Why the god/God concept is broken as a claim. OP/ED

Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13608
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Why the god/God concept is broken as a claim. OP/ED

Why the god/God concept is broken as a claim, OP ED.

To those who have rightfully left behind the idea of a disembodied super hero in the clouds, this is for the people who still insist the case must be.

There are multiple levels in which, what is merely in reality our projection of our own desires, in which the people who insist such is the case, that do not logically follow. Scientifically is a no brainer for those who have left all sorts of sky daddy claims who have accepted the reality that this is all there is.

BUT for those who still insist there must be some divine "creator" "inventor" or "cause" who has unlimited power, I have yet to see any credible argument, even outside science and merely on a moral level. Outside the lack of evidence, this is albatross that looms large for any human arguing the divine anywhere around the world in every country.

No one likes to be held back by force. Everyone strives to gain resources and questioning how things work is how we better understand the resources we use, it even tells us long term, how to cooperate with each other or dominate a hurdle in our way. Our delusions often get us stuck in our wishful thinking and predilections and if one looks at human history, no matter one's label today, they can look back at the ancient past to something they don't buy personally and say "I cant believe they bought that".

Now, the common concept of a god is that it is the apex, nothing is higher and it is the final "ref" if you are watering him down, or the final "law maker" whom you cant remove from office. In evolution in every species, there is a drive to be on top. Being on top means more resources, and more opportunity to reproduce. That is science however. I want to deal with the simply moral bankruptcy of any god claim.

"I am being oppressed" is the cry from the Muslim, the Jew and the Christian. It is even a battle between Indians in Cashmere. It is the battle between Buddhists in Tibet vs the Buddhists of the communist party in China.

Why do humans cling to a belief that puts them as the subordinate? For the same reason your mom and dad cant do anything wrong, even if they do lots of things wrong in reality. It is why we side to that we are sold and that which brings us comfort, even if what is sold to us is false. God/god belief works, not because invisible friends are real, but humans like the idea of being protected, like we evolved having our parents protect us.

 

OUTSIDE THAT THOUGH, the worst part of god claims is the moral aspect. Once you set up your god as the apex, it cannot fall. In reality all life falls and all humans die. What makes the god/God concept broken isn't just about the lack of scientific evidence. It is the idea that someone else determines our fate and good or bad, we have no say, and this entity, give it any name you want, owes us no explanation. In reality in the civil west that type of thinking does not fly. Our current election in America has both parties questioning and blaspheming both Romney and Obama. I am quite sure neither wants the other to gain absolute power, and I agree.

So how does one mentally square an unmovable apex power with the way we want to live in reality? How does one worship a a God you cant debate with or impeach or remove from office if it fucks up? If a God cannot make mistakes, then the title "all powerful" is a broken concept. But even beyond that immoral considering the fans of such claims say he is our "all powerful" protector.

Yet there has never been one period in human evolution that has not had violence or war or death, not to mention everyone dies. It seems like tons of drama a dictator wants to merely bring attention to themselves. It does not seem like a compassionate plan. When a child gets murdered, they are with God. If a child gets saved God was watching. But children worldwide die by the millions every year by disease, famine, war and crime. It seems a bit inept or malicious.

Skeptics know the real reason bad things happen, this is not a question for them. This is for anyone who claims Jesus, or Allah or Yahweh or even "Karma".

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 769
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
Yes

danatemporary wrote:

   You need to take a break and stop and acknowledge why frustrations are mounting instead of this responding that you are doing. There is a time and a season for nearly everything, this is not the time for that conversation. I bothered to cut and paste this as a way for you to clarify and cut some of the frustrations people are feeling by addressing some key points. I noticed you did seem to reply to me with no trouble so  reply to what "I" cut and paste. Do you now understand why I did this in the first place for you ? 

I agree--thank you. I have big problems with this as you can see. But, I can't see what they're asking for. It seems to me that they would go and research at least a few of my posts to get the idea where I'm coming from. Well, I have to understand they're not like me. I generally take it upon myself to research a post---if I find it interesting. I'm probably expecting others to do the same. But there again, there's the Old Seers Corner thread I'm assuming everyone looks over, but maybe not. Thank you again. I do understand.

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3634
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote: I'm

Old Seer wrote:

 I'm forwarding an interpretation of the Bible.

 

 

   In an ever so cryptic way.

 

 

Old Seer wrote:
I'm not a Christian, why makes you think I am.

 

  The fact that you base your statements upon a holy book that is the foundation of Christianity would be a good starting point. 

 

Old Seer wrote:
Interpreting the book doesn't make a Christian.

 

Really, then why not interpret the Koran, or the multiplicity of Hindu scriptures, or any others ?

 

Old Seer wrote:
Judge what's said---

 

 Easier said than done.

 

Old Seer wrote:
Why is it my fault if someone can't analyze simple statements.

 

  Typically speaking, if you can't understand my meaning, is it your fault or mine ?  Understand ?

 

Old Seer wrote:
If one doesn't care for these interpretations so be it.

 

   Not the issue.

 

Old Seer wrote:
These interpretations are for those interested. If the book doesn't interest you---let it be. If I interpret the book to mean people are God and if you disagree---so disagree. I posted examples of how the book refers to people as God in accordance with someone asking. What's the problem.

 

   Evasiveness, lack of clarity ?

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.

"When a man loves cats, I am his friend and comrade, without further introduction." Mark Twain.


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 769
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
No

GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:

 says the person whose philosophy promotes the removal all sentient life from earth.... 

We don't promote the removal of sentient life. We promote the caging of one's animal mind and behavior. In order to be a peaceful people one must first cage the self and disallow the animal as the main means of being relative to each other. In this case you are making assumptions that aren't warranted.   Smiling

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13608
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer

Old Seer wrote:

GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:

 says the person whose philosophy promotes the removal all sentient life from earth.... 

We don't promote the removal of sentient life. We promote the caging of one's animal mind and behavior. In order to be a peaceful people one must first cage the self and disallow the animal as the main means of being relative to each other. In this case you are making assumptions that aren't warranted.   Smiling

You really scramble peoples brains with this pseudo psychology? You have no medical degree in clinical psychology and have no fucking clue what causes people to harm themselves or others. Do us all a favor, stick to tying to defending your comic book but please don't sell your poison to people who need help.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Mr C O Jones
Mr C O Jones's picture
Posts: 34
Joined: 2012-08-07
User is offlineOffline
Manageri wrote:So every

Manageri wrote:
So every immoral person is incapable of figuring out he's doing something wrong? If I get drunk and rape someone then it's not possible for me to feel guilty afterwards, the mere fact that I did it means I can't possibly have any philosophical objection to my own behaviour?
The only way that could work is if I was such an asshole that I could make myself believe only my needs have value and everyone else is there just to be used. Are you saying this is an ideal philosophy that we should all strive for?


What good is a ‘philosophical objection’ given that you went ahead and raped someone anyway? That shows you what a philosophical objection is worth.

Whatever your philosophical objection was either before or after the event you ended up doing exactly what you wanted to do which is actually the basis on which all humans act.

Your pathetic appeal to some spurious moral objectivity allows you to continue believing that ultimately everyone can be good and everyone is redeemable, very similar to a religious person in fact.


Manageri wrote:
By this logic the people executing the baby fucker because they think he's an asshole are no more correct than a bunch of baby fuckers executing a non-baby fucker because they think not fucking babies is somehow an asshole thing to do. You really think those two factions have equally meritorious ethical justification for their actions?

‘Equally meritorious ethical justification’ ? ‘No more correct’?  Under what objective system of values are these things being judged.  As we’ve seen above no-one really acts on the basis of their ‘philosophical objectives’, they act on the basis of their deterministic subjective nature.
 

People do exactly what they want to do and are either constrained or supported in this by society, which is nothing more than a group of individuals finding that some of their subjective values coincide.  If those happen to be fucking babies then for that society that becomes a moral good. Not for you or I perhaps but then we are made differently from them which is why I say execute the lot of them.  What’s your moral objection to that?

 

I quote no 'authorities'. I speak in my own words. I bring everything to the bar of my own judgment.


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3311
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer

Old Seer wrote:

GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:

 says the person whose philosophy promotes the removal all sentient life from earth.... 

We don't promote the removal of sentient life. We promote the caging of one's animal mind and behavior. In order to be a peaceful people one must first cage the self and disallow the animal as the main means of being relative to each other. In this case you are making assumptions that aren't warranted.   Smiling

GodsUseForAMosquito was referring to a previous debate between himself and Manageri on that one, Old Seer.

That was not directed at you.

Ok, back to the discussion.

