At 12/14/09 05:09 PM, ExceptionalPants wrote:

At 12/14/09 12:15 PM, ArmouredGRIFFON wrote:

When in actual fact I know some sweet sweet bisexual lady's...

It's funny because you're a virgin and don't know either of the women pictured.

It's funny because I have the respect for my friends to not exploit them on the internet mindlessly so I take advantage of what is already common knowledge. It's also funny how you base your initiative on no evidence or experience. It's also funny that your being defensive about nothing. Furthermore it is again funny that your taking a mechanical concept and turning it into an emotional concept; which is the utterly twatish way to try and manipulate a point of view into something that becomes an irresolvable concept, the problem being you deminish your ideals from the primary point entirely.

Hello all. I'd like to join ya'll army.

I would consider my self a "Strong" atheist. I don't think any of it is true and infact I would like to convince as many people of that as possible :)

As Epicurus said: "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is God both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?". This is my reasoning for my strong athism. If there is some "watchmaker god" that doesn't intervene with all the evil in the world; why call them a god?

At 12/16/09 11:29 AM, JohnnyWang wrote: As Epicurus said: "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is God both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?". This is my reasoning for my strong athism. If there is some "watchmaker god" that doesn't intervene with all the evil in the world; why call them a god?

Yeh, I just did a philosophy course which covered both them topics!

Problem of Evil, and the Teleological argument for design. Thing is there are so many different ways we can interpret evil, it just becomes an unfalsifiable claim. We cannot prove or disprove God's existence with the existence of evil.

Well, Evil is of course relative; one man's atrocity is the other man's hooly ritual. But in general; bad stuff happens, and blaming it on human error, but still claiming that there's some greater good up there is just a cop-out. Why not just blame people, period, and then work on making things better?

My main case, of course is, that if there's a god, that really cares about people, they'd probably reveal themself to humans. All religions claim this has happened, to them, not to the others (barring certian schools in some religions). And when this god manifests themself, you'd think they'd have bbigger things to consermn themself with than what meats people eat or what people do in their bedrooms.

At 12/16/09 06:33 PM, ph0ne wrote:

At 12/14/09 06:18 PM, ArmouredGRIFFON wrote: It's funny because I have the respect for my friends to not exploit them on the internet mindlessly so I take advantage of what is already common knowledge.

CONFIRMED VIRGIN.

So how was your hioliday?

At 12/16/09 06:33 PM, ph0ne wrote:

At 12/14/09 06:18 PM, ArmouredGRIFFON wrote: It's funny because I have the respect for my friends to not exploit them on the internet mindlessly so I take advantage of what is already common knowledge.

CONFIRMED VIRGIN.

Say's the homosexual. He's been expressing his needs for cock by contacting me via PM. I'm flattered.

Oh dear...

Personal insults annoy me enough already, but let's leave the ones about sexual orientation alonce, shall we*? We could try, for a change, some debate, ro something. Otheer than just kiddy slap fights.

*asking this on NG, of course, is like asking a bunch of cats to not scratch the walls.

In regards to what is evil, yes it would be relative. But didn't God give Moses a nice list of what is forbidden? If he's lain down some laws he could at least follow them.

At 12/18/09 06:30 PM, Nev wrote: In regards to what is evil, yes it would be relative. But didn't God give Moses a nice list of what is forbidden? If he's lain down some laws he could at least follow them.

How do you look at evil. Do you look at it as a proportionality between Good and Bad, or do you look at it in any way more dynamically?

At 12/18/09 08:24 PM, ArmouredGRIFFON wrote: How do you look at evil. Do you look at it as a proportionality between Good and Bad, or do you look at it in any way more dynamically?

I don't see evil as a real thing. As someone said before, one man's evil is another man's good. I'd call a murder "evil", or a paedophile "evil" because of the way I lie my life, by the laws that humans over thousands of years have deemed appropriate.

Basiccaly, bad people are bad, but they're also good.

