The effect of religion
-
Patrick Sears wrote:
The concept of enlightened self interest comes to mind. Even if one were to accept your premise that atheism itself leads to hedonism, there is still enlightened self interest to contend with, and an even simply intelligent mind will have some sense of enlightened self interest (that is, looking out for their better long term interest rather than their short term whims).
And therein lies the problem. Atheism requires personal promotion, usually at the expense of others, over all things. There will come a time when you cease to exist and all your accomplishments and depravities become absolutely meaningless as, even if they persist in others, there's no way you can conceive of them or their worth. Consequently, what does it matter whether you're a hedonist or dedicate your life to charity? As you say, some might forego instant gratification for long-term comfort, but ultimately either are maximizing your personal gain. It's effects on others shouldn't be of concern so long as they don't directly interfere with you and your goals. The modern world makes that all too easy.
Patrick Sears wrote:
1. Sleep with another man's wife, you're likely to get yourself a whole heap 'o trouble. 2. Killing people without merit is probably going to get YOU killed. 3. Refusing to share and refusing to help is probably going to leave you without any support group, and very, very few individuals are capable of surviving alone - or ever were. Not only that, humans have a very, very strong instinctive drive to group together. Few people are willing to jeopardize their social support group. 4. Stealing is probably going to get you either beaten or killed, or at the very least, locked up or banished (going back to point 3).
The problem with this list is that, when applied to atheism, it actually reduces humanity to the lowest possible level of moral development...pre-conventional morality[^] whereby consequences need only be a concern if you're caught. Perhaps this is why liberals are so concerned with "privacy"? After all, why would adultery be a problem so long as the woman's husband didn't catch you? That would apparently be the only deterrent of immoral acts.
Red Stateler wrote:
Atheism requires personal promotion, usually at the expense of others, over all things.
That's an interesting assumption, certainly not one to which I subscribe. I have no desire to hurt or inconvenience those I love and care about (or even those I don't know) simply because there are things I want. In fact, I go out of my way NOT to cause harm, even to those I don't know. Correspondingly..
Red Stateler wrote:
After all, if you only believe in yourself, why put anything above it?
It is possible to believe in higher causes without needing a God to do so.
Red Stateler wrote:
The modern world makes that all too easy.
Yes it does, which is why "pre-conventional morality" isn't necessarily the backward step it seems. Highly involved social structures prevent behavior that our society has made completely invisible. We really aren't building a better world, so long as we spend so much energy relieving each other of our dependencies on each other.
Red Stateler wrote:
There will come a time when you cease to exist and all your accomplishments and depravities become absolutely meaningless as, even if they persist in others, there's no way you can conceive of them or their worth. Consequently, what does it matter whether you're a hedonist or dedicate your life to charity?
Easy. Would you rather be remember as good or evil? While that may be self centered, it's a nice way to control behavior. The most stable cultures are predicated on that concept, by the way - make proper behavior a matter of self interest, rather than force of law. More than that though, I simply derive satisfaction from being able to look at myself in the mirror, and being able to look at my friends and family in the face, without shame. "I gain this from philosophy: that I do by choice what others do only from force of law" - Aristotle
Red Stateler wrote:
The problem with this list is that, when applied to atheism, it actually reduces humanity to the lowest possible level of moral development...pre-conventional morality[^] whereby consequences need only be a concern if you're caught. Perhaps this is why liberals are so concerned with "privacy"? After all, why would adultery be a problem so long as the woman's wife didn't c
-
Al Beback wrote:
Hey, you worthless unchristian bigot, who cares what he was? It obviously had no bearing on his actions. What if he had been a Catholic, would you then condemn Catholicism?
Wow. What a delightful double-standard you have! If he had been Catholic and the Catholic Church's teachings specifically lead him to kill 32 people and himself, then I'd say there is something wrong there. But since the Catholic Church generally frown upon mass-murder, that's simply not the case. However, since this isn't the first time that the inevitable nihilism of atheism lead a young man to commit mass-murder, then it's right to condemn atheism and you for endorsing it.