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 769
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
Oh. Ok

harleysportster wrote:

Old Seer wrote:

GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:

 says the person whose philosophy promotes the removal all sentient life from earth.... 

We don't promote the removal of sentient life. We promote the caging of one's animal mind and behavior. In order to be a peaceful people one must first cage the self and disallow the animal as the main means of being relative to each other. In this case you are making assumptions that aren't warranted.   Smiling

GodsUseForAMosquito was referring to a previous debate between himself and Manageri on that one, Old Seer.

That was not directed at you.

Ok, back to the discussion.

But there again I didn't post in a warlike attitude. If the mosquito is offended I apologize.

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.


Manageri
atheist
Manageri's picture
Posts: 392
Joined: 2009-05-09
User is offlineOffline
Mr C O Jones wrote: What

Mr C O Jones wrote:

 

What good is a ‘philosophical objection’ given that you went ahead and raped someone anyway? That shows you what a philosophical objection is worth.

Whatever your philosophical objection was either before or after the event you ended up doing exactly what you wanted to do which is actually the basis on which all humans act.

Gee, I dunno, maybe if I feel like I acted like an asshole I might not do it again? Is it really this hard for you to understand that our philosophy guides our actions, even if we can't adhere to it 100% of the time?

Quote:
Your pathetic appeal to some spurious moral objectivity allows you to continue believing that ultimately everyone can be good and everyone is redeemable, very similar to a religious person in fact.

I never implied or said anything of the sort so you're either being a strawmanning dick or simply misunderstood what I'm saying. There are plenty of people who are assholes and won't change, and then there are people who are assholes but can be changed if you explain to them why their behaviour sucks.


Quote:
‘Equally meritorious ethical justification’ ? ‘No more correct’?  Under what objective system of values are these things being judged.

Does it really matter? Whatever your personal views on ethics happen to be (unless you're a nihilistic asshole which you do resemble quite a bit I must say) are you telling me you can't see a difference between fucking babies and not fucking them? Are both options just as good?

 

 

Quote:
As we’ve seen above no-one really acts on the basis of their ‘philosophical objectives’, they act on the basis of their deterministic subjective nature.

Our philosophy is part of the deterministic shit that guides our actions. Just because the universe is deterministic doesn't mean we can't apply negative value to baby fucking.
 

Quote:
People do exactly what they want to do and are either constrained or supported in this by society, which is nothing more than a group of individuals finding that some of their subjective values coincide.  If those happen to be fucking babies then for that society that becomes a moral good. Not for you or I perhaps but then we are made differently from them which is why I say execute the lot of them.  What’s your moral objection to that?

Right, so whatever the majority says is moral. Might makes right is your brilliant ethical system?

 


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 769
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
But I have 3

Brian37 wrote:

Old Seer wrote:

GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:

 says the person whose philosophy promotes the removal all sentient life from earth.... 

We don't promote the removal of sentient life. We promote the caging of one's animal mind and behavior. In order to be a peaceful people one must first cage the self and disallow the animal as the main means of being relative to each other. In this case you are making assumptions that aren't warranted.   Smiling

You really scramble peoples brains with this pseudo psychology? You have no medical degree in clinical psychology and have no fucking clue what causes people to harm themselves or others. Do us all a favor, stick to tying to defending your comic book but please don't sell your poison to people who need help.

 

Acquaintances that are psycho dudes. They agree with me, or I agree with them. You just proved us right. It's the animal concept that harm comes from. Ok so- you say this is pseudo psychology, Wouldn't one need such a degree as you mention, to make an assumption that someone is using pseudo psychology.   Yes/no   Smiling

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 769
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
Interpreting the book

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

Old Seer wrote:

 I'm forwarding an interpretation of the Bible.

 

 

   In an ever so cryptic way.

 

 

Old Seer wrote:
I'm not a Christian, why makes you think I am.

 

  The fact that you base your statements upon a holy book that is the foundation of Christianity would be a good starting point. 

 

Old Seer wrote:
Interpreting the book doesn't make a Christian.

 

Really, then why not interpret the Koran, or the multiplicity of Hindu scriptures, or any others ?

 

Old Seer wrote:
Judge what's said---

 

 Easier said than done.

 

Old Seer wrote:
Why is it my fault if someone can't analyze simple statements.

 

  Typically speaking, if you can't understand my meaning, is it your fault or mine ?  Understand ?

 

Old Seer wrote:
If one doesn't care for these interpretations so be it.

 

   Not the issue.

 

Old Seer wrote:
These interpretations are for those interested. If the book doesn't interest you---let it be. If I interpret the book to mean people are God and if you disagree---so disagree. I posted examples of how the book refers to people as God in accordance with someone asking. What's the problem.

 

   Evasiveness, lack of clarity ?

does not a Christian make. We have a new interpretation that hasn't been previously understood. We don't agree with the European concept of Christianity because we don't recognize it as such. The Euros never were Christians, they just made claims that fit their mentality. We can see plainly that no such God as they claim exists or ever did. On the forming of the universe (material) We're with Hawking, and as a matter of fact were ahead of him on his understanding--and we agree with evolution as the processes of the development of physical life. I have to take Dana,s advice and back up a bit. I'm having a problem with TJ,s and CJ,s demand for an explanation of myself. I think they mean an explanation of this particular point of view rather then my person. I'm assuming that our interpretations of the book is simple stuff, but not necessarily so. What I have to do as it looks ---is get back to my own thread and re-do the introduction.   Smiling

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13608
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote:Brian37

Old Seer wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Old Seer wrote:

GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:

 says the person whose philosophy promotes the removal all sentient life from earth.... 

We don't promote the removal of sentient life. We promote the caging of one's animal mind and behavior. In order to be a peaceful people one must first cage the self and disallow the animal as the main means of being relative to each other. In this case you are making assumptions that aren't warranted.   Smiling

You really scramble peoples brains with this pseudo psychology? You have no medical degree in clinical psychology and have no fucking clue what causes people to harm themselves or others. Do us all a favor, stick to tying to defending your comic book but please don't sell your poison to people who need help.

 

Acquaintances that are psycho dudes. They agree with me, or I agree with them. You just proved us right. It's the animal concept that harm comes from. Ok so- you say this is pseudo psychology, Wouldn't one need such a degree as you mention, to make an assumption that someone is using pseudo psychology.   Yes/no   Smiling

I doubt any of the people you agree with are any less apologists than you are. I doubt very seriously that you would treat any medical condition you might have, like you want to treat human psychology. Put your money where your mouth is, next time you get sick, don't go to a doctor, see a faith healer or just get a priest or minister to pray for you. If your theory is correct, your type of "medicine" is Jesus based. Pin your hopes on crap all you want, priests, Rabbis, Muslim clerics, are not psychologists or medical doctors, they are club cheerleaders looking to peddle membership.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 769
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian

Brian37 wrote:

Old Seer wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Old Seer wrote:

GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:

 says the person whose philosophy promotes the removal all sentient life from earth.... 

We don't promote the removal of sentient life. We promote the caging of one's animal mind and behavior. In order to be a peaceful people one must first cage the self and disallow the animal as the main means of being relative to each other. In this case you are making assumptions that aren't warranted.   Smiling

[/quote

You really scramble peoples brains with this pseudo psychology? You have no medical degree in clinical psychology and have no fucking clue what causes people to harm themselves or others. Do us all a favor, stick to tying to defending your comic book but please don't sell your poison to people who need help.

 

Acquaintances that are psycho dudes. They agree with me, or I agree with them. You just proved us right. It's the animal concept that harm comes from. Ok so- you say this is pseudo psychology, Wouldn't one need such a degree as you mention, to make an assumption that someone is using pseudo psychology.   Yes/no   Smiling

I doubt any of the people you agree with are any less apologists than you are. I doubt very seriously that you would treat any medical condition you might have, like you want to treat human psychology. Put your money where your mouth is, next time you get sick, don't go to a doctor, see a faith healer or just get a priest or minister to pray for you. If your theory is correct, your type of "medicine" is Jesus based. Pin your hopes on crap all you want, priests, Rabbis, Muslim clerics, are not psychologists or medical doctors, they are club cheerleaders looking to peddle membership.

I'm not a Christian. Christianity is voluntary and I haven't volunteered. I have no beliefs in Popes, Rabbis or any such. No. my medicine isn't Jesus based--I get them, if needed, from the VA system. Again, you are making assumptions that do not apply. For your ease of mind i will withdraw from your thread. maybe i shouldn't have posted on the first count as you meant it to be an Op Ed. I apologize if I've caused you any undo disturbance.