At 12/18/09 08:33 PM, Nev wrote:

At 12/18/09 08:24 PM, ArmouredGRIFFON wrote: How do you look at evil. Do you look at it as a proportionality between Good and Bad, or do you look at it in any way more dynamically?

Looks dynamic enough to me! I'm sat here sipping tea laughing over the fact that religion thinks it created marriage's. Silly isn't it, eluded by popular belief.

At 12/19/09 04:39 PM, ph0ne wrote: We kicked your ass in the Revolutionary War. America wins again by preserving more freedoms than you.

Way to be irrelevant :).

At 12/19/09 04:39 PM, ph0ne wrote:

At 12/18/09 08:40 PM, ArmouredGRIFFON wrote: I'm sat here sipping tea

We kicked your ass in the Revolutionary War. America wins again by preserving more freedoms than you.

What one earth does people's nationalities have to do with atheism? And I though you were told to stop trolling this place.

At 12/19/09 04:39 PM, ph0ne wrote:

At 12/18/09 08:40 PM, ArmouredGRIFFON wrote: I'm sat here sipping tea

We kicked your ass in the Revolutionary War. America wins again by preserving more freedoms than you.

No. You defeated one regiment of units. We actually gave you, your country back, by passing treaty's from France, after America declared independence. American reformer William Pitt begged Britain to ally with America, against France, because there was potential from Britain and France that you would be caught in a whiplashing crossfire. William Pitt's case was ignored.

The problem I have with Americans is that they know nothing about their own history, and are under the false illusion that they actually kicked any ass during the American Revolution without research.

They kicked a little bit of ass, but they would have had there asses handed to if the French didn't come and take the British navel fleet from behind. France than declared the Treaty of Paris, liberating America from the monarch's grasp, and individualising your nation. So thank the French for that, and the British, since the policy was a choice, and if the treaty had been declined America would be even more inbred than the inbreeding communities who were the Native Americans.

America only effectively, and in the long term contributed to the political movement. It's debatable whether the success of the initial revolt had anything to do with the little rebellion.

Go to the History Club if you would like to learn more, I'm sure they'll be willing to talk about it. If you want to discuss your arrogance some more you can stay and chat. But the trolling will probably earn you a ban anyway.

I've always been fascinated with how an Atheist establishes an ethical theory, or morality (if at all).

The very first post of this club is to not be racist. How? Why?

Perhaps some of o=you see through my first "trap" or sticking point. But, I'd be willing to see this through, a little. [perhaps you may answer something akin to Hobbes, Locke...Bacon or Descartes? Someone else?]

At 12/21/09 04:06 AM, Sanch wrote: i think The Virgin Army would be a much more fitting topic name

nice.

At 12/21/09 03:58 AM, TESM wrote: I've always been fascinated with how an Atheist establishes an ethical theory, or morality (if at all).

I can not speak for all atheists but I can speak for myself. I believe a lot of anyone's morality is established at birth. Morality is kind of tricky though because there is not that much definitive research on it. Maybe a set of rules that told humans to not kill each other helped us grow as a species so it gets passed on. I don't believe in the highly improbable because I am not delusional; that doesn't mean I am going to go out and kill a bunch of people.

At 12/21/09 03:58 AM, TESM wrote: I've always been fascinated with how an Atheist establishes an ethical theory, or morality (if at all).

The very first post of this club is to not be racist. How? Why?

Bacon

There's a philosopher named Bacon?!

At 12/21/09 03:58 AM, TESM wrote: I've always been fascinated with how an Atheist establishes an ethical theory, or morality (if at all).

I establish an ethical theory out of consideration. Not what God tells me is right or wrong, it shouldn't require that. Sheer compassion, for your fellow man, which builds a fundamental society, which functions based on the law. The law of coarse is based on the principle of evil, that you and I live in. The freedom we have to acknowledge and be aware of the implications of our own actions.

