Morality

[fahrenheit 451]

MORALITY

After those US school Killings just recently, there seemed to be a lot of hoo-haa from the Religious Right about bringing God, the Bible and prayer back to public schools. No surprise there then.
They think that a non-religious (secular) upbringing is extremely damaging to children, and society in general, therefore it is necessary to get religion back into public education as soon as possible. Apparently, unless we are taught about an eternity in heaven or hell, we can have no respect for human life and it is then perfectly reasonable to shoot anyone we like (or don't like). Religion (as long as it is Christianity) is seen to be the answer to all the problems that society faces.

Personally, I smell fresh, steaming bullshit.

Firstly, it's pretty obvious that if parents want to teach their kids about Jesus/Allah/Krishna/IPU then no-one is going to stop them. If they want to read their Bible or pray in school, that's fine as long as they do it on their own time and don't make others join in. No problem. Let 'em pray as much as they like as long as it doesn't interfere with their education. If, for some reason, people can't get enough prayer-time in during church, weekends, mornings and evenings and feel they have to spend time doing it privately whilst they're in school as well, nobody will object.

The part I have a problem with is the idea that atheists do not believe in an afterlife or a "meaning" to life, therefore they can have no respect for life and have no problem with killing people. It's as if we watch these horrors on the evening news and either roll about laughing, or think "Great! Another worthless life freed from this bleak torment."

It may be stating the obvious, but it needs to be remembered that many wars, conflicts and persecutions throughout human history have been caused by religious belief of one sort or another. The idea that anyone who believes in a deity is physically incapable of performing any antisocial act is clearly ludicrous, and yet that is what the Religious Right seem to be pushing. If everyone believes in Jesus then there will instantly be no more crime, no more unhappiness, and I guess no more acne either.

A moment's thought should be enough to realise that, if anything, atheists should have more respect for life. We know that this is the only life we get, and we are incredibly lucky to be conscious and aware of the amazing world we live in. We know that if someone's life ends, then that's the end of them. No afterlife, no reincarnation, nothing.

Why on earth would we want to terminate someone's one and only chance at experiencing the pleasure of simply being alive?!?

To turn it round a bit, if you believe that people simply "move on" into an afterlife of some sort, why should that promote respect for life now? If someone dies, hey so what, they'll just go to Heaven and spend trillions of years in extreme bliss. If people really thought that, then a major road-accident should be met with something between indifference and joy. They've gone to Heaven and when I get there I'll see them again (theists generally seem to have no doubts that they and their family/friends are going to Heaven). If this life is but the blink of an eye compared to our life after death, then why do theists get so upset when it is ended?

How is teaching children that this life of a few decades is just a stepping stone to an afterlife of infinite duration and happiness going to instill in them a sense of respect for mortality?

Of course, being taught that your actions here determine your fate afterwards is intended to encourage people to be good, but doesn't that just come down to the idea of "Behave or be punished"? Is it better to be good because you want Heaven and fear Hell, or because you can see that this is the only chance we get at life and everyone deserves the right to enjoy it as much as possible for as long as possible?

Most people, regardless of their lifestyle, seem to think that they are definitely getting into Heaven. If they do something bad, it can always be rationalised away or repented for. If someone does think they're going to Hell, their family and friends will just rally round and talk them out of it, convincing them that God really forgives them as long as they're truly sorry.

Atheists don't have that luxury. We recognise that we must accept responsibility for our own actions and be accountable for them. We can't just pray a bit and then assure people that God has forgiven us - that's for televangelists and presidents.

Surely it's better to teach that this is the only life we get so make the world a better place and don't screw it up for yourself or others, than to teach that this life is insignificant compared with an eternity of bliss?

Which you, of course, will get.

 

[pavlosmarcos]

all those theists, think us atheists, are the devils spawn.
the stupid bit is, we dont beleive in the devil either.
mind you I think some, on this forum have realised that.
I wont get an etenity of bliss, unless I live that long.

 

[audible]

If I were to speak your kind of language, I would say that man's only moral commandment is: Thou shalt think. But a "moral commandment" is a contradiction in terms. The moral is the chosen, not the forced; the understood, not the obeyed. The moral is the rational, and reason accepts no commandments. (ayn rand)

If devotion to truth is the hallmark of morality, then there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.... The alleged short-cut to knowledge, which is faith, is only a short-circuit destroying the mind.(ayn rand)

 

[the preacher]

have you read much, ayn rand.
this is the only credit, I will give to leo volont, he put me on to her, he said she was a nazi, this is simple not so, she was an American novelist and philosopher.
i've been reading a lot about her lately, very wise and interesting person.
here's another couple of quotes.