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13608
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote:Brian37

Dont pull this crap. YOU HAVE THEIST UNDER YOUR AVATAR, which means you have some sort of pet god claim. Quit dodging. If you claim a disembodied cognition as the start of all this, don't be a coward and own up to the claim, and give it a name and define it and defend it.

Like this "My God's name is X"

"My God's book is named the "X""

"I am not like the others" is bullshit and a cop out.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3311
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Dont pull this

Brian37 wrote:

Dont pull this crap. YOU HAVE THEIST UNDER YOUR AVATAR, which means you have some sort of pet god claim. Quit dodging. If you claim a disembodied cognition as the start of all this, don't be a coward and own up to the claim, and give it a name and define it and defend it.

Like this "My God's name is X"

"My God's book is named the "X""

"I am not like the others" is bullshit and a cop out.

 

If I am reading some of his posts correctly (and am not just referring to the ones on here but in other threads) his argument seems to be that each person is a "god".  The word god seeming to be a bit of a metaphor rather than anything else.  Not sure what this is derivative of nor applicable as a word, unless it is referencing something like a consciousness or something. Could be what he is talking about when he keeps creating this dichotomy about animal/spiritual beings.

These are just wild assumptions on my part and I could be way of into left field here. But that is just judging by what I have read.

I know he has stated repeatedly that he does not like the Theist badge. But I am not sure what you classify someone that talks about spirit/animal dichotomies as.

That's just my observations on this so far.

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


ThunderJones
atheist
ThunderJones's picture
Posts: 433
Joined: 2012-04-23
User is offlineOffline
Labeling humanity as God is

Labeling humanity as God is useless. We don't need to add extra baggage to a thing we already have a perfectly non-supernatural explanation and label for. The word God is COMPLETELY unnessecary, and counterproductive in this context. There is no point at all in trying to define God as what OldSeer seems to be talking about. Why do people cling to this stupid word so hard? If someone wants to claim that humans are spiritual and have some god-like features than have fun, go at it. Still no evidence, but better. Just don't use this giant overbloated word like God.

Secularist, Atheist, Skeptic, Freethinker


Mr C O Jones
Mr C O Jones's picture
Posts: 34
Joined: 2012-08-07
User is offlineOffline
Manageri wrote: Right, so

Manageri wrote:
Right, so whatever the majority says is moral.  Might makes right is your brilliant ethical system?

You don’t get it do you?  There is no moral ‘right’ – there is only what any given individual or society says is right.  This has no more moral authority than the individual or society who says it, unless of course it’s coming from God, in which case it’s an absolute.  Do you believe in God?

Wasn’t it Nietzsche who said ‘Behind every philosophical system lies a personal agenda’?  This certainly applies to you.  Behind your wish to impose your moral values on the rest of us is your refusal to accept your own subjective nature.  You don’t really believe in your morality yourself.  You’re trying to impose some idea of goodness on yourself and others because you can’t confront the darkness of your own subjective desires – all this talk of rape and baby fucking is highly suggestive.

Behind your wish to end human life is your wish to end your own life.  Behind your wish to end suffering is the insistent pain of your own suffering. I would urge you to either be logically consistent and bring forward the termination of your own life or face reality and start thinking about how you can get your own subjective needs met just like the rest of us, with as little damage to others as possible.
 

I quote no 'authorities'. I speak in my own words. I bring everything to the bar of my own judgment.


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3311
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
ThunderJones wrote:Labeling

ThunderJones wrote:

Labeling humanity as God is useless. We don't need to add extra baggage to a thing we already have a perfectly non-supernatural explanation and label for. The word God is COMPLETELY unnessecary, and counterproductive in this context. There is no point at all in trying to define God as what OldSeer seems to be talking about. Why do people cling to this stupid word so hard? If someone wants to claim that humans are spiritual and have some god-like features than have fun, go at it. Still no evidence, but better. Just don't use this giant overbloated word like God.

Well I agree with you on that one. That is, if I am reading his posts correctly and that is only a guess on my part.

"God" seems to be a metaphor for consciousness and such.

However, mind and cognition are as much a part of our biological make up as anything else. There is no separate part of us from our minds and brains.

If that is what he is talking about, which I am not sure.

If that is the case, why use the Bible as a tool and why not use say : " The Buddhist Sutras" or something else ?

More speculation on my part.

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


Manageri
atheist
Manageri's picture
Posts: 392
Joined: 2009-05-09
User is offlineOffline
Mr C O Jones wrote:You

Mr C O Jones wrote:

You don’t get it do you?  There is no moral ‘right’ – there is only what any given individual or society says is right.

So you basically are a moral nihilist then. Well fuck you. They should free the bunnies and instead test their cosmetics on assholes like you who say there's no such thing as right and wrong, I mean goddamnit if someone deserves to suffer it's assholes who claim it has no meaning.

Quote:
This has no more moral authority than the individual or society who says it, unless of course it’s coming from God, in which case it’s an absolute.  Do you believe in God?

I really don't know why so many atheists buy into the bullshit idea that if god did exist his commandments would be right by default. Even if god was real his bullshit commandments would in no way be right just because god said so.

Quote:
Wasn’t it Nietzsche who said ‘Behind every philosophical system lies a personal agenda’?  This certainly applies to you.

Yeah, I have an agenda not to be an asshole if I can help it.

Quote:
Behind your wish to impose your moral values on the rest of us is your refusal to accept your own subjective nature.
 

Ooh, the doctor is gonna do psychoanalysis on me now based on a few paragraphs I've written on the internet. Pay attention kids, serious fucking science ahead.

How am I refusing that I have a subjective viewpoint, and how the fuck does that mean that I can't tell others it's a really stupid idea to drive their car off the cliff just because my analysis of the situation is based on my subjective senses.

Quote:
You don’t really believe in your morality yourself.  You’re trying to impose some idea of goodness on yourself and others because you can’t confront the darkness of your own subjective desires – all this talk of rape and baby fucking is highly suggestive.

I use rape a lot because it's a really good analogy for something everyone understands is wrong and is also a good way to analogize many different kinds of selfish asshole actions, and causing severe suffering to others while receiving a petty amount of pleasure yourself in comparison.

Quote:
Behind your wish to end human life is your wish to end your own life.  Behind your wish to end suffering is the insistent pain of your own suffering.

You ever heard of this thing called empathy? If all I care about is ending my own suffering then what fucking reason could I possibly have for giving a shit about what happens to others? I mean this is just fucking retarded, I guess next you're gonna claim I'm a vegan because I have some subconcious fear of being stuck into a cage and farmed by aliens or something. Fuck you is all this idiotic argument deserves in response.

Quote:
I would urge you to either be logically consistent and bring forward the termination of your own life or face reality and start thinking about how you can get your own subjective needs met just like the rest of us, with as little damage to others as possible.

I'd love to, too bad I don't really have a great plan that's guaranteed to:

1) Get the job done properly

2) Somehow let me overcome the natural (albeit irrational) fear of death

Lemme know if you have some ideas.

As for not doing damage to others, I thought you said there's no objective basis for concluding that's wrong so why would you ask such a silly thing?


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 769
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
Because

harleysportster wrote:

ThunderJones wrote:

Labeling humanity as God is useless. We don't need to add extra baggage to a thing we already have a perfectly non-supernatural explanation and label for. The word God is COMPLETELY unnessecary, and counterproductive in this context. There is no point at all in trying to define God as what OldSeer seems to be talking about. Why do people cling to this stupid word so hard? If someone wants to claim that humans are spiritual and have some god-like features than have fun, go at it. Still no evidence, but better. Just don't use this giant overbloated word like God.

Well I agree with you on that one. That is, if I am reading his posts correctly and that is only a guess on my part.

"God" seems to be a metaphor for consciousness and such.

However, mind and cognition are as much a part of our biological make up as anything else. There is no separate part of us from our minds and brains.

If that is what he is talking about, which I am not sure.

If that is the case, why use the Bible as a tool and why not use say : " The Buddhist Sutras" or something else ?

More speculation on my part.

The Hebrews got it right. The answer lies within yourself, and that understanding comes from their ancient religion. No other religion changes anything. The Key is in understanding one's own self, which in turn one then, understands everyone else. No one can hide. You are eggzackly correct, The Hebrew "Way/God" is being concious (an awareness) of "the self". That does the trick. The Hebrew religion is a religion of the mind, not the physical or material. Belief in material has no value. The material will remain the material so there's no sense in believing "in" it. The material remains and is whether one believes in it or not. The Hebrew religion is one that sees the natural self. The natural self is true, not a made up person as is done by religious and government entities. When you understand the self----you decide what you are, and then you deal with your true self. Nature does not create you for any cause or means. If you are under civilization the "State" creates you for causes and means, and you cannot be your true self. Gorge Carlin is precisly correct, They own you. Check him out.  There is nothing new under the sun. There-fore then, the State operates on false pretenses.

