Museum of Atheism

evince said:
He’s a weird one


It’s like he seeks the hate of all others


It’s some perverse self hate where he is compelled to make people despise him m hopes they will verbally abuse him


A double braided pretzel brain


Sad
Click to expand...

Thanks you for participating on my thread.

You and almost everyone else was able to do so without indulging in resentment, anger and belligerence.
 
evince said:
Overcoming that flight or fight knee jerk


To retain compassion for a failed humans actions to then still think clearly about what is best for all



It’s not weakness


That is what Jesus was trying to teach mankind
Click to expand...

Reacting and thinking are two different processes.

Reacting is instinctual and can be enhanced with training.

Navy carrier pilots don't have time to analyze "cold shots" on launch or a boltered landing. They have to react; usually either flying the aircraft or ejecting. The Navy training film shows both good reactions and fatal bad reactions. The better they train and practice, the more likely they'll react correctly. There are individual characteristics too, but my point is that "instinct" and "reaction" can be taught.

 
BidenPresident said:
Marx was right. Religious people are dumb.
Click to expand...

It's worth remembering that in Marx's time, however ineffective, opium was the medicine available for many illnesses (as late as my own teetotal great-aunts' time they were supping 'medicines' based on opium), and that, though I can't remember the translation I first read (and they tend to vary a great deal) what Marx writes is a great deal more understanding (religion is ' the heart of a heartless world' and other similar things). The point is that it doesn't answer the disease, not that people were then fools for taking it. It's like being an alcoholic: it is very very difficult to give up the pop. Today they condition us much more effectively.
 
Last edited:
Hello Cypress,

Cypress said:
Lucid moral clarity does not spring forth from nowhere.

That is why history is peppered with great moral thinkers, Plato, Augustine, Sidartha Guatauma, Zarathustra.

For 2,500 years of history - at least since the axial age - humanity's deepest moral awareness has for the most part bbeen forged in the institutions of world religions.

That is why even the most skeptical atheist can genuinely look at the Buddhist eightfold path, the ethical tenets of the New Testament, the lessons of the Bagavad Gita with some measure of admiration.

Whether or not one accepts spirituality, the metaphysical ethical vision in those ancient texts, for the most part, have stood the test of time. I know few people who would rage against the lessons of compassion, mercy, charity duty, humility, modesty found in those texts.


While Jack has had a lot of fun (rightly) mocking the superstitious parts of the bible, he lost view of something of profound importance: Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism are lived religions. Those religions are, first and foremost, about putting those lucid moral visions into practice in this life. Whether or not the afterlife is a superstition is an argument for another day.

Whether or not individual Jews, Muslims Buddhists, Christians actually put into practice the moral tenets of their faith is a matter of choice. JPP leads me to believe most self-proffessed christians don't.
Click to expand...

I have my own code of morality here. Hence, I do not read Jack's posts. I read the posts of