The Founding Fathers were neither passive, death-worshiping mystics nor mindless, power-seeking looters; as a political group, they were a phenomenon unprecedented in history: they were thinkers who were also men of action. They had rejected the soul-body dichotomy, with its two corollaries: the impotence of man's mind and the damnation of this earth; they had rejected the doctrine of suffering as man's metaphysical fate, they proclaimed man's right to the pursuit of happiness and were determined to establish on earth the conditions required for man's proper existence, by the "unaided" power of their intellect.
-- Ayn Rand


Do you believe in God, Andrei?
No.
Neither do I. But that's a favorite question of mine. An upside-down question, you know.
What do you mean?
Well, if I asked people whether they believed in life, they'd never understand what I meant. It's a bad question. It can mean so much that it really means nothing. So I ask them if they believe in God. And if they say they do -- then, I know they don't believe in life.
Why?
Because, you see, God -- whatever anyone chooses to call God -- is one's highest conception of the highest possible. And whoever places his highest conception above his own possibility thinks very little of himself and his life. It's a rare gift, you know, to feel reverence for your own life and to want the best, the greatest, the highest possible, here, now, for your very own.
-- Ayn Rand,

 

[Leo Volont]

MORALITY

It may be stating the obvious, but it needs to be remembered that many wars, conflicts and persecutions throughout human history have been caused by religious belief of one sort or another.

The Religious Wars have always been characterized by some institutional restraints -- the Chivalric Code of Honor and such.

The Worst Wars have been Secular. All the Wars of the 20th Century -- the Bloodiest Century in History -- were Secular. You Material Atheists really went to work.

But then, going back in History, the worst Mass Slaughters have been attributable to Barbarian Invasions. Barbarians may be superstitious, but they have no Higher Religion.

So, your assertion that wars are primarily Religiously Motivated is just a mantra that you like to repeat.

Even the obvious examples that you could point out -- such as the Crusades, were not really intrinsically Religious. The Mongols had just Invaded and Overthrown the Regimes of the Near East, and were threatening Europe. The Crusades were not a Religious Defense, but a Political one -- if you will allow that Christendom was allowed to have Political Considerations.

 

[Leo Volont]

have you read much, ayn rand.
this is the only credit, I will give to leo volont, he put me on to her, he said she was a nazi, this is simple not so, she was an American novelist and philosopher.
i've been reading a lot about her lately, very wise and interesting person.
here's another couple of quotes.

The Founding Fathers were neither passive, death-worshiping mystics nor mindless, power-seeking looters; as a political group, they were a phenomenon unprecedented in history: they were thinkers who were also men of action. They had rejected the soul-body dichotomy, with its two corollaries: the impotence of man's mind and the damnation of this earth; they had rejected the doctrine of suffering as man's metaphysical fate, they proclaimed man's right to the pursuit of happiness and were determined to establish on earth the conditions required for man's proper existence, by the "unaided" power of their intellect.
-- Ayn Rand


Do you believe in God, Andrei?
No.
Neither do I. But that's a favorite question of mine. An upside-down question, you know.
What do you mean?
Well, if I asked people whether they believed in life, they'd never understand what I meant. It's a bad question. It can mean so much that it really means nothing. So I ask them if they believe in God. And if they say they do -- then, I know they don't believe in life.
Why?
Because, you see, God -- whatever anyone chooses to call God -- is one's highest conception of the highest possible. And whoever places his highest conception above his own possibility thinks very little of himself and his life. It's a rare gift, you know, to feel reverence for your own life and to want the best, the greatest, the highest possible, here, now, for your very own.
-- Ayn Rand,

You quote perfect examples which indicate that Rand was at least a Materialist Atheist. To see she was a Nazi you just need to read her Novels. The Fascism, especially in "Atlas Shrugged" is obvious.

If you can tolerate being tempted by Satan, you should read "Atlas Shrugged". Rand takes you down a road where slowly by slowly you are lead to think of Good as Evil and then of Evil as Good. It shows just how far Propaganda can go. Rand effectively creates a compelling Anti-hero and upholds an Anti-Morality, while attributing all the worst of possible motives to everything the Civilization depends upon.

Hitler might have won if he had had her at his side.

 

[-=T=-]

It shows just how far Propaganda can go.

Funny... I was about to say the same thing about the bible.

 

[Leo Volont]

Funny... I was about to say the same thing about the bible.

I read "Atlas Shrugged".

How many people who complain about the Bible, actually ever read the Bible?

Indeed, many Protestants who swear on the Bible as the exclusive word of God... when questioned a bit, are easily discovered as having not read the Bible.

Besides, you will have to read "Atlas Shrugged" in order to see what I mean about an artful full reverse of Moral Viewpoint. The Bible never completely reverses the sense of Good and Evil (yes there are instances where morality is bent and twisted a bit) but "Atlas Shrugged" might as well have been written by Satan for its ability to glorify selfishness and evil. The Bible doesn't even come close.

 

[-=T=-]

I have indeed read both, and I stand by my previous post.

BTW, it would appear that, based on one of your posts in a different thread (Faith – The First Doctrine of the AntiChrist) you would at least agree about some of the propaganda aspects of the bible-- e.g. the propaganda of Paul. Forgive me if I misunderstood.