If you ask where morality came from in the first place that's as stupid as asking where the morality for the Bible came from. You can't just point the finger at God because the bible was not produced thousands of years since the dawn of an actual, functional civilisation.

At 12/21/09 03:58 AM, TESM wrote: I've always been fascinated with how an Atheist establishes an ethical theory, or morality (if at all).

The very first post of this club is to not be racist. How? Why?

Perhaps some of o=you see through my first "trap" or sticking point. But, I'd be willing to see this through, a little. [perhaps you may answer something akin to Hobbes, Locke...Bacon or Descartes? Someone else?]

while some atheists might very well site philosophers that you mentioned above, I would answer your question by simply siting nature. there is a lot of research done on empathy in the animal kingdom. simply put there are evolutionary advantages to not treating your fellow human beings like shit.

I appreciate the brief (and that's always helpful in these sort of things, to be direct) and straightforward answers.

For UCanJesus:
Now, be careful in using 'morality' in this sense. I see what you're trying to say but you mean what you say at 2 levels. The colloquial way we say it is 'nature' and 'nurture.' By nature you mean something perhaps innate, genetic, or for the sake of evolution.
For one, parents are the foundation of most of our knowledge, moral action to physical function. However, they are only the foundation and not what determines our life once we become self-sufficient. The only definitive research could not come from a scientist, mostly because they experiment on monkeys when it comes to understanding child-parent relationships, which is inconclusive at best, I believe.
Nature means we have these laws (do not kill, steal, murder are 3 big ones) innate within us, but this reasoning gets us nowhere at the moment. If you simply say that 'I do not kill' because it's for my evolution, I do not believe that's true and this leads back to an argument by Locke that says that 'I choose to have government to protect myself, and a nation is comprised of of like-minded people. They protect each other from each other, and a brutal death that awaits them outside the state.'
This would imply that now it is not by birth, but by convention we don't kill people, because it's hard to say that we don't (by your logic) do so because it doesn't seem right.

GRIFFON:
Actually, this is straight out of the pages of J.S. Mill's Utilitarianism. Compassion is simply a different word for sympathy.
I don't understand the rest of your post as it is incoherent. The 'morality of the bible' as we know it was once just Hebrew Scriptures, and at the same time, writing something down was really a pain-- not many could read, and paper, ink, etc was very rare and scarce. Most all human convention (law) and religion were passed down orally since before our earliest ancestors could remember. So the constitution would be there. More on this later I suppose... I know it'll come up again.

VGFA:

Though you move away from philosophers, in this case you brought yourself back. Citing nature is precisely what JS Mill denies, but Callicles from Plato's Gorgias and Nietzsche cite as precisely a false morality. All three will claim that any morality based off of nature herself is simply a lie. That nature is cruel, uncaring, and simply cannot translate into a set of laws that govern man's actions.

Nietzsche may say 'will to power' (or other similar doctrine) which itself appears to be 'by nature' but even this is dubious.

You claim that not treating them like shit is to our advantage, but I'm confused by that. So treating some like this is for some advantage? Treating most, none, a few? It doesn't seem to follow for the sake of survival. Even assholes breed.

I don't know what you mean by 'empathy' in the animal kingdom... but I have a good amount of skepticism regarding its accurate reflection back on human affairs.

---
Thanks for reading. It's far from definitive though.

At 12/21/09 03:58 AM, TESM wrote: I've always been fascinated with how an Atheist establishes an ethical theory, or morality (if at all).

Since I started identifying as an atheist, I just opted for the "don't do things people don't really like" philosophy. That is, a purely utilitarian apporach to social contract.

Since then, my political leanings have changed a bit, and mostly, I derive my ethics from the idea of eglitarianism.

The very first post of this club is to not be racist. How? Why?

Well, because of the said eglitarianism. Also, Racism is against the NG rules, and it wouldn't be in the clubs innterests to be locked for a few idiots.