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3311
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote:The Hebrews

Old Seer wrote:

The Hebrews got it right. The answer lies within yourself, and that understanding comes from their ancient religion. No other religion changes anything. The Key is in understanding one's own self, which in turn one then, understands everyone else. No one can hide. You are eggzackly correct, The Hebrew "Way/God" is being concious (an awareness) of "the self". That does the trick. The Hebrew religion is a religion of the mind, not the physical or material. Belief in material has no value. The material will remain the material so there's no sense in believing "in" it. The material remains and is whether one believes in it or not. The Hebrew religion is one that sees the natural self. The natural self is true, not a made up person as is done by religious and government entities. When you understand the self----you decide what you are, and then you deal with your true self. Nature does not create you for any cause or means. If you are under civilization the "State" creates you for causes and means, and you cannot be your true self. Gorge Carlin is precisly correct, They own you. Check him out.  There is nothing new under the sun. There-fore then, the State operates on false pretenses.

Correct me if I am wrong, but this sounds an awful lot like Buddhism to me. Based upon my limited knowledge of it. I know of a practice called "zazen' where your mind is free of thoughts and your true self is supposed to arise. "True self" being a mind that is not clouded by "drunken monkey chatter" as some Buddhists call it.

Now I am not a Buddhist mind you, but I flirted around with it a little bit after leaving organized religion.

But that is just what I am reading into these posts.

 

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 769
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
Agree

harleysportster wrote:

Old Seer wrote:

The Hebrews got it right. The answer lies within yourself, and that understanding comes from their ancient religion. No other religion changes anything. The Key is in understanding one's own self, which in turn one then, understands everyone else. No one can hide. You are eggzackly correct, The Hebrew "Way/God" is being concious (an awareness) of "the self". That does the trick. The Hebrew religion is a religion of the mind, not the physical or material. Belief in material has no value. The material will remain the material so there's no sense in believing "in" it. The material remains and is whether one believes in it or not. The Hebrew religion is one that sees the natural self. The natural self is true, not a made up person as is done by religious and government entities. When you understand the self----you decide what you are, and then you deal with your true self. Nature does not create you for any cause or means. If you are under civilization the "State" creates you for causes and means, and you cannot be your true self. Gorge Carlin is precisly correct, They own you. Check him out.  There is nothing new under the sun. There-fore then, the State operates on false pretenses.

Correct me if I am wrong, but this sounds an awful lot like Buddhism to me. Based upon my limited knowledge of it. I know of a practice called "zazen' where your mind is free of thoughts and your true self is supposed to arise. "True self" being a mind that is not clouded by "drunken monkey chatter" as some Buddhists call it.

Now I am not a Buddhist mind you, but I flirted around with it a little bit after leaving organized religion.

But that is just what I am reading into these posts.

Most of the ancient religions are very similar. But Buddhism cannot solve the world problems. The Hebrew religion does. If Buddhism could sole the worlds problems it would have done it by now---would that not be correct. That would mean then-that they do not understand the true self. To understand the self one needs to think, not be absent of thought. That then, makes Buddhism fallacy, as a means to be at peace with each other. The only way we can be at peace is to first understand the  self, and in that understanding one then encounters the flaw, and then one can willfully remove the flaw. That's what the original Hebrew way of understanding does---it causes one to encounter the flaw. No other religion does this. If you understand yourself, you then can see "you" are the flaw, and then you can see the "flaw" everyone else is in. Which goes to JC,s ---remove the log from your own eye first so you can see clearly to remove the splinter from your friends eye.  The Hebrew way has nearly nothing in common with the European way. Atheists have part of the splinter out of their eye by rejecting this present idea of God, and rightly so. But---I have to say they are still a victim of the concept---because----it is that very concept that has formed their lives within from birth. Finding the European "God" as fallacy by no means removes one from it. Now you need to know the rest of the story. The original Hebrew way is a very simple concept which is nothing more then understanding of "you", which in turn brings one to the understanding of how and why then State made you. At the time of the original Hebrew way, there was no state, so they couldn't have been made by a State. Then along come Nimrod who creates a State government and this now applies--as it has been said, as Nimrod, a mighty hunter before the lord. (Whose the lord here-people -right), so what is the "lord" saying.  we have now become like Nimrod-----(made by the State) and we are nothing but like him---predators/hunters. They no longer were the naturals they were, they then become what the State wants, and Nimrod becomes the "way" in what Europeans calll "God". There religion was gone, and is to this day.

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
Mr C O Jones wrote:Manageri

Mr C O Jones wrote:

Manageri wrote:
Right, so whatever the majority says is moral.  Might makes right is your brilliant ethical system?

You don’t get it do you?  There is no moral ‘right’ – there is only what any given individual or society says is right.  This has no more moral authority than the individual or society who says it, unless of course it’s coming from God, in which case it’s an absolute.  Do you believe in God?

Wasn’t it Nietzsche who said ‘Behind every philosophical system lies a personal agenda’?  This certainly applies to you.  Behind your wish to impose your moral values on the rest of us is your refusal to accept your own subjective nature.  You don’t really believe in your morality yourself.  You’re trying to impose some idea of goodness on yourself and others because you can’t confront the darkness of your own subjective desires – all this talk of rape and baby fucking is highly suggestive.

Behind your wish to end human life is your wish to end your own life.  Behind your wish to end suffering is the insistent pain of your own suffering. I would urge you to either be logically consistent and bring forward the termination of your own life or face reality and start thinking about how you can get your own subjective needs met just like the rest of us, with as little damage to others as possible.
 

First of all, welcome to the forum Mr. Jones.

I just want to say that I agree 100%, and this discussion has already taken place in this thread:

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/32645

I ended up backing out of that discussion because I was being dragged to a level I didn't care to be at, and it wasn't progressing anymore.  I thought I'd save you a bit of frustration. 

Morality is subjective. It is so self evident that to argue otherwise is silly.

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4494
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote: But Buddhism

Old Seer wrote:
But Buddhism cannot solve the world problems. The Hebrew religion does. If Buddhism could sole the worlds problems it would have done it by now---would that not be correct.

If the Hebrew religion could solve the worlds problems it would have done it by now---would that not be correct?

 

 

I just usually go with my own taste. If I like something, and it happens to be against the law, well, then I might have a problem.- Hunter S. Thompson


Manageri
atheist
Manageri's picture
Posts: 392
Joined: 2009-05-09
User is offlineOffline
Ktulu wrote:I just want to

Ktulu wrote:

I just want to say that I agree 100%, and this discussion has already taken place in this thread:

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/32645

I ended up backing out of that discussion because I was being dragged to a level I didn't care to be at, and it wasn't progressing anymore.

You should join the other guy in the bunny cage if you can't figure out that suffering is a worse state than pleasure every single time assuming all other things are equal (so no "but the lion being in pain means the gazelle got away lololol" type bullshit). That's pretty much all I'm basing anything I say regarding the subject on. If you're gonna contest that statement then tell me why it fails and why that means I still have a reason not to throw you into the lab with the bunnies.


ThunderJones
atheist
ThunderJones's picture
Posts: 433
Joined: 2012-04-23
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote: But Buddhism

Old Seer wrote:
But Buddhism cannot solve the world problems. The Hebrew religion does. If Buddhism could sole the worlds problems it would have done it by now---would that not be correct.

That's a funny joke. You are so full of it. Buddhism comes a hell of a lot closer to problem-solving than Abrahamic religions do. Your ridiculous claims do not become anymore true even if they help people, so it is beside the point anyway. Truth does come from how much people want something to be true, or how much they like something, or how much something helps them.

Secularist, Atheist, Skeptic, Freethinker


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4494
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Manageri wrote:If you're

Manageri wrote:

If you're gonna contest that statement then tell me why it fails and why that means I still have a reason not to throw you into the lab with the bunnies.

12 little reasons why you shouldn't attempt to throw me into a lab with the bunnies- larger reasons are available if these are not sufficient. 

If bunnies carried these, well people wouldn't be so quick to throw them in labs. Morality is how we get along together in society for mutual benefit because getting along with each other is generally more beneficial to everyone than trying to kill each other. Anything beyond that is solely your personal preference.

I just usually go with my own taste. If I like something, and it happens to be against the law, well, then I might have a problem.- Hunter S. Thompson


Manageri
atheist
Manageri's picture
Posts: 392
Joined: 2009-05-09
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving

Beyond Saving wrote:

 Morality is how we get along together in society for mutual benefit because getting along with each other is generally more beneficial to everyone than trying to kill each other. Anything beyond that is solely your personal preference.

