, insults and slander will only dig you in deeper.

The three posts I made earlier put the case I'm arguing quite clearly. The links posted in the last one merely offer historical background, evidence for and critical discussion of the hypothesis. I have nothing further to add.


This is the on topic understanding I have taken from your post - if I am wrong, feel free to respond and correct me.

I am not responsible for your rectifying your miseducation. Have a pleasant day.



posted on Oct, 16 2013 @ 01:01 AM
link   

Bleeeeep
reply to post by Bluesma
 


I used the word to express that if there is no bad or remorse, then there is no such thing as psychopath. If the world had no bad, it wouldn't create psychopaths, it would destroy them - they can't exist without a bad thought. They would be good Samaritans - everything would be.

bad guy - bad = guy


I can't make any sense out of that.
A psychopath lacks empathy with others.
No need for a concept of good or bad for that.
How can a psychopath not exist without a "bad" thought?
A psychopath has thoughts, which others may judge as "bad" or "good",
Or not judge them at all. But he remains a psychopath regardless.

editted to add- you did read the definition? "Psychopath" does not mean "bad guy"....
edit on 16-10-2013 by Bluesma because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 16 2013 @ 02:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Bluesma
 

Why do you not see the concepts?!!!


Do you understand a lack of empathy to mean no empathy at all? No emotional regard whatsoever?

Earlier, within the context of your usage, of the word psychopath, it appears to be a derogatory word for you, is that correct? Not in definition, but in usage, does it express bad? Can we say that you believe psychopaths are bad?

Within context:


A psychopath has no natural repulsion from causing harm and suffering to others, so then a substitute is necessary- an external conscience-entity.

That is what I mean by religions push forward ideas which create a need/market for their product.

It is also why when I hear.read comments like the one further up, in which a person claims that without their fear of God, they would be dangerous, I want to say, "Please, keep your fear of God then! For the sake of others around you!"


Fair warning: I may have to ignore, or concede, to plain old arguing just to argue. I do not enjoy it, I'm sorry.
edit on 10/16/2013 by Bleeeeep because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 16 2013 @ 03:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Bleeeeep
 


There is a thing called empathy - putting yourself in other´s shoes and taking a look from their perspective.

Why should other people suffer because of my actions?

It would be pure egoism if I decided to do something knowing it would harm others, while it would profit myself.

I believe in healthy competition, but not a one, where both ends try to cheat as much as possible to gain advantage by screwing others.



posted on Oct, 16 2013 @ 04:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Cabin
 


Do you believe in an absolute right and wrong? If not, do you practice empathy because of the pleasure you receive from it?

If it is absolute, where does it come from?

If it is for pleasure, would it not be more pleasurable to disregard wrong?



posted on Oct, 16 2013 @ 04:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Bleeeeep
 


I would not say there are absolute rights and wrongs. There are definetely cases which can be considered absolute right or absolute wrong, although the world is not black and white, there are also other colours.

In certain circumstances, which have to be extreme, certain wrongs might become a right and the opposite.

I would not say I act as I do because of pleasure. Of course, sometimes doing something good bring pleasure, although I would rather say avoiding pain. If I reflect back and realise if I have not acted according to my beliefs, I feel bad - the guilty feeling.

Where do my beliefs come from? I would say naturally with life experience. I have never gotten any religious training nor have any experience with religions, as I live in one the most non-religious areas in the world, at the same time this is also one of the areas in the world with the lowest crime rates.

At first my parents taught me what was right, what was wrong, later I when I got older, I came to some of my own conclusions based on experience with others. Empathy is wired into our brains , not having any would simply make us sociopaths. Humans are wired to be social and social interractions require understanding the other person as well.

Just think how you would feel in the same situation as the other and act accordingly how you would act if it were yourself on the other side. Of course I don´t think that way on 99,999% of times, that just happens automatically, but basically that is how I think when there are harder dilemmas.
edit on 16-10-2013 by Cabin because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 16 2013 @ 04:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Bleeeeep
 


It's "absolute" only when contextualised within a situation, then only so far as the scope of the situation allows for. Without a situation/context the ideas of right and wrong are non-existent.

You're trying to make things black and white, and disregarding the whole idea of context.

Empathy is not purely about pleasure... it is about sharing experience.

When i empathise with a good friend over the loss of a loved one, there is no "pleasure" in it, I am sharing their pain.

Think about it man.



posted on Oct, 16 2013 @ 05:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Bleeeeep
 


It's obvious from your strict standpoint in this thread (that morals for atheists only come from pleasure... which is silly) that you believe an atheist has no framework for morals, so you keep trying to attribute their sense of right and wrong to personal gain/pleasure... which is disingenuous if you are truly trying to understand the atheist viewpoint... rather than just judge in an insidious and round-about way from your own viewpoint, with leading questions.