[perhaps you may answer something akin to Hobbes, Locke...Bacon or Descartes? Someone else?]

Personally, I don't think philosophy is for everyone. If you're gooing to require all the billion people in the world to read and understand the basic canon of western philosophy (your list was rather Eurocentric), you'll have a lot of people reading books and doing nothing. The philosophy of everyday life is just going with the flow.

At 12/21/09 04:06 AM, Sanch wrote: i think The Virgin Army would be a much more fitting topic name

Because having sex somehow change's people's religious views?

I thanks you also for an interesting response.

However, I have a problem:

Egalitarianism centers itself around "equality" which is indeed noble, but then again Nietzsche's argument of where this 'really came from' would suggest that it is the weak who somehow overtook the strong (Jerusalem vs. Rome). This equality needs a basis, and not simply that it is some state in nature (unless you have qualifications) or beyond political habits.
If God indeed is dead, or never was if you'd like to be semantic, equality for survival doesn't seem to be the case for nature (notice I say equality for survival). I don't think I'd be convinced that most law is implanted via an evolutionary process. You may say animals have hierarchy, but we actually do elect people and grant them political power. It seems obvious that a tyrant or dictator certainly CAN obtain power, but the people are neither happy, successful, nor considered to exercise as humans (in the proper sense, for me)

Philosophy indeed isn't for everyone, and it's even more proper that those who think they can do it many times fool themselves. We can speak the language, but it's much more difficult to be philosophical. Hegel said so in his Philosophy of Right, and Plato and Aristotle believed (approx.) that only 1% of people could, effectively.

On the other hand, could I bring up eastern thought? I suppose, but in my studies I never really saw much impact, especially here on the Western World. In all my applications to reason and inquiry, Eastern though never quite did it for me. It makes far more assumptions, I believe, than Western thought. Similarly the Chinese and Japanese (more the latter) are translating most of Husserl's works on Phenomenology and the impact on Western thought in the East is more profound than visa/versa.

Again, I don't expect people to read this, but I must allow them to know there exists complimentary or contradictory literature.

Your definition of philosophy, finally, is a sham--- plain and simple.
'going with the flow' is vague and helps nobody. Just like saying 'living in the present.' It doesn't make sense to me.

Also, it's not a philosophy, as much as Timon and Pumba misused the term. A love of wisdom (philo sophia) was considered a science, which in turn used to mean a unified account of things.
Philosophy, if I can clarify now, is not reading books. It is inquiry and a pursuit of truth (something else Atheists must account for outside of phenomena if they can), application in everyday life, and a constant self-betterment and self-testing.

Also, I am fairly convinced with the strictures I've raised (where does truth come from, save phenomena--- what is the basis for ethical-moral action [the things I've touched upon]) that quite a few people here aren't atheists in the strict sense.

It takes a lot more than "science" and "social construct" to be an Atheist.
Nietzsche, I think is a good example of someone who was questionably atheist, but pursued a proposition of a 'dead god' at the least. In that way, he was also fighting nihilism... which I think a lot of 'so-called' atheists are, but replace the term.

It's a stretch, but that's one initial observation.

Maybe some of our "morality" (I only put it in quotes because it's open to wide interpretation) is due to the survival of the fittest principal. Since for a large number of people to live together effectively there must be some measure of basic ethics, don't steal, don't kill, etc., those persons who could not or would not follow these were weeded out, either directly, such as by execution, or through more indirect manners. For example, those that could not live in societies did not join them and remained nomadic wanderers. And even still today, those that don't follow societies rules are weeded out. Criminals are incarcerated and even killed, and those that aren't quite "normal" are ostracized. I'm not saying this is necessarily or entirely good, but this is an example of how ethics could develop without religion.
As well, I can only speak for myself, although I'm sure this applies to others, but one can develop ethics on their own, or in the very least without religion. Often times people see value in doing good works. I'm sure we've all felt a little better about ourselves after doing unprovoked acts of kindness, small as they may be. Perhaps you dropped $5 in the Salvation Army bucket on your way out of the store, helped an elderly gentleman load his groceries in the car, or volunteered at soup kitchen over the Holidays. We don't need an outside force to tell us these are valuable, rewarding things we can do; most people derive satisfaction merely by genuinely helping those less fortunate. Perhaps due to societal pressures, due to survival of the fittest bit I went on about earlier, or perhaps, our something inherent in us as a species is deriving joy from helping our fellow man.