So morality is just maximizing your personal wellbeing? Congratulations, you have the morality of an earthworm.


Mr C O Jones
Mr C O Jones's picture
Posts: 34
Joined: 2012-08-07
User is offlineOffline
Manageri wrote:So you

Manageri wrote:
So you basically are a moral nihilist then. Well fuck you. They should free the bunnies and instead test their cosmetics on assholes like you who say there's no such thing as right and wrong, I mean goddamnit if someone deserves to suffer it's assholes who claim it has no meaning.


Unlike you I don’t have to believe in a moral absolute to behave considerately to others including animals.  You’re like a fundy who needs God to tell him what to do – can’t you think for yourself?

I’m capable of acting as if there were objective values even though I know there aren’t, you on the other hand have to kid yourself that such things really exist.  What would you do if you could no longer sustain your little illusion?  Go around raping and killing others by the sound of it.

You’ve substituted your sentience theory for God’s word and now look for an excuse to abuse others who don’t follow your Holy Writ like some demented preacher crying in the wilderness.

It’s not difficult to kill yourself – do you live near water, do you own a tie or a washing line? The difficult bit is actually wanting to do it which you don’t, if you did you’d find a way.  You’re using your fake death wish to try and give authenticity to your fake moral argument.
 

I quote no 'authorities'. I speak in my own words. I bring everything to the bar of my own judgment.


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4494
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Manageri wrote:So morality

Manageri wrote:

So morality is just maximizing your personal wellbeing? Congratulations, you have the morality of an earthworm.

Are earthworms immoral? 

I just usually go with my own taste. If I like something, and it happens to be against the law, well, then I might have a problem.- Hunter S. Thompson


Manageri
atheist
Manageri's picture
Posts: 392
Joined: 2009-05-09
User is offlineOffline
Mr C O Jones wrote: Unlike

Mr C O Jones wrote:

 

Unlike you I don’t have to believe in a moral absolute to behave considerately to others including animals.

Of course not, we have impulses generated by our psychology that makes most of us want to be nice to kittens and all that shit, but psychology isn't philosophy.

Quote:
You’re like a fundy who needs God to tell him what to do – can’t you think for yourself?

Is this your strategy, you just assert that anyone who doesn't agree with you isn't thinking for themselves and are just some dogma-driven thrall? Show some evidence to back this fucking slander up.

Quote:
I’m capable of acting as if there were objective values even though I know there aren’t, you on the other hand have to kid yourself that such things really exist.

It's not objective to you that a massage feels better than having boiling oil poured down your throat? Are the values of the sensations generated by those things somehow arbitrary, like you could favor one today and the other tomorrow? Obviously not, so where the hell is this mystical subjectivity you people keep going on about. It's a FACT that pleasure is more valuable than suffering.

Quote:
What would you do if you could no longer sustain your little illusion?  Go around raping and killing others by the sound of it.

Well if you could rationally convince me that being a selfish asshole is just fine then why wouldn't I behave like an asshole if that's what I wanted to do? You're the one who keeps saying it's all subjective so what possible counter argument could you make to my assholish behaviour that's any more authoritative than "me like chocolate, he like strawberry, he bad"?

Quote:
You’ve substituted your sentience theory for God’s word and now look for an excuse to abuse others who don’t follow your Holy Writ like some demented preacher crying in the wilderness.

Oh no, you mean like those silly biologists who substituted evolution for the retarded bible creation myth and now call you an ignorant fucktard if you don't believe in evolution. AM I LIKE THEM OH SHIT TELL ME IT AINT SO!

Quote:
It’s not difficult to kill yourself – do you live near water, do you own a tie or a washing line? The difficult bit is actually wanting to do it which you don’t, if you did you’d find a way.  You’re using your fake death wish to try and give authenticity to your fake moral argument.

You know how I said fuck you last time? Well I wish I hadn't so it'd stand out more when I say it this time. Fuck you. You obviously have absolutely no idea what you're talking about and your flippant dismissal of the suffering of people who'd rather die go through is fucking disgusting. I really hope you get cancer in the ass so you can find out for yourself how much fun it is to want to die and how easy it really is to kill yourself.


Manageri
atheist
Manageri's picture
Posts: 392
Joined: 2009-05-09
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Are

Beyond Saving wrote:

Are earthworms immoral? 

You wanna give something with the moral comprehension of an earthworm the power to decide whether you'll be locked in a cage and experimented on? That really seems like a more important question to me than whether or not the fucktard making that decision can be categorized as immoral or not.


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3634
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote:The Hebrews

Old Seer wrote:

The Hebrews got it right. The answer lies within yourself.....

 

                                   The answer lies within me ?    Well, I'm completely fucked .

 

 

Old Seer wrote:
The Key is in understanding one's own self, which in turn one then, understands everyone else.

 

                       Oh, but I do understand myself.  I also understand everyone else.  That's why I regard other people with suspicion.

 

 

 

Old Seer wrote:
The Hebrew religion is a religion of the mind....

 

                                                 How unfortunate.

 

Old Seer wrote:
Belief in material has no value. The material will remain the material so there's no sense in believing "in" it. The material remains and is whether one believes in it or not. The Hebrew religion is one that sees the natural self. The natural self is true, not a made up person as is done by religious and government entities. When you understand the self----you decide what you are, and then you deal with your true self. Nature does not create you for any cause or means. If you are under civilization the "State" creates you for causes and means, and you cannot be your true self. Gorge Carlin is precisly correct, They own you. Check him out.  There is nothing new under the sun. There-fore then, the State operates on false pretenses.

 

                                   That entire block of text is utterly meaningless.

 

 

Old Seer wrote:
Most of the ancient religions are very similar. But Buddhism cannot solve the world problems. The Hebrew religion does.

 

                                       The Hebrew religion causes problems wherever it goes.  Just ask the Palestinians. 

 

                                 

 

Old Seer wrote:
If Buddhism could sole the worlds problems it would have done it by now---would that not be correct. That would mean then-that they do not understand the true self. To understand the self one needs to think, not be absent of thought. That then, makes Buddhism fallacy, as a means to be at peace with each other. The only way we can be at peace is to first understand the  self, and in that understanding one then encounters the flaw, and then one can willfully remove the flaw. That's what the original Hebrew way of understanding does---it causes one to encounter the flaw. No other religion does this. If you understand yourself, you then can see "you" are the flaw, and then you can see the "flaw" everyone else is in. Which goes to JC,s ---remove the log from your own eye first so you can see clearly to remove the splinter from your friends eye.  The Hebrew way has nearly nothing in common with the European way. Atheists have part of the splinter out of their eye by rejecting this present idea of God, and rightly so. But---I have to say they are still a victim of the concept---because----it is that very concept that has formed their lives within from birth. Finding the European "God" as fallacy by no means removes one from it. Now you need to know the rest of the story. The original Hebrew way is a very simple concept which is nothing more then understanding of "you", which in turn brings one to the understanding of how and why then State made you. At the time of the original Hebrew way, there was no state, so they couldn't have been made by a State. Then along come Nimrod who creates a State government and this now applies--as it has been said, as Nimrod, a mighty hunter before the lord. (Whose the lord here-people -right), so what is the "lord" saying.  we have now become like Nimrod-----(made by the State) and we are nothing but like him---predators/hunters. They no longer were the naturals they were, they then become what the State wants, and Nimrod becomes the "way" in what Europeans calll "God". There religion was gone, and is to this day.

 

    I have read more coherent statements from Charles Manson.  You fling gibberish at us and nothing more.  Your life is wasted on foolishness, ....that is your true self.

 

 

 

 

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.

"When a man loves cats, I am his friend and comrade, without further introduction." Mark Twain.


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4494
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Manageri wrote:You wanna

Manageri wrote:

You wanna give something with the moral comprehension of an earthworm the power to decide whether you'll be locked in a cage and experimented on?

I don't want any being to have the power to decide whether or not I will be locked in a cage and experimented on no matter how moral or benevolent, hence the gun. However, since I want to be part of society I am willing to make certain concessions of when society can lock me up. I am not particularly enthused about it because I do not fully trust society to make correct decisions but recognize it as a necessity because some people are not as nice and lovable as I am. 

 

Manageri wrote:

That really seems like a more important question to me than whether or not the fucktard making that decision can be categorized as immoral or not.

That is the most sensible thing you have said in this whole thread. Whether or not someone has the power to lock us up and in what situations is a far more important question than morality.