Red Stateler wrote:
the inevitable nihilism of atheism
it's inevitable! Yee Haw! Which brings us to todays word: INEVITABLE Since this isn't the first time that the inevitable jackassery of elitism has led you to post unsupportable statements masquerading as fact it is right to condemn jackassery and you for supporting it.
led mike
-
Red Stateler wrote:
Uh...Yes he was. He was a nihilist (watch his tapes) who admired the Columbine kids (noted atheists). His Jesus reference was decidedly non-Christian as he referred to Him in a non-deity way.
Uh, his tapes are filled with religious references, including references to the Koran. In a biography written in several of the major newspapers (NY Times, Washington Post, etc...) they even mentioned this. They even gave the church that his parents took him to in order to provide him with a social structure to change his behaviour. Sorry, but he's not an athiest despite how much you want him to be.
"The masses have never thirsted after truth. They turn aside from evidence that is not to their taste, preferring to deify error, if error seduce them. Whoever can supply them with illusions is easily their master; whoever attempts to destroy their illusions is always their victim." -Gustave Le Bon
Oh, and here's another quote from him: "Jesus loved crucifying me. He loved inducing cancer in my head, terrorizing my heart and raping my soul all this time." Does that sound like a Christian to you? It sounds to me he looks at Jesus with utter disdain.
-
Wait...You just said he's a Christian. Now you said he was referencing the Koran? Which is it?
Red Stateler wrote:
Wait...You just said he's a Christian. Now you said he was referencing the Koran? Which is it?
It actually doesn't matter, the point being that he was religious and not athiest. For the record, it was a presbyterian church. Seeing as athiests don't go to church, Cho was a Christian.
"The masses have never thirsted after truth. They turn aside from evidence that is not to their taste, preferring to deify error, if error seduce them. Whoever can supply them with illusions is easily their master; whoever attempts to destroy their illusions is always their victim." -Gustave Le Bon
-
Red Stateler wrote:
Wait...You just said he's a Christian. Now you said he was referencing the Koran? Which is it?
It actually doesn't matter, the point being that he was religious and not athiest. For the record, it was a presbyterian church. Seeing as athiests don't go to church, Cho was a Christian.
"The masses have never thirsted after truth. They turn aside from evidence that is not to their taste, preferring to deify error, if error seduce them. Whoever can supply them with illusions is easily their master; whoever attempts to destroy their illusions is always their victim." -Gustave Le Bon
73Zeppelin wrote:
It actually doesn't matter, the point being that he was religious and not athiest. For the record, it was a presbyterian church. Seeing as athiests don't go to church, Cho was a Christian.
Ummmm....You just said his parents made him go to church. Also, why would a Christian quote the Koran, as you said? Why would a Christian claim that Jesus "raped his soul"? Why would he admire the Columbine kids, who were noted atheists?
-
Patrick Sears wrote:
The concept of enlightened self interest comes to mind. Even if one were to accept your premise that atheism itself leads to hedonism, there is still enlightened self interest to contend with, and an even simply intelligent mind will have some sense of enlightened self interest (that is, looking out for their better long term interest rather than their short term whims).
And therein lies the problem. Atheism requires personal promotion, usually at the expense of others, over all things. There will come a time when you cease to exist and all your accomplishments and depravities become absolutely meaningless as, even if they persist in others, there's no way you can conceive of them or their worth. Consequently, what does it matter whether you're a hedonist or dedicate your life to charity? As you say, some might forego instant gratification for long-term comfort, but ultimately either are maximizing your personal gain. It's effects on others shouldn't be of concern so long as they don't directly interfere with you and your goals. The modern world makes that all too easy.
