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)
|
Threaded
Previous
Index
Next
North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies 
Bulk Cannabis Seeds 
APE Liquid Culture For Sale 
All-In-One Bags That Don't Suck 
Spores for European Microscopy
Silversoul 
[Re: 
Edit 
Reply 
1 2 3 all )
Swami
shroomydan
Bullfrog1
looner2
Vulture
Zahid