P.S.:
Propaganda n. <--- (Note the capital P)
Roman Catholic Church. A division of the Roman Curia that has authority in the matter of preaching the gospel, of establishing the Church in non-Christian countries, and of administering Church missions in territories where there is no properly organized hierarchy.

"The greatest productive force is human selfishness."
~Lazarus Long

 

[Godless]

Audible, Preacher;

I've basically have studied Ayn Rand. See my (objectivist mind) under the name?.

Any how Leo you read Atlas Shrugged, and yet think of her as a Nazi? LOL!! That only means you didn't understand the content of the novel. Try reading "we the living" which pretty much explains her anti-statetist views. By having her characters try and scape Communist Russia. Which pretty much reflects her real life.

A statist system- whether of a communist, fascist, Nazi, socialist or "wlefare" type is based on the government's unlimited power, which means: on the rule of brute force. The differences among the statists systems are only a matter of time and degree; the principle is the same. Under statism, the government is not a policeman, but a legalised criminal that holds the power to use physical force in any manner and for any purpose it pleases against legally disarmed, defenseless victims.
Nothing can ever justify so monstrously evil a theory. Nothing can justify the horror, the brutality, the plunder, the destruction, the starvation, the slave labor camps, the torture chambers, the wholesale slaughter of statist dictatorships. Ayn Rand.

Clearly you can see above that she was against any form of statism.

Godless.

 

[ConsequentAtheist]

The Religious Wars have always been characterized by some institutional restraints -- the Chivalric Code of Honor and such.

It's hard to imagine someone this stupid. You've been reading far too many King Arthur comic books.

 

[Leo Volont]

I have indeed read both, and I stand by my previous post.

BTW, it would appear that, based on one of your posts in a different thread (Faith – The First Doctrine of the AntiChrist) you would at least agree about some of the propaganda aspects of the bible-- e.g. the propaganda of Paul. Forgive me if I misunderstood.

P.S.:
Propaganda n. <--- (Note the capital P)
Roman Catholic Church. A division of the Roman Curia that has authority in the matter of preaching the gospel, of establishing the Church in non-Christian countries, and of administering Church missions in territories where there is no properly organized hierarchy.

"The greatest productive force is human selfishness."
~Lazarus Long

Yes, the word "Propaganda" was taken by English Protestants and made to be a Dirty Word. It use it in that sense. But, yes, originally the word was used in the sense of Religious Publicity without the connation to contrived falsehood which the English hatefully gave it. But since I am writing in the English Language, I take the words and the usages as they are given me.

It reminds of what a Professor friend of mine told me during the Suez Canal Crisis so many years ago... "If we don't stop those Imperialist British soon, we will all be speaking English". The English have indeed conquered the World and we are steeped in their self serving renditions of History. In that light it would be healthy to re-evaluate everything we think we know. To think that the English have been telling us the Truth -- why would we not equally believe Hitler or Stalin had they slipped the World the Big Weenie?

 

[audible]

drugs
sex
self mutilation
suicide
masturbation
selfishness
greed
wealth
money
homosexuality

None of these things are immoral. None of these things are evil.

discrimination
malice
destruction
collectivism
altruism
domination

These things are immoral.

The only thing that can be immoral is that which harms another. Anything one does for oneself or to oneself cannot be immoral, unless it harms another as a direct and intentional result.

Furthermore, nothing that one cannot control can be immoral. One cannot be immoral because they are a particular race. One cannot be immoral because other people like them have been immoral. One cannot be immoral because they were brought up in wealth. One cannot be immoral for disliking the taste of asparagus. One cannot be immoral for being homosexual.

Having an ego is moral. Thinking you are good is moral. Being wealthy is moral. Being powerful is moral. It is what you do with these things that is immoral.

"My morality, the morality of reason, is contained in a single axiom: existence exists, and in a single choice: to live. The rest proceeds from these. To live, man must hold three things as the ruling values of his life: Reason, Purpose, Self-esteem. Reason, as his only tool of knowledge. Purpose, as his choice of the happiness which that tool must proceed to achieve. Self-esteem, as his inviolate certainty that his mind is competent to think and his person is worthy of happiness, which means: worthy of living. These three values imply and require all of man's virtues"
-Ayn Rand

 

[Godless]

An invitation to critic Ayn Rand. I've posted the contradictions, cult status of some followers of her Objectivism, with critics by Nathaniel Branden, come all come to really understand her philosophy, what makes it cult like, and objections to her philosophy.
link

Godless.

 

[Q25]

The Bible never completely reverses the sense of Good and Evil (yes there are instances where morality is bent and twisted a bit)

a bit you say?
thats an understatement
http://thewaronfaith.com/bible_quotes.htm

but "Atlas Shrugged" might as well have been written by Satan for its ability to glorify selfishness and evil. The Bible doesn't even come close.

have you ever seen anyone comercializing this Atlas whatever as much as any bible?
I sure as hell havent even seen it.

 

[audible]

me neither but I am going to read it now, being hearing/reading a lot about ayn rand, and I find very interesting.