I just usually go with my own taste. If I like something, and it happens to be against the law, well, then I might have a problem.- Hunter S. Thompson


Manageri
atheist
Manageri's picture
Posts: 392
Joined: 2009-05-09
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:That is

Beyond Saving wrote:

That is the most sensible thing you have said in this whole thread. Whether or not someone has the power to lock us up and in what situations is a far more important question than morality.

The point was actually that giving a fucktard the ability to make ethical decisions is not very desirable to say the least. If there was some supremely logical and ethical being around then I say it'd be awesome if it had control of the universe, even though that would mean it has power over me.


ThunderJones
atheist
ThunderJones's picture
Posts: 433
Joined: 2012-04-23
User is offlineOffline
Manageri wrote:Beyond Saving

Manageri wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

That is the most sensible thing you have said in this whole thread. Whether or not someone has the power to lock us up and in what situations is a far more important question than morality.

The point was actually that giving a fucktard the ability to make ethical decisions is not very desirable to say the least. If there was some supremely logical and ethical being around then I say it'd be awesome if it had control of the universe, even though that would mean it has power over me.

The problem is that here is no supreme being making choices. It is only us.

Therefore we need to strive to create the most logically sound and ethical societal morality we can.

We do this by empirical data in addition to logic, and what our progressing science shows us. It is a slow and difficult thing to change, even when the change is right.

Secularist, Atheist, Skeptic, Freethinker


Manageri
atheist
Manageri's picture
Posts: 392
Joined: 2009-05-09
User is offlineOffline
ThunderJones wrote:The

ThunderJones wrote:

The problem is that here is no supreme being making choices. It is only us.

Of course there isn't, I'm just saying that in theory us being in control is silly if there's something out there that can handle things better. It's like if in the future we can create an AI that's a kickass engineer or something and can design buildings that are far more safe than what humans can accomplish, then why the hell would it bother us that it's not us making the decisions on how to build shit?


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4494
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Manageri wrote:The point was

Manageri wrote:

The point was actually that giving a fucktard the ability to make ethical decisions is not very desirable to say the least. If there was some supremely logical and ethical being around then I say it'd be awesome if it had control of the universe, even though that would mean it has power over me.

There is no such being, so why would you allow a being that is less than supremely logical and is most likely less than completely ethical (however you define ethics) make those decisions? 

As far as I am concerned, all fucktards can make whatever ethical decisions they desire so long as those decisions do not impose on me. In order to effectively prevent said fucktards from imposing on me I am willing to also make sure they do not impose on others in society, in the far fetched hope that others in society will help protect me should those fucktards impose on me.

Unfortunately, the many fucktards in society seem obsessed with using it to aid their impositions in the name of morality rather than using society to prevent fucktards from imposing others. Currently, those who wish to impose their moral views exceed those of us who prefer that people be left free to be stupid. 

I just usually go with my own taste. If I like something, and it happens to be against the law, well, then I might have a problem.- Hunter S. Thompson


ThunderJones
atheist
ThunderJones's picture
Posts: 433
Joined: 2012-04-23
User is offlineOffline
Manageri wrote:ThunderJones

Manageri wrote:

ThunderJones wrote:

The problem is that here is no supreme being making choices. It is only us.

Of course there isn't, I'm just saying that in theory us being in control is silly if there's something out there that can handle things better. It's like if in the future we can create an AI that's a kickass engineer or something and can design buildings that are far more safe than what humans can accomplish, then why the hell would it bother us that it's not us making the decisions on how to build shit?

Because we might be worried the AI would make decisions that we do not agree with, even for the sake of efficiency. Humans naturally desire control over their surroundings, which probably is what most people's desire for power comes from. It's all control.

Secularist, Atheist, Skeptic, Freethinker


Manageri
atheist
Manageri's picture
Posts: 392
Joined: 2009-05-09
User is offlineOffline
ThunderJones wrote:Because

ThunderJones wrote:

Because we might be worried the AI would make decisions that we do not agree with, even for the sake of efficiency. Humans naturally desire control over their surroundings, which probably is what most people's desire for power comes from. It's all control.

If you desire to be able to make decisions that are unethical then you're an asshole. I really don't like the fact that I can theoretically rape a woman. If I could implant a chip in my brain that prevents me from doing that I really see no rational reason why I wouldn't. Are you telling me you'd vote against the anti-pedophile chip being implanted in everyone?


ThunderJones
atheist
ThunderJones's picture
Posts: 433
Joined: 2012-04-23
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Manageri

Beyond Saving wrote:

Manageri wrote:

The point was actually that giving a fucktard the ability to make ethical decisions is not very desirable to say the least. If there was some supremely logical and ethical being around then I say it'd be awesome if it had control of the universe, even though that would mean it has power over me.

There is no such being, so why would you allow a being that is less than supremely logical and is most likely less than completely ethical (however you define ethics) make those decisions? 

As far as I am concerned, all fucktards can make whatever ethical decisions they desire so long as those decisions do not impose on me. In order to effectively prevent said fucktards from imposing on me I am willing to also make sure they do not impose on others in society, in the far fetched hope that others in society will help protect me should those fucktards impose on me.

Unfortunately, the many fucktards in society seem obsessed with using it to aid their impositions in the name of morality rather than using society to prevent fucktards from imposing others. Currently, those who wish to impose their moral views exceed those of us who prefer that people be left free to be stupid. 

This is why I cannot fathom some people's desire to legislate morality, or ban self-harming substances. Like that soda topic a while back. Who the fuck cares if I want to drink a way too large drink of soda, it's my body. If I am not hurting someone else, or getting the ability to do this thing at someone else's expense, why does it matter? I for one am not going to complain to the government about not stopping me, it is my personal responsibility. People should act like adults, and choose what they think is best for themselves, within reason. We obviously dont allow rapists to choose that rape is best for themselves, and keep doing it. That is harming others, and is a whole different issue.

Besides, attempts to legislate morality have been complete and utter failures. The prohibition almost single-handedly changed organized crime from a nuisance to a pervasive organization that took years to even begin to shrink back down. The war of drugs throwing away ridiculous amounts of tax-payer dollars and for what? To stop people from making their own choices in life? Sure drugs can harm others, but that is why we have greater punishments for those that harm others under the influence. Not to mention taxing drugs and regulating them would not only cut down on the damage they do (from various sources, not the least of which is drug related crime and poor quality drugs and misuse), but would also provide a source of income for the gov, just as alcohol and tobacco do.

Secularist, Atheist, Skeptic, Freethinker


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 769
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
No it wouldn't have.

Beyond Saving wrote:

Old Seer wrote:
But Buddhism cannot solve the world problems. The Hebrew religion does. If Buddhism could sole the worlds problems it would have done it by now---would that not be correct.

If the Hebrew religion could solve the worlds problems it would have done it by now---would that not be correct?

 

The Euros claimed it and used it to their advantage. The Euros never knew and still don't know anything about the Hebrew way of thinking. I have to repeat this again I suppose---the Europeans never were and still aren't Hebrews. Christianity is nothing more then the original Hebrew religion/way of thinking. If they never understood the Hebrew way then they never could have been Christian. The Hebrews of today even don't know, They gave it up and changed at the time of Nimrod, That's what a Messiah was for--to return them to their original ways. Since the fall away from their original ways they accumulated many enemies. That caused them to think that a Messiah was to save them from their enemies that they made. But, not so. A Messiah was to come to return them back to whence they came---in essence---save them from themselves. On the first count their Messiah was to save them, But. what saves them can save everyone else whomever they are. It only needs to be understood. But there again---there's no sense in then being saved if the rest of the world is not. so-It takes time for the world to get itself in a fix it cannot get out of. That has now happened. Alpha Smurf sees that if you people cannot change course you're all goners. The world course you are on now is irretrievable. We,ve been watching for 20 years now. Now we have to say something ---or--- we become liable for doing nothing when we knew. We have no choice. OK---saved from what????? The only thing the world could possibly be saved from are those running it. It is not the people that created this mess---it's the system operators. They're going to get you all killed. You are heading into the very same as the time of Noah when the evil created cannot be gotten away from. We are trying to help you. Again-we have no choice. Smiling

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 769
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
You need to study

ThunderJones wrote:

Old Seer wrote:
But Buddhism cannot solve the world problems. The Hebrew religion does. If Buddhism could sole the worlds problems it would have done it by now---would that not be correct.

That's a funny joke. You are so full of it. Buddhism comes a hell of a lot closer to problem-solving than Abrahamic religions do. Your ridiculous claims do not become anymore true even if they help people, so it is beside the point anyway. Truth does come from how much people want something to be true, or how much they like something, or how much something helps them.