That is the umpteenth time in this thread you have posited those exact same, heavily biased questions (looks very much like trolling). You have been given many answers, and then counter answers that very clearly define how "right and wring" work, regardless of a god or not, from the atheist, spiritual and religious viewpoint, yet you are still pushing the idea that atheists are following something they don't believe in when they use a framework of right and wrong to make decisions...

... laughable.

You just can't seem to accept the ideas presented to you, and step outside of your very narrow argumentative corridor.

You are still postulating from your unfaltering viewpoint, rather than truly engaging in a progressive discussion.

Good luck actually trying to understand a broader world view from your rigid moral stance.



posted on Oct, 16 2013 @ 12:45 PM
link   

puzzlesphere
reply to post by Bleeeeep
 


It's "absolute" only when contextualised within a situation, then only so far as the scope of the situation allows for. Without a situation/context the ideas of right and wrong are non-existent.

You're trying to make things black and white, and disregarding the whole idea of context.

Context is built into the clause, or stipulation, of right and wrong. It doesn't need to be said that we are talking about context - people understand it, without saying it.

What is murder, without context? It is not even a word - it is just letters or marks.




It's obvious from your strict standpoint in this thread (that morals for atheists only come from pleasure... which is silly) that you believe an atheist has no framework for morals, so you keep trying to attribute their sense of right and wrong to personal gain/pleasure... which is disingenuous if you are truly trying to understand the atheist viewpoint... rather than just judge in an insidious and round-about way from your own viewpoint, with leading questions.

That is the umpteenth time in this thread you have posited those exact same, heavily biased questions (looks very much like trolling). You have been given many answers, and then counter answers that very clearly define how "right and wring" work, regardless of a god or not, from the atheist, spiritual and religious viewpoint, yet you are still pushing the idea that atheists are following something they don't believe in when they use a framework of right and wrong to make decisions...



Empathy is not purely about pleasure... it is about sharing experience.

When i empathise with a good friend over the loss of a loved one, there is no "pleasure" in it, I am sharing their pain.

Think about it man.

I have thought about it, a lot, but it doesn't seem rational - not without righteousness being a true thing. The reason I keep going to emotions, or pleasure, is because everyone keeps falling back to empathy/emotions, and emotions all fall back on right and wrong. It seems like right and wrong are sensed - like we sense light. And empathy, is emotional, and emotions are about pleasure - I do not see how you can deny it. We find pleasure in creating/experiencing good or pleasure in ending/experiencing the end of bad.

Without using the circular logic of morality(it is good to be good), why share a friend's pain and experiences, if it is not for pleasure? Can you make sense of it, without it being something that gives you pleasure?

I think it is pleasure in ending grief, pleasure in emotional release(like watching a chick flick), pleasure in following your moral compass, or the most likely thing: pleasure in comforting a friend.

What is wrong with morality being about pleasure? It seems like you find fault in that? To speak in contrast, and similarity, to nonspiritual atheist, I find pleasure in trying to please my God - and I see no fault in it. The only fault can be in unjust pleasure. (Unjust being bad.)

This was in response to both of your last two replies to me.
edit on 10/16/2013 by Bleeeeep because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 16 2013 @ 03:22 PM
link   

Bleeeeep
Context is built into the clause, or stipulation, of right and wrong.


No it isn't.

It is the context of a given situation that defines the nature of right and wrong... as has been shown many times in this thread... right can be wrong and wrong can be right... depending on the context!

So asking for the absolutes of right or wrong, without defining the context for those absolutes first, leaves your question arbitrarily floating in the air.

With your stance... there will never be an adequate answer.

You stubbornly stick to the concept of immutability (righteousness is just a subset of "right"... which has been shown numerous times in this thread, when taken in the correct perspective, to be an arbitrary idea based on context and knowledge).

You need to drop the whole concept of immutability, and take the stance of "shifting perceptive reality" depending on viewpoint.

Things only have context when taken in context to other things.

It makes complete sense... but only when you can remove the very idea of a reactionary god from your thinking.



posted on Oct, 16 2013 @ 04:09 PM
link   
reply to post by puzzlesphere
 


Yes, and you didn't answer my question about sharing the pain of your friend.

murder = unjustly causing someone/thing to die/end
kill = an ambiguous way of saying neutral, good, or bad causing of someone/thing to die/end

You can say, it may not be murder, based on perspective, but then again, from a perfect perspective, if it exists, it may be murder. Just because you can disagree with a perfect perspective, it doesn't make it imperfect - it just makes your perspective imperfect.

You deny a perfect perspective, I do not.

And it is with that same sense of perfect perspective, that people live their lives. If it doesn't exist, we're all delusional for striving for it.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 7  8  9    11  12 >>

log in

join