Though I won't entirely disagree with you, there's hardly anything to your argument all the same.

Your first half is perceptive. Indeed we seem to weed out those who exist or act contrary to order and society.

But then the rest:

Feelings of kindness? Helping others?

I'm not saying we couldn't derive some satisfaction. But on what grounds do you derive it? "simply because" never sounds like a sufficient reason to act (for me, for the most part).

I don't think religion simply forces values of good and bad (other than some obvious ones), and I believe this is indicated by the numerous saints (if I may call them that here) who acted virtuously for the sake of the poor, sick, military, children, elderly, etc.

Taking Mother Teresa and PJP II, I think these are modern, well known examples of two different people with two different interactions in the world. Did religion constitute their actions and their positions? Of course.

As for an "outside force that tells us something is valuable," I think religion is being seen as a 'concept that is adopted that leads people to act in a certain way without establishing a sound basis for doing so.'

but in the end, I think if this position is taken, Atheists will have the same problem.

Again, your answer is a bit utilitarian mixed with some pseudo-mysticism of the 'joy of helping others' from which I don't understand where an Atheist has this come from.

But, I'm willing to be corrected on a number of things.

As I said, I'm not really one for theoretical philosophy. I study linguistics and cultural studies (and soon pedagogy). I don't exactly have time nor really a reason to star reading philosophy unless i want extra study points from taking a philosophy minor.

At 12/21/09 02:14 PM, TESM wrote: I thanks you also for an interesting response.
Egalitarianism centers itself around "equality" which is indeed noble, but then again Nietzsche's argument of where this 'really came from' would suggest that it is the weak who somehow overtook the strong (Jerusalem vs. Rome). This equality needs a basis, and not simply that it is some state in nature (unless you have qualifications) or beyond political habits.

My basis ofor eglitarianism is that all people are born the same. They deserve the same possibilities, and should all be treated as sentient individuals, instead of objects and generic categories.

equality for survival

The survival in the wild arguemtn kinda went out of the window when we started building cities. The attributes of a succesfull individual today is a lot different from the attributes of a succesfull individual a hundred years ago, five hundred years ago, two thousand years ago and ten thousand years ago.

Again, I don't expect people to read this, but I must allow them to know there exists complimentary or contradictory literature.

Which makes it hard for me to really take philosophy seriously. Anyone can just pick the one theorist they agree with, and only read other people who see things the same way.

Your definition of philosophy, finally, is a sham--- plain and simple.

Welll yes, if you're a literalist. It's odd that it seems that almost no-one outside the fireld of languuage and linguistics seem to be aware of the fact that words can have several different definitions.

Seriously, pick up a dictionary. Or look up an online one. Most words tend to have two or more different meanings. And yes, a "philosophy in life" is a valid definition of philosophy. It's not the primary one, but it's a definition.

'going with the flow' is vague and helps nobody.

Yeah, if you're completely unsocial. If you want a more sophisticated wording, fine:

A tried and tested philosophy of life is, conforming to the social norms of your surrounding, only objecting and analyzing pars of it if they go against your own moral code.

Philosophy, if I can clarify now, is not reading books. It is inquiry and a pursuit of truth (something else Atheists must account for outside of phenomena if they can), application in everyday life, and a constant self-betterment and self-testing.