The difference between European thinking and and middle eastern thinking. You're stuck on condemning Euro thinking and that's how it should be. That's why you say you're an atheist---not because of mid-east thinking but because of Euro thinking. Most Mideastern religions are similar to Buddhism and Hinduism. The only really different religion is of the original Hebrew, and the Israelis don't practice it anymore. Today they have the same basic religion all others are. If we found Buddhism to solve the problem we would be forwarding it.  We're not forwarding Euro religion, it's the same problem as the others, except Hebrew thinking. So, if Alpha Smurf give up animal tendencies and it works for us---why wouldn't it work for you. If you refrain from animal tendencies you become a different person---and we know anyone can do it. If you don't then you are a problem to yourself and others. One has to work on it.   Or one can remain a civil viable economic entity, it's up to the individual.     Smiling

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.


ThunderJones
atheist
ThunderJones's picture
Posts: 433
Joined: 2012-04-23
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote:ThunderJones

Old Seer wrote:

ThunderJones wrote:

Old Seer wrote:
But Buddhism cannot solve the world problems. The Hebrew religion does. If Buddhism could sole the worlds problems it would have done it by now---would that not be correct.

That's a funny joke. You are so full of it. Buddhism comes a hell of a lot closer to problem-solving than Abrahamic religions do. Your ridiculous claims do not become anymore true even if they help people, so it is beside the point anyway. Truth does come from how much people want something to be true, or how much they like something, or how much something helps them.

The difference between European thinking and and middle eastern thinking. You're stuck on condemning Euro thinking and that's how it should be. That's why you say you're an atheist---not because of mid-east thinking but because of Euro thinking. Most Mideastern religions are similar to Buddhism and Hinduism. The only really different religion is of the original Hebrew, and the Israelis don't practice it anymore. Today they have the same basic religion all others are. If we found Buddhism to solve the problem we would be forwarding it.  We're not forwarding Euro religion, it's the same problem as the others, except Hebrew thinking. So, if Alpha Smurf give up animal tendencies and it works for us---why wouldn't it work for you. If you refrain from animal tendencies you become a different person---and we know anyone can do it. If you don't then you are a problem to yourself and others. One has to work on it.   Or one can remain a civil viable economic entity, it's up to the individual.     Smiling

It won't let me edit it now, but just for clarity I was saying "Truth DOESN'T come from...".

Does that change your reply at all?

Secularist, Atheist, Skeptic, Freethinker


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4494
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
 Why are animals constantly

 Why are animals constantly associated with violence, aggression and all things inhumane? IME humans are far more violent. Very few animals will seek you out for the purposes of killing you, while a human will remember you for some slight and might track you down and kill you years later. For the most part, animals don't create huge armies and fight each other to the death- the only real comparison I can think of is two ant colonies going at it, but if one leaves the other does not track down the rest and annihilate them. Human history is rife with one culture holding a grudge against another and killing and torturing them simply because of who they are or what they believe. As far as I know, no animal species other than certain species of ants practice slavery. Perhaps if the goal is for us all to live together in peace we should be less like humans and more like animals (except ants).

I just usually go with my own taste. If I like something, and it happens to be against the law, well, then I might have a problem.- Hunter S. Thompson


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3634
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
 This is neither agreeing

 This is neither agreeing or disagreeing with your post but lion prides will routinely give no quarter to interloping lions, whether they be in groups or individuals.   Plus it's a truly horrible thing to watch a large pride surround a lion trespasser and kill it.   

http://www.capitalfm.co.ke/lifestyle/2012/01/11/kings-of-the-savanna-warring-lions/#

Baboons will also engage in full scale war:  http://news.bbc.co.uk/earth_news/newsid_8400000/8400019.stm

 

 Full scale inter-species warfare does exist among even more highly developed animals.  I still prefer the company of non-humans, though.

  

   

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.

"When a man loves cats, I am his friend and comrade, without further introduction." Mark Twain.


ThunderJones
atheist
ThunderJones's picture
Posts: 433
Joined: 2012-04-23
User is offlineOffline
The more intelligent the

The more intelligent the animals, and depending on the nature of the animals preferred social structure, the more the animals act like humans, in the bad ways and the good.

Secularist, Atheist, Skeptic, Freethinker


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 769
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
That's the points

Beyond Saving wrote:

 Why are animals constantly associated with violence, aggression and all things inhumane? IME humans are far more violent. Very few animals will seek you out for the purposes of killing you, while a human will remember you for some slight and might track you down and kill you years later. For the most part, animals don't create huge armies and fight each other to the death- the only real comparison I can think of is two ant colonies going at it, but if one leaves the other does not track down the rest and annihilate them. Human history is rife with one culture holding a grudge against another and killing and torturing them simply because of who they are or what they believe. As far as I know, no animal species other than certain species of ants practice slavery. Perhaps if the goal is for us all to live together in peace we should be less like humans and more like animals (except ants).

We are expressing. Human is one thing-animal is another. The confusion (as we see it) comes from the human animal concept. We say there is no such thing as this combination. One can only be one or the other at any given moment. When one understands they can separate the two and choose one---or choose one that is compatible with a given situation. We primarily do this anyway. We are human to one person and then animalistic to another. We find that what is considered human societies aren't really human but very little. Societies mostly operate or relate to each other via the animal side, and in civilization it's the animal that gets the right of way  (so to speak). This (according to us) is why there are social inadiquecies. The animal receives more value then human and as it is, and societies  rely on the animal mind to exist. Of course the human side remains---and that is why things get so contradictory. If people were to leave off on the animal side and cage it it produces a different society based on different values. BUT, if that were to be done civilization would be destroyed as "it" relies on the animal side to function. The human+animal concept is contradictory and produces the result seen in the world. To come up with peace in the world social values will have to change from animal to human as the prime social value. That undertaking destroys all system in effect at present. It going to be a tuff choice to make.   Smiling

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4494
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote:We are

Old Seer wrote:

We are expressing. Human is one thing-animal is another. The confusion (as we see it) comes from the human animal concept. We say there is no such thing as this combination. One can only be one or the other at any given moment. When one understands they can separate the two and choose one---or choose one that is compatible with a given situation. We primarily do this anyway. We are human to one person and then animalistic to another. We find that what is considered human societies aren't really human but very little. Societies mostly operate or relate to each other via the animal side, and in civilization it's the animal that gets the right of way  (so to speak). This (according to us) is why there are social inadiquecies. The animal receives more value then human and as it is, and societies  rely on the animal mind to exist. Of course the human side remains---and that is why things get so contradictory. If people were to leave off on the animal side and cage it it produces a different society based on different values. BUT, if that were to be done civilization would be destroyed as "it" relies on the animal side to function. The human+animal concept is contradictory and produces the result seen in the world. To come up with peace in the world social values will have to change from animal to human as the prime social value. That undertaking destroys all system in effect at present. It going to be a tuff choice to make.   Smiling

No the confusion comes in from you arbitrarily assigning everything you like as "human" and everything you don't like as "animal" when in reality it is all human,and all animal since humans are simply animals with a more developed brain. You are attempting to make a distinction where one doesn't exist. 

I just usually go with my own taste. If I like something, and it happens to be against the law, well, then I might have a problem.- Hunter S. Thompson


Mr C O Jones
Mr C O Jones's picture
Posts: 34
Joined: 2012-08-07
User is offlineOffline
Manageri wrote:Of course

Manageri wrote:
Of course not, we have impulses generated by our psychology that makes most of us want to be nice to kittens and all that shit, but psychology isn't philosophy.


Hang on a minute you’re the one who’s making the appeal to what you call ‘psychology’, the impulses generated that make us want to be nice to kittens i.e. our innate emotional response to the suffering of sentient beings. I’m not touting my morality as a philosophy but you are.


Manageri wrote:
Is this your strategy, you just assert that anyone who doesn't agree with you isn't thinking for themselves and are just some dogma-driven thrall? Show some evidence to back this fucking slander up.

Do you think that swearing and being abusive adds weight to your argument?  Do you think it means people will take you for some kind of intellectual tough guy?  My ‘evidence to back this fucking slander up’ is everything that comes out of your dirty mouth. 

                                                                                    

Manajeri wrote:
It's not objective to you that a massage feels better than having boiling oil poured down your throat? Are the values of the sensations generated by those things somehow arbitrary, like you could favor one today and the other tomorrow? Obviously not, so where the hell is this mystical subjectivity you people keep going on about. It's a FACT that pleasure is more valuable than suffering.


The appeal you make is to our sensations, to our instinctive reactions to the nastiness of pain - ‘having boiling oil poured down your throat’ and to the niceness of pleasure - ‘a massage’.  Is that a philosophy? 