Patrick Sears wrote:
1. Sleep with another man's wife, you're likely to get yourself a whole heap 'o trouble. 2. Killing people without merit is probably going to get YOU killed. 3. Refusing to share and refusing to help is probably going to leave you without any support group, and very, very few individuals are capable of surviving alone - or ever were. Not only that, humans have a very, very strong instinctive drive to group together. Few people are willing to jeopardize their social support group. 4. Stealing is probably going to get you either beaten or killed, or at the very least, locked up or banished (going back to point 3).
The problem with this list is that, when applied to atheism, it actually reduces humanity to the lowest possible level of moral development...pre-conventional morality[^] whereby consequences need only be a concern if you're caught. Perhaps this is why liberals are so concerned with "privacy"? After all, why would adultery be a problem so long as the woman's husband didn't catch you? That would apparently be the only deterrent of immoral acts.
By the way, this is not directly related to your post, but if we're going to continue talking about religion (today or any other day) there's something you should know about me when I call myself 'atheist'. There are two versions of atheism: 1. There is no god 2. I don't care if there is a god; I simply don't believe in one. I am number 2. I am not stupid enough to make a claim on something without evidence - trying to prove a negative. Since the mere question itself seems to stir so much controversy, I prefer to approach things as though there weren't one - and see where things go from there. But I am not brash enough to contend that there is no god and that religion has no place in society. That is naive and short sighted.
------------ Cheers, Patrick
-
73Zeppelin wrote:
It actually doesn't matter, the point being that he was religious and not athiest. For the record, it was a presbyterian church. Seeing as athiests don't go to church, Cho was a Christian.
Ummmm....You just said his parents made him go to church. Also, why would a Christian quote the Koran, as you said? Why would a Christian claim that Jesus "raped his soul"? Why would he admire the Columbine kids, who were noted atheists?
Red Stateler wrote:
Ummmm....You just said his parents made him go to church. Also, why would a Christian quote the Koran, as you said? Why would a Christian claim that Jesus "raped his soul"? Why would he admire the Columbine kids, who were noted atheists?
Why would an athiest go to a presbyterian church?
"The masses have never thirsted after truth. They turn aside from evidence that is not to their taste, preferring to deify error, if error seduce them. Whoever can supply them with illusions is easily their master; whoever attempts to destroy their illusions is always their victim." -Gustave Le Bon
-
Actually, the Old Testament calls for good treatment of strangers, outside of the times Israel was at war. I don't have access to a bible right now, but I know there is a verse somewhere in Deuteronomy (maybe Leviticus) where they are instructed to treat the stranger well, as they were once strangers in Egypt.
So that one instance invalidates all the other instances where god's chosen people will either die or be slaves?
Last modified: 10hrs 43mins after originally posted --
-- Raaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!
-
Oh, and here's another quote from him: "Jesus loved crucifying me. He loved inducing cancer in my head, terrorizing my heart and raping my soul all this time." Does that sound like a Christian to you? It sounds to me he looks at Jesus with utter disdain.
Red Stateler wrote:
Does that sound like a Christian to you? It sounds to me he looks at Jesus with utter disdain.
I guess he was upset with the Lord. Still not an athiest...athiests don't distain Jesus.
"The masses have never thirsted after truth. They turn aside from evidence that is not to their taste, preferring to deify error, if error seduce them. Whoever can supply them with illusions is easily their master; whoever attempts to destroy their illusions is always their victim." -Gustave Le Bon
-
Le Centriste wrote:
I am talking about the idiots who blow themselves up in the name of Allah
could i ask you what will makes you kill you self ?? don't say idiots , they have the brave to die for what they believe in. i don't understand why in your opinion they are idiots ?? please tell me
When you get mad...THINK twice that the only advice Tamimi - Code
I'll give you an honest answer. In our culture, the taking on one's life is considered cowardice and childish. Why? Because we see that there is virtue in dealing with the problems one has in life and that suicide is the easy way out. Personally, I agree with this unapologetically. I see people who kill themselves as childish and weak; the world is probably a better place without them.
