|
Silversoul
Rhizome


Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
|
Re: For Atheists... [Re: spud]
#5891601 - 07/23/06 05:40 PM (17 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
spud said: I've actually been meaning to check out one of their churches for a while now.
Every month, this gnostic church rents out a room at the local Unitarian Universalist center in my area.
--------------------
|
spud
I'm so fly.

Registered: 10/07/02
Posts: 44,410
|
Re: For Atheists... [Re: Silversoul]
#5891608 - 07/23/06 05:41 PM (17 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Silversoul said:
Quote:
spud said: I've actually been meaning to check out one of their churches for a while now.
Every month, this gnostic church rents out a room at the local Unitarian Universalist center.
That's awesome. I actually live near a large Gnostic church. I'm too scared to check it out though, out of fear it was hijacked by New Age crystal worshiping, alien fearing Christians.
|
MushmanTheManic
Stranger

Registered: 04/21/05
Posts: 4,587
|
Re: For Atheists... [Re: Silversoul]
#5891967 - 07/23/06 07:15 PM (17 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
But it's even better when Existentialism grows out of Nihilism.
Either the Ubermensch nobly rises up out of nihilism or insanity envelopes nihilism as horrifically as the ideations of the Divine Marquis.
|
MushmanTheManic
Stranger

Registered: 04/21/05
Posts: 4,587
|
Re: For Atheists... [Re: Veritas]
#5892011 - 07/23/06 07:22 PM (17 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Being greedy does not aid survival, it is a sign of emotional imbalance and fear-based living.
Imagine two domesticated primates. One of these primates, named Bob, is very greedy. The other, named Merv, is not greedy at all. Merv only takes what he needs. Due to the greed of Bob, he accummulates a pile of coconuts in his treehouse. Merv, on the other hand, has no pile. Both Merv and Bob have two young offspring, too young to gather food.
As expected, a malicious gang of females from Venus come to Earth and steal all the coconuts from the trees, then watch Oprah and leave. Which primate family has a better chance of surviving?
|
Veritas

Registered: 04/15/05
Posts: 11,089
|
|
Oh, sure, throw the "malicious female apes from Venus" argument into the mix.
|
MushmanTheManic
Stranger

Registered: 04/21/05
Posts: 4,587
|
Re: For Atheists... [Re: Veritas]
#5892052 - 07/23/06 07:33 PM (17 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
I'm afraid of girls...
|
Veritas

Registered: 04/15/05
Posts: 11,089
|
|
Don't worry, just hoard enough coconuts & you will survive the XX onslaught.
|
MushmanTheManic
Stranger

Registered: 04/21/05
Posts: 4,587
|
Re: For Atheists... [Re: Veritas]
#5892498 - 07/23/06 09:29 PM (17 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Thats the plan.
|
Cracka_X
Spiritual Dirt Worshipper



Registered: 01/25/03
Posts: 8,808
Loc: Swamp
|
|
Whoa this thread blew up...
Quote:
OldWoodSpecter said: religious concepts are hardwired inside of your head.
I think that is how everything is.
We're born and our parents put restrictions/laws/rules down in training us. Religions are another factor that shapes us as growing up. Then there's society, friends, and the law police enforce. All in all, we are not free. We're insecure of all these invisible/imaginary eyes looking at us to see if we screw up.
-------------------- The best way to live is to be like water For water benefits all things and goes against none of them It provides for all people and even cleanses those places a man is loath to go In this way it is just like Tao ~Daodejing
|
cloudtop
Stranger


Registered: 08/16/04
Posts: 66
Loc: bespin
|
Re: For Atheists... [Re: Cracka_X]
#5899270 - 07/25/06 07:14 PM (17 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
First and foremost, it appears to follow logically that a world without omnipotent ruler/judge necessarily exists without a standard code or morality with which people may align themselves. If people choose to act 'ethically' or 'morally' but suggest they do so without the guidance of a presumed deity, it is likely through an all-too-common delusion in which they fail to see the influence of others' theistic worldviews on their own lives. I lack a belief in god, I lack a defined moral structure. Rational self-interest is the closest to an ethical format my logical processes follow. There is a distinction, however, to be made between describing an ethos based upon an observation of one's various decisions and interactions vs. elucidating an ethos which deterministically drives an individual to make particular decisions. The observed processes could be more effect than cause.
This is not to say, however, that natural laws (necessarily derived from a succession of events) and probabalistic pressures which allow me to simultaneously exist safely and exploitatively do not come into play at various levels. Cultural and theistic relativism, however, negate the potential for me to soundly declare one person's actions as more moral than another's. Altruism is one such pressure of probability, though the concept seems generally to be facetiously fertilized by the disappointing assumptions of individuals that benefits will be reaped directly or commensurately. Altruism is, however, simply one of many varyingly effective social survival mechanisms and cannot be adopted as a standard law anymore than the highly contentious might-is-right evolutionary pressure.
Much of this thread has been derailed by an attempt to suggest that the charitable actions prevalent throughout theistically-inculcated cultures connotes beneficial attributes of a theistic worldview. To be sure, attempts at charity and altruism are virulently spread through the established memetic channels of theistic dogma; such a concept, however, does nothing to validate charity or altruism as beneficial. Plenty of arguments (many focusing on the obligatory indoctrination or presumed allegiance of recipients of charity -- ie limiting of freedoms) are easily presented to contradict the presumed benefits of altruism. Ultimately, however, any attempt to act altruistically must be evaluated by the filter of rational self-interest, and being consequently refuted as little more than a sheep in wolf's clothing (sic), the altruistic argument is again laid to rest in an unmarked grave.
Nobody wants something for nothing, even if they may honestly plead conscious ignorance of their own underlying motivations. The prevalence of charity among religious organisations is little more than an extension of the inherently dishonest attempt by the theistic meme to undermine the basic freedoms a secular mind is opportuned to entertain.
FWIW, to colombo (who seems to have suggested that the atheist alone is faced with either rational self-interest or the threat of violence [which, logically, is reducible to rational self-interest]): if one begins from the basis that free will exists among human beings, then even he who believes in a deity must necessarily have chosen his path. Thus it is all reduced to rational self-interest. The paradox for theists, of course, is how they could simultaneously follow a path of logic and suspend their adherence to the concept of logic.
For anybody else who applauds the support of a populace that cannot exist within its means (ie welfare, charity, etc), consider the fact you are artificially sustaining that populace only so that it can grow to a size even further outside of its means. Let a population of 1000 go hungry until its number falls within its means of survival (say 700) or feed the population of 1000 until it reaches 2500 and let that same 2500 descend back to its means of survival (700). Malthusian dynamics at work. For myco-related value, this is not particularly estranged from the feedback mechanism thought to regulate the beneficial addition of tryptophan decarboxylase to spawn as a means of increased alkaloid production. Even with the additional TDC (charitable donation of food), the resultant increase of tryptamine (recipient population) ultimately devours itself at an expedited rate. LOL
For any self-described atheists feeling remorse over a paucity of secular charity or altruism, get over it -- freeing yourself from the entrapments of a godslave requires you to restate your assumptions about how the world progresses and what role you'd like to play. Start from the logical foundation of a lack of belief in god and see where your value system extends.
PS: 'Greed' is a human concept utilized to describe behaviors in contradiction to a moral premise. As such, it is arguably not transferrable to the biologically-propogated feedback systems of the generic animal kingdom. The possibility that our own conscious will is a disguise of the very same feedback systems does little more than reinforce the argument against the aforementioned construct of morality.
-------------------- peacefromabovecloudtop
Edited by cloudtop (07/25/06 07:21 PM)
|
|