‘Pleasure is more valuable than suffering’ - valuable to whom?  This is a subjective judgement. I agree that nice things are nicer than nasty things. That’s why the pleasure that we take from eating meat outweighs the suffering caused to animals in factory farming - because the pleasure is all for the consumer and the suffering is all for the animal. Your appeal to the subjective sensations of the consumer will get you nowhere, so your massage/boiling oil example is a complete red herring and if your morality doesn’t depend on our subjective sensations what does it depend on? Your word, God’s word? 
 

You think we can all agree that suffering is bad – but suffering for who? Suffering for me is bad but if it’s for you or the animals and it’s for my pleasure then it isn’t bad.  And if you think that isn’t the way we are then look at what we do.  We kill millions of animals for the pleasure of eating their meat – why is that if we all instinctively know it’s wrong? And yet you’re appealing to the essential goodness and righteousness of our sensations to prove your point.  You have no argument for your position other than ‘this is how we feel’ – but this isn’t how we feel, otherwise we would stop killing the animals.  If you’re saying this is how we ought to feel than this is completely different and you’ve got to show why we ought to feel this way and what moral authority (which can’t be God) compels us to do so.


Manageri wrote:
Well if you could rationally convince me that being a selfish asshole is just fine then why wouldn't I behave like an asshole if that's what I wanted to do? You're the one who keeps saying it's all subjective so what possible counter argument could you make to my assholish behaviour that's any more authoritative than "me like chocolate, he like strawberry, he bad"?


I’m not trying to convince you that being a ‘selfish asshole is fine’ – you are a selfish asshole and so am I.  Instead of trying to pretend you’re not and trying to convince us that you’re some form of higher moral being that we should all aspire to, you need to start thinking about how, in a world populated by selfish assholes, you can limit the damage that you and others do. 

Being a selfish asshole doesn’t absolve you from moral responsibility – far from it, it means you have to assert moral values without believing that they have some bogus objective legitimacy.  Your moral values are your own, nothing more and nothing less.  If that’s not enough for you then you’re a moral coward. The truth is, your belief in your own moral values is so weak that you have to try and convince us (really yourself) that they have some objective status in order to carry on holding them.


Manageri wrote:
Oh no, you mean like those silly biologists who substituted evolution for the retarded bible creation myth and now call you an ignorant fucktard if you don't believe in evolution. AM I LIKE THEM OH SHIT TELL ME IT AINT SO!


No, I don’t mean like those silly biologists.  I mean you’re a Christian with a Christian morality based on things like suffering (wasn’t that what JC preached, the sanctity of suffering and all that), and loving one’s fellow creatures and being kind and practising forgiveness – you know, all those holy moly moral precepts that take no account of mankind’s dark and selfish nature but pretend that we all possess a pure and loving essence of unsubstantiated, objective good, if only we could see the light that lets us access it.  You’re the mystic, the preacher and the prophet.


Manageri wrote:
You know how I said fuck you last time? Well I wish I hadn't so it'd stand out more when I say it this time. Fuck you. You obviously have absolutely no idea what you're talking about and your flippant dismissal of the suffering of people who'd rather die go through is fucking disgusting. I really hope you get cancer in the ass so you can find out for yourself how much fun it is to want to die and how easy it really is to kill yourself.


Ah, what a nice, caring nature you have.  Someone dares to disagree with you and you wish ass cancer on them – and this from the guy who wants to protect all those defenceless animals.  You know I said earlier that you were a mystic, preacher and prophet?  Well, scrub that – you’re a martyr.  Here you are, taking the weight of the world’s suffering on your shoulders, just like Christ did on the cross. It’s only higher beings like yourself that fully appreciate the depth of the depravity of the world and the suffering of the poor creatures within it.
 

I suggest you go down to the railroad track, knock yourself together a couple of disused railway sleepers in the shape of a cross and get someone to nail you to them. At least that’ll remind a few people catching the 4 o’clock train to Newark that some of us still have a feeling heart and are prepared to sacrifice ourselves for the suffering of the world. Now I’m off to enjoy a big, juicy steak - bon appetit!


 

I quote no 'authorities'. I speak in my own words. I bring everything to the bar of my own judgment.


Manageri
atheist
Manageri's picture
Posts: 392
Joined: 2009-05-09
User is offlineOffline
Mr C O Jones wrote: Hang on

Mr C O Jones wrote:

 

Hang on a minute you’re the one who’s making the appeal to what you call ‘psychology’, the impulses generated that make us want to be nice to kittens i.e. our innate emotional response to the suffering of sentient beings. I’m not touting my morality as a philosophy but you are.

I'm not making any argument based on how I feel about kittens, I'm making an argument based on the fact we know there are pleasant sensations and there are shitty sensations, and since we live in a post-darwin world (among other reasons) we know the other sentient creatures can experience the exact same kinds of sensations. You're the idiot/asshole who has different standards for treating a human baby and treating a pig baby despite the fact both are mammals meaning they have a very similar neurology and all that shit meaning they are capable of experiencing damn near identical suffering.

Quote:
Do you think that swearing and being abusive adds weight to your argument?  Do you think it means people will take you for some kind of intellectual tough guy?  My ‘evidence to back this fucking slander up’ is everything that comes out of your dirty mouth.

Do you think not swearing makes your opinion more respectable? If Einstein had finished presenting his ideas with "all you wankers who don't understand this shit are fucking mongoloids" do you think his work should have been taken less seriously?

                                                                                    

Quote:
The appeal you make is to our sensations, to our instinctive reactions to the nastiness of pain - ‘having boiling oil poured down your throat’ and to the niceness of pleasure - ‘a massage’.  Is that a philosophy?

No, dipshit, it's pointing out that there's nothing subjective about how our brain categorizes these sensations. One is squarely in the "fuck yea" category while the other one is in the "never do this shit again" category.


Quote:
‘Pleasure is more valuable than suffering’ - valuable to whom?

Well who the fuck do you think? Everyone understands they would rather not be in pain. Couple this with the understanding that we are all the same kind of biological machine and explain to me how you rationally defend inflicting pain on others? Here's how the logic of you assholes goes in a nutshell:

1) I hold my suffering to have negative value

2) Other creatures' suffering feels just the same to them

3) ????

4) The suffering of other creatures is less valuable than mine

So what the fuck is this mysterious third premise that lets you assholes value the taste of your sandwich over the castration of a pig without any fucking painkillers? People are such assholes and you're a prime example.


Quote:
I’m not trying to convince you that being a ‘selfish asshole is fine’ – you are a selfish asshole and so am I.  Instead of trying to pretend you’re not and trying to convince us that you’re some form of higher moral being that we should all aspire to, you need to start thinking about how, in a world populated by selfish assholes, you can limit the damage that you and others do.

Right, so everyone's just an equal asshole. Mister Fritzl locking his daughter in the basement for a few decades and raping her thousands of times is just as big an offense as what...me calling you names?

Quote:
The truth is, your belief in your own moral values is so weak that you have to try and convince us (really yourself) that they have some objective status in order to carry on holding them.

Ooh, more psychoanalysis. you must be one kickass psychotherapist when you don't even need to know anything about your clients' life to know exactly how their psychology works.


Quote:
I mean you’re a Christian with a Christian morality based on things like suffering...

Well oh my fucking god, so of the thousands of things written in the bible some happen to agree with me? Well clearly I'm a theist then. Oh and so are the humanists and every other fucking atheist who agrees with any single sentence in the bible. You're a slandering fucking idiot.


Quote:
Ah, what a nice, caring nature you have.  Someone dares to disagree with you and you wish ass cancer on them

No, when someone tells me they know what my life is like better than me and calls me a liar while making idiotic claims like all truly suicidal people can just end their lives with the snap of a finger, then I'm gonna get pissed and wish you had to see for yourself what a preposterous slandering asshole you really are.

Quote:
and this from the guy who wants to protect all those defenceless animals.  You know I said earlier that you were a mystic, preacher and prophet?  Well, scrub that – you’re a martyr.  Here you are, taking the weight of the world’s suffering on your shoulders, just like Christ did on the cross. It’s only higher beings like yourself that fully appreciate the depth of the depravity of the world and the suffering of the poor creatures within it.

You can't even understand you going "numnum" isn't more meaningful than the pain of the chicken getting it's beak sliced off in a factory farm just so you can eat your fucking chicken sandwich, so I think I'm about a billion times closer to seeing the world for what it really is than you, you useless fucking torturing cuntbag excuse for an intelligent being.
 

Quote:
Now I’m off to enjoy a big, juicy steak - bon appetit!

I'm off to rape, torture and cannibalize a six year old, aren't I fucking badass - bon apetit.