-
By the way, this is not directly related to your post, but if we're going to continue talking about religion (today or any other day) there's something you should know about me when I call myself 'atheist'. There are two versions of atheism: 1. There is no god 2. I don't care if there is a god; I simply don't believe in one. I am number 2. I am not stupid enough to make a claim on something without evidence - trying to prove a negative. Since the mere question itself seems to stir so much controversy, I prefer to approach things as though there weren't one - and see where things go from there. But I am not brash enough to contend that there is no god and that religion has no place in society. That is naive and short sighted.
------------ Cheers, Patrick
I have to admit that you're the first atheist on here who is well-reasoned and tempered regarding your position. I've known one other (a friend from college) who based his reasoning on rather sound classical greek philosophy. Unfortunately, I think you're the exception to the rule as most atheists are strictly materialistic and completely disregard the concepts of virtues for their own sake. Without that rare sense of higher order that you apparently have, I believe hedonism and nihilism is a common result.
-
Red Stateler wrote:
Ummmm....You just said his parents made him go to church. Also, why would a Christian quote the Koran, as you said? Why would a Christian claim that Jesus "raped his soul"? Why would he admire the Columbine kids, who were noted atheists?
Why would an athiest go to a presbyterian church?
"The masses have never thirsted after truth. They turn aside from evidence that is not to their taste, preferring to deify error, if error seduce them. Whoever can supply them with illusions is easily their master; whoever attempts to destroy their illusions is always their victim." -Gustave Le Bon
73Zeppelin wrote:
Why would an athiest go to a presbyterian church?
Because his parents made him?
-
73Zeppelin wrote:
Why would an athiest go to a presbyterian church?
Because his parents made him?
Red Stateler wrote:
Because his parents made him?
Because he was religious.
"The masses have never thirsted after truth. They turn aside from evidence that is not to their taste, preferring to deify error, if error seduce them. Whoever can supply them with illusions is easily their master; whoever attempts to destroy their illusions is always their victim." -Gustave Le Bon
-
Red Stateler wrote:
Does that sound like a Christian to you? It sounds to me he looks at Jesus with utter disdain.
I guess he was upset with the Lord. Still not an athiest...athiests don't distain Jesus.
"The masses have never thirsted after truth. They turn aside from evidence that is not to their taste, preferring to deify error, if error seduce them. Whoever can supply them with illusions is easily their master; whoever attempts to destroy their illusions is always their victim." -Gustave Le Bon
73Zeppelin wrote:
athiests don't distain Jesus
Not by definition, but they certainly can. In fact many seem to resent Christians and therefore probably Jesus by proxy. By contrast, it would be completely against Christian beliefs to have disdain for Jesus and doing so would make you decidedly unchristian.
-
Red Stateler wrote:
Because his parents made him?
Because he was religious.
"The masses have never thirsted after truth. They turn aside from evidence that is not to their taste, preferring to deify error, if error seduce them. Whoever can supply them with illusions is easily their master; whoever attempts to destroy their illusions is always their victim." -Gustave Le Bon
73Zeppelin wrote:
Because he was religious.
Yeah...So religiously Christian that he quoted the Koran, expressed disdain for Jesus and revered the atheistic Columbine kids! :rolleyes:
-
So that one instance invalidates all the other instances where god's chosen people will either die or be slaves?
Last modified: 10hrs 43mins after originally posted --
-- Raaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!
You have to pick and choose the bits of the Bible you want to believe in. It's the only way to keep it consistent. :rolleyes:
Ðavid Wulff What kind of music should programmers listen to?
Join the Code Project Last.fm group | dwulff
I'm so gangsta I eat cereal without the milk -
Oh, and here's another quote from him: "Jesus loved crucifying me. He loved inducing cancer in my head, terrorizing my heart and raping my soul all this time." Does that sound like a Christian to you? It sounds to me he looks at Jesus with utter disdain.
Red Stateler wrote:
It sounds to me he looks at Jesus with utter disdain.