But it would seem, that no-one takes claims of philosophical thought seriously unless one can, like you, namedrop a dozen dead guys. I mean, sure, I do inquir,e pursue the truth, think of how to apply it to everyday life, use it to self betterment and occationally test my convictions. But that's pretty much what everyone does; they try too figure out the world. An atheist does it as much as the religious man, just using a different framework of thought.

It's a stretch, but that's one initial observation.

I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to say. That's the problem with specialists, be they philosophers, scientists of any field or whatever, they tend to just assume everyone knows what they mean, because they themselves know what they mean. I know I suffer from that from time to time.

But in short, you're trying to shoehorn the term "Atheist" into a box, and then delare people outside it are "not real Atheists". That's mostly a "No True Scotsman Fallacy". In the strictest sense of the word, Atheist is just someone who doesn't believe in any god or divine force. Where one atheist finds their moral code is irrelevant. I find mine in a humanist approach. Some finds it in biology, some find it in philosophy.

At 12/21/09 03:47 PM, TESM wrote: some pseudo-mysticism of the 'joy of helping others'

No, that's just called being a nice person. I mean, do you not feel like a better person for helping others? Surely you're nmot that detached from human interaction.

At 12/21/09 04:06 AM, Sanch wrote: i think The Virgin Army would be a much more fitting topic name

Despite it being religion that has the chuffy for chastity...

No, I don't think I'm too detached. As far as nice, I understand your definition of it, at least.

As far as a better person, I'd think you'd need to elaborate without referring me to my own text.

I love when philosophy is "shoehorned" into a description of "some dead guys." Actually, your field of study is derived from the 19th century, especially Hegel.

The needs for human beings never changes: food, water, in some way sex (not for the person as such, but for the species), and shelter. The means are different, but we need to eat and crap as much as the ancient Romans did.

I'm not really a literalist, or as you meant to say a 'positivist.' Actually, I can't recall which dictionary your definition is derived from. I know philosophy is derived from the Greek, used in latin and ecclesial latin. Also transliterated into German, Japanese, and the Romance languages... am I missing something?
A "philosophy in life" is not a definition, it's a term. You defined it as "going with the flow" which is 'a' definition that is self-determined by you... which I called a sham. That should suffice, I believe.

Your next part of the post, however, gets to the point [of a phil. in life] and can be examined more critically, so I thank you for that:
"conforming to the social norms"-- fine
"only objecting and analyzing them"--- ok...
"if they go against your moral code." --- I assume egalitarianism, which is everyone is equal by birth.

This too is not so much a philosophy as it is a social contract. This is perhaps philosophy in the loosest sense...but it is not a pursuit of truth or gaining wisdom, it is simply a modification of how you are governed, and yet there is still very little I can gather simply from moral code (other than a term you provided).

I also laugh when you say going with the flow. Your definition says : "go with the flow...until something goes against your flow, so then you endeavor to change that flow"

Which in those words, for a linguist like yourself, falls into logical ineptness and incoherence.

But more on this will come, I imagine.

I "namedrop" because I don't claim my own observations as exclusively my own. It's a shame no one takes philisophical claims more seriously because it really does, I'll attest, permeate throughout our lives in all places.

And you used a good term: a "framework of thought." This is what interests me and I think gets down to my original question of "why are you moral?"

The argument is sure to be circular, and touch on the same thing again and again.. but the point is to extract a little more information each time... revalue our terms/hypotheses, or at least solidify WHAT we are actually saying.

Plus, I may be speaking over some people's heads, so I apologize for that.
We don't hate scientists for knowing their terminology. As this is a philosophical inquiry, allow me to have that same honor (I suppose... though I'm no exact expert). If anyone needs clarification on what I say, just ask. I want a clear discussion and figure out, ourselves, what we're really getting at and then determine where we ought to go.

My main inquiry was how it is established... not what you do--- though it helps.

It depends on if you consider yourself an Atheist first... thus that "frame," or an Egalitarian first which makes you an Atheist... I suppose that's another question coming from your terms.

It's all quite interesting, and thanks for the response.