|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
 Posted - 06/30/2007 : 16:17:33 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Again, you respond with a childlike attack when you disagree with someone. The more you post the more my assertion that you are one of those losers in life that continually claim victory while blaming others for losing becomes apparent; your life is a contridiction. |
What childlike attack? I attempted, once again, to illustrate the point you have continually failed to understand. And once again you don't seem to get it. How many times should I attempt, Jerome? At what point should I accept that you aren't intelligent enough to ever understand and just move on? I'm not claiming victory, on the contrary, I'm claiming utter failure in my attempts to illuminate you. I simply can't do what you request because you don't possess the mental faculties to make it possible.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
 |
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 06/30/2007 : 16:36:59 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Originally posted by filthy
It is all very simple and boring, indeed, to the point of ennui. As an atheist, my moral code, if we must call it that, is pretty much the same as a theist's without all the God nonsense.
Why is that so hard to understand?
|
How is that "code" determined? How are standards defined? Does every atheist have a separate individual "code"?
|
The "code" is determined by upbringing, societal pressures, and value judgements on an individual basis. The standards are defined in the same manner as theistic sources (although ascribed to the correct source instead of a theological construct).
As seperate and individual as theists.
|
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 06/30/2007 : 16:43:44 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by H. Humbert
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Again, you respond with a childlike attack when you disagree with someone. The more you post the more my assertion that you are one of those losers in life that continually claim victory while blaming others for losing becomes apparent; your life is a contridiction. |
What childlike attack? I attempted, once again, to illustrate the point you have continually failed to understand. And once again you don't seem to get it. How many times should I attempt, Jerome? At what point should I accept that you aren't intelligent enough to ever understand and just move on? I'm not claiming victory, on the contrary, I'm claiming utter failure in my attempts to illuminate you. I simply can't do what you request because you don't possess the mental faculties to make it possible.
|
A true test of understanding a subject is the ability to explain it in your own words. You are correct you failed.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
 Posted - 06/30/2007 : 16:48:07 [Permalink]
|
Valiant Dancer, thank you for your reasoned response. My question would be, does this cause the atheist to redefine his/her moral standards based a reconfiguring of society?
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 06/30/2007 : 16:54:15 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
A true test of understanding a subject is the ability to explain it in your own words. You are correct you failed. |
Yes, I have failed to teach you anything, but not because I didn't put things in my own words. Good god, Jerome, you couldn't even get that right. It's like you just type things without putting any thought into them whatsoever. Well, stupid is as stupid does, I guess.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 06/30/2007 : 16:57:39 [Permalink]
|
HH, excellent use of your last three posts to tell my I am stupid. If you tell yourself a lie long enough it might come true in your mind.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 06/30/2007 : 17:40:25 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
If you tell yourself a lie long enough it might come true in your mind. |
Just like "effects" meaning "essences" in the Fourth Amendment, huh. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 06/30/2007 : 18:08:07 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Valiant Dancer, thank you for your reasoned response. My question would be, does this cause the atheist to redefine his/her moral standards based a reconfiguring of society?
|
No more than a theist would. As societies evolve, so do their morals. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 06/30/2007 : 18:32:05 [Permalink]
|
Valiant Dancer, so would I be correct in stating that an atheists moral standards are concurrent with societal moral standards and will change with the ebb and flow of society?
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 06/30/2007 : 19:00:44 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Valiant Dancer, so would I be correct in stating that an atheists moral standards are concurrent with societal moral standards and will change with the ebb and flow of society?
|
Isn't that true for theists? |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 06/30/2007 : 19:17:51 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
Isn't that true for theists? |
History has certainly shown that to be the case. It used to be a moral imperitive to burn witches, because that would "save" the people being burnt. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 06/30/2007 : 19:19:50 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Valiant Dancer, so would I be correct in stating that an atheists moral standards are concurrent with societal moral standards and will change with the ebb and flow of society?
|
Isn't that true for theists?
|
In my case no. For those involved in organized religion in most cases yes.
 |
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 06/30/2007 : 19:52:27 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
In my case no. |
You've got evidence that in another place, at another time, your moral standards would be identical to what they are now? You claim to derive your morals from the Ten Commandments, and there are still people today who don't know what those are, so it would be difficult, if not impossible, for you to truthfully assert that your morality has not been formed by the society you live in. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
marty
BANNED
63 Posts |
Posted - 06/30/2007 : 20:08:17 [Permalink]
|
Okay, so apparently I struck a nerve with some folks here. First of all, if you're an atheist, I hardly want to imply that 1) you are an amoral person and 2) I am somehow superior to you in any fashion. However, I can assure you that I understand what "atheism" is "about" as you say.
Next, I would like to point out that much of what I say comes from my own experience, as well as studies I have read, people I talk to and things I have witnessed. It is my belief that there is a God (with a capital G) and that it is fact. Any attempt to persuade me otherwise will fail. That is not because I am closed off to your arguments, but that I have probably heard them before and they failed to convince me in the past.
Next, I seriously doubt these studies that you cite stating that the more educated an individual is, the more moral they are. Do you have links to support these claims, and secondly, just because some has more education does not make them more intelligent or capable of understanding a moral or ethical system. I give two specific examples as challenges to your claim: 1) The Unabomber http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unabomber and 2) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=7365477&dopt=Abstract
These cases show the vast difference in education/intelligence, but show a similar morality level.
Next, how to atheists structure their "moral code" without all of the "God nonsense". Are you referring to Aristotle, Plato, Kant, Marx ?? What is the basis for this moral code? At least with MOST people of faith, I know where their moral foundation lays. With an atheist, I'm can never be sure that they are operating under an code other than their instinct, which could lead them in any direction.
Next, you say that you hope that a person of faith never loses their faith, well I agree on that point, but I wonder why you state that. After all, if a person of faith "loses" (if such a thing can be lost like a set of car keys) their faith, doesn't that make them an atheist, which, I'm gathering you are?
Now for the stuff I didn't say: I never said that atheists were amoral people, nor did I say that morality only comes from faith.
And finally, back to my original point, faith is good. It is good because it provides hope and a context for morals and ethics. It is good because it humbles people and shows them that they are not the greatest most powerful thing in creation. I will concede the point that this is not always the case, but with 6 Billion people in the world it is impossible to state that anything is always the case. Anyway, this type of humility is not something that comes naturally to people, and I prefer that my political AND social leaders bring their faith with them to the office. Let their concern for others become a guiding principle, which is a founding principle in every major religion. If everyone, especially our political leaders, practiced the maxim of "treat others as you would like to be treated" the world would be a better place. |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 06/30/2007 : 20:41:19 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
In my case no. |
You've got evidence that in another place, at another time, your moral standards would be identical to what they are now? You claim to derive your morals from the Ten Commandments, and there are still people today who don't know what those are, so it would be difficult, if not impossible, for you to truthfully assert that your morality has not been formed by the society you live in.
|
Dave, you have seem the examples of my stubbornest, this should be proof enough that I do not flow with current standards. I take those simple 10 rules and apply them to my everyday world. Of course I can not prove what has not happened or what will happen. I will tell you my standards have been different in the past; to my detriment. I also have personal evidence that the standards I currently hold are correct, even when in the short term these standards hindered my needs and desires.
Keep in mind that current standards of societal morality are different today than they were even 20 years ago.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Religion or Politics? Where to put it?