Ah, but it also sounds like he believes in Jesus, and therefore cannot be atheist. The way he talks about him is very different to how an atheist would. Sounds to me like he was twisted enough to believe Jesus had caused him grievance. That is impossible for an atheist.
Ðavid Wulff What kind of music should programmers listen to?
Join the Code Project Last.fm group | dwulff
I'm so gangsta I eat cereal without the milk -
Patrick Sears wrote:
The concept of enlightened self interest comes to mind. Even if one were to accept your premise that atheism itself leads to hedonism, there is still enlightened self interest to contend with, and an even simply intelligent mind will have some sense of enlightened self interest (that is, looking out for their better long term interest rather than their short term whims).
And therein lies the problem. Atheism requires personal promotion, usually at the expense of others, over all things. There will come a time when you cease to exist and all your accomplishments and depravities become absolutely meaningless as, even if they persist in others, there's no way you can conceive of them or their worth. Consequently, what does it matter whether you're a hedonist or dedicate your life to charity? As you say, some might forego instant gratification for long-term comfort, but ultimately either are maximizing your personal gain. It's effects on others shouldn't be of concern so long as they don't directly interfere with you and your goals. The modern world makes that all too easy.
Patrick Sears wrote:
1. Sleep with another man's wife, you're likely to get yourself a whole heap 'o trouble. 2. Killing people without merit is probably going to get YOU killed. 3. Refusing to share and refusing to help is probably going to leave you without any support group, and very, very few individuals are capable of surviving alone - or ever were. Not only that, humans have a very, very strong instinctive drive to group together. Few people are willing to jeopardize their social support group. 4. Stealing is probably going to get you either beaten or killed, or at the very least, locked up or banished (going back to point 3).
The problem with this list is that, when applied to atheism, it actually reduces humanity to the lowest possible level of moral development...pre-conventional morality[^] whereby consequences need only be a concern if you're caught. Perhaps this is why liberals are so concerned with "privacy"? After all, why would adultery be a problem so long as the woman's husband didn't catch you? That would apparently be the only deterrent of immoral acts.
Red Stateler wrote:
Atheism requires personal promotion, usually at the expense of others, over all things
Please do explain this conclusion.
Ðavid Wulff What kind of music should programmers listen to?
Join the Code Project Last.fm group | dwulff
I'm so gangsta I eat cereal without the milk -
73Zeppelin wrote:
Because he was religious.
Yeah...So religiously Christian that he quoted the Koran, expressed disdain for Jesus and revered the atheistic Columbine kids! :rolleyes:
Red Stateler wrote:
he quoted the Koran
I didn't say quoted, I said referenced. That supports my claim that he was religious. He revered the Columbine kids for their actions, not their beliefs. So, still religious.
"The masses have never thirsted after truth. They turn aside from evidence that is not to their taste, preferring to deify error, if error seduce them. Whoever can supply them with illusions is easily their master; whoever attempts to destroy their illusions is always their victim." -Gustave Le Bon
-
73Zeppelin wrote:
athiests don't distain Jesus
Not by definition, but they certainly can. In fact many seem to resent Christians and therefore probably Jesus by proxy. By contrast, it would be completely against Christian beliefs to have disdain for Jesus and doing so would make you decidedly unchristian.
Red Stateler wrote:
Not by definition, but they certainly can. In fact many seem to resent Christians and therefore probably Jesus by proxy. By contrast, it would be completely against Christian beliefs to have disdain for Jesus and doing so would make you decidedly unchristian.
That's all besides the point. The point is that we know he attended church and accepted Jesus in a religious sense of being divine (an athiest would not). He may not have "loved Jesus" but his interpretation of him was decidedly non-athiest. He was religious and attended a Presbyterian church where he worshipped the lord. That makes him Christian.
"The masses have never thirsted after truth. They turn aside from evidence that is not to their taste, preferring to deify error, if error seduce them. Whoever can supply them with illusions is easily their master; whoever attempts to destroy their illusions is always their victim." -Gustave Le Bon