Ethical Atheist vs believer in God

Status
Not open for further replies.
China Cat Sunflower said:
Philosophy, not religion, is the source of both morality and ethics. Justice is a function of governance. Religion is a primitive social cohesion mechanism which has become redundant and unnecessary in the first world.

Chris
Click to expand...

Well said Chris. There is this temptation by the religious to not only believe in an outmoded mythology but to not rest until everyone else nods in agreement. It seems religion is the most co-dependent of memes
 
Paladin said:
Well said Chris. There is this temptation by the religious to not only believe in an outmoded mythology but to not rest until everyone else nods in agreement. It seems religion is the most co-dependent of memes
Click to expand...
Naw, you can do what ever the hell you want, sir knight. As long as it doesn't interfere with me and mine.

I don't need your dependence on my faith. I do need you as a good neighbor. And I need to be a good neighbor to you (which my faith compels me to strive to be).

So, in that light, it isn't so bad for you, now is it...
 
I have always liked you Q, I wish you were my neighbor. But remember I live in the evangelical vatican, where mega-churches spend hundreds of thousands on propagating their ideas and leave next to nothing to care for widows and orphans.
 
Paladin said:
I have always liked you Q, I wish you were my neighbor. But remember I live in the evangelical vatican, where mega-churches spend hundreds of thousands on propagating their ideas and leave next to nothing to care for widows and orphans.
Click to expand...
I don't give a damn about the vatican, but I do give a damn about you...

That's all I was trying to say.
 
citizenzen said:
Hitting a golf ball well is a very difficult skill. for the last 30 years I've regularly gone down to the driving range and developed a good swing. I could have hired an instructor and perhaps cut that time in half or even less.

But what is the point? There's no race to acquiring a good swing. There's no point in which I could say, "I have perfected my swing. Now I never have to practice again."

Just being outside and moving my body around is enough. Being patient with one's results even when that includes weak slices that barely go 100 yards is enough. Learning that smashing a 300 yard drive—that causes the person next to you to gasp in amazement—doesn't make you superior is enough. Realizing that as you age your swing constantly evolves and the learning never ceases is enough.

Nick_A, you seem to be too focused on achieving a goal, reaching some end point that doesn't exist. Talk about running in circles!
Click to expand...

For a person to be worthy of the term Man and not be just part of humanity comprising the Great Beast, they must have an aim to leave the cave and become master of themselves: "To Be." Granted there are many fine people within the collective referred to as the "Beast" and often they evolve far more quickly then all these experts in modern thought that through their teaching only further the course of corrupt egotism and escapism that eventually must be abandoned.

I am referring to true "individuals" whose influence is necessary for more to rise above dependence on cave conditioning. These people have had such an aim all their life. Simone Weil had this need for individuality as had others including the one man I believe she could have genuinely learned from. We cannot understand these people but we can profit from their awakening influence if we can become less full of ourselves and open to it.
 
Quahom1 said:
And I need to be a good neighbor to you (which my faith compels me to strive to be).
Click to expand...

You do it because your faith compels you?

I do it just because it's the right thing to do.

Dang. A faith that nags you too. How do you get people to sign up for that?
 
Nick_A said:
We cannot understand these people but we can profit from their awakening influence if we can become less full of ourselves and open to it.
Click to expand...

Well, keep working Nick. You'll get there.
 
citizenzen said:
You do it because your faith compels you?

I do it just because it's the right thing to do.

Dang. A faith that nags you too. How do you get people to sign up for that?
Click to expand...
People like me need faith, or else I would take over everything...
 
China Cat Sunflower said:
Philosophy, not religion, is the source of both morality and ethics. Justice is a function of governance. Religion is a primitive social cohesion mechanism which has become redundant and unnecessary in the first world.
Click to expand...

Quahom1 said:
Philosophy is an exercise in the abstract, and doesn't care for widows or orphans. Religion is simply an expression of what is inside. Faith is the answer, because we can move mountains with it, or change the world.
Click to expand...

Paladin said:
Well said Chris. There is this temptation by the religious to not only believe in an outmoded mythology but to not rest until everyone else nods in agreement. It seems religion is the most co-dependent of memes
Click to expand...

From where I sit all of you have valid points. In a modern sense (say about 500BC on) perhaps philosophy is the source of moral and ethical legislation, but I see two things: first, philosophy as a discipline didn't really exist before then; and two, ethical and moral behavior did exist before then.

Justice in the sense of fair play is a bit more tricky. I can't help but get the feeling it is somehow an innate desire for fairness in a world that intrinsically is not fair. We want the good guy to win, we want the bad guy to lose, but so often good and bad are subjective to our vantage point...one person can be both good and bad depending who you ask. Justice in the sense of a legal spanking when we get caught, that I would agree is a function of governance.

I know we've gone over the nature of religion in the past, and since social cohesion is still necessary today I don't see how religion is made irrelevent. For some perhaps, but for the majority I don't think so. As long as there is a personal desire and strife for the metaphysical part of reality, there is a need for religion. Where I can agree is that in some cases the need for an institution of religion is not always necessary.

The point that philosophy in the raw sense isn't really concerned with the needs of those less fortunate is valid. In strict philosophy, the needs of the unfortunate are a talking point and little else. Applied philosophy in the more profound sense really is what religion in the communal (or community) sense is about...social cohesion.

Co-dependent memes? I don't know, I see at least as much looking around for self-referential validation and back-slapping among compatriots within other memetic paradigms as I do in any religion.

Outmoded? By whose standard? If we can't see the forest for the trees, does it justify clear cutting the whole forest? Seems to me a good set of pruning sheers would do the trick when most people want to break out the industrial chain saws...
 
juantoo3 said:
From where I sit all of you have valid points. In a modern sense (say about 500BC on) perhaps philosophy is the source of moral and ethical legislation, but I see two things: first, philosophy as a discipline didn't really exist before then; and two, ethical and moral behavior did exist before then.

Justice in the sense of fair play is a bit more tricky. I can't help but get the feeling it is somehow an innate desire for fairness in a world that intrinsically is not fair. We want the good guy to win, we want the bad guy to lose, but so often good and bad are subjective to our vantage point...one person can be both good and bad depending who you ask. Justice in the sense of a legal spanking when we get caught, that I would agree is a function of governance.

I know we've gone over the nature of religion in the past, and since social cohesion is still necessary today I don't see how religion is made irrelevent. For some perhaps, but for the majority I don't think so. As long as there is a personal desire and strife for the metaphysical part of reality, there is a need for religion. Where I can agree is that in some cases the need for an institution of religion is not always necessary.

The point that philosophy in the raw sense isn't really concerned with the needs of those less fortunate is valid. In strict philosophy, the needs of the unfortunate are a talking point and little else. Applied philosophy in the more profound sense really is what religion in the communal (or community) sense is about...social cohesion.

Co-dependent memes? I don't know, I see at least as much looking around for self-referential validation and back-slapping among compatriots within other memetic paradigms as I do in any religion.

Outmoded? By whose standard? If we can't see the forest for the trees, does it justify clear cutting the whole forest? Seems to me a good set of pruning sheers would do the trick when most people want to break out the industrial chain saws...
Click to expand...
wow, thanks! :)
 
juantoo3 said:
From where I sit all of you have valid points. In a modern sense (say about 500BC on) perhaps philosophy is the source of moral and ethical legislation, but I see two things: first, philosophy as a discipline didn't really exist before then; and two, ethical and moral behavior did exist before then.
.
Click to expand...
You really believe ethics and morality founded faith concepts and this led to philosophy!! There can be no faith, no belief without first having a philosophy of what they mean. People were good to each other because thats how we were before we evolved into our modern self-awareness. It come from evolving as a social animal. Philosophy evolved later with our expanding conciousness and then religion followed that. It could be no other way.

趁熱打鐵
 
Tao_Equus said:
You really believe ethics and morality founded faith concepts and this led to philosophy!! There can be no faith, no belief without first having a philosophy of what they mean. People were good to each other because thats how we were before we evolved into our modern self-awareness. It come from evolving as a social animal. Philosophy evolved later with our expanding conciousness and then religion followed that. It could be no other way.

趁熱打鐵
Click to expand...
There can be nothing, without conscious thought. and Philosophy began with a question Tao.

Who am I? Why am I here? That begs faith, to even start asking the philosophical questions. "I am" must precede "therefore I think". I am, implies that I was put here...

my two shillings.

Q
 
Quahom1 said:
my two shillings.
Click to expand...

Not worth a plugged nickel.

You're so sure of all this? I'm not. Certainty is another way to describe rigidity.

There's a zen saying, "Only don't know."

I think it might help you.

But I don't know.
 
citizenzen said:
Not worth a plugged nickel.

You're so sure of all this? I'm not. Certainty is another way to describe rigidity.

There's a zen saying, "Only don't know."

I think it might help you.

But I don't know.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry. That is the difference between you and me.

You "think".

I "know", beyond the shadow of a doubt.

You really should ckeck up on me, and you'd understand where I come from. I do talk alot here, more than anyone else...but I also listen, quite keenly.

But one thing I have, is faith that is grounded in granite, and fast fixed to a cross.

And I love a good fight... lol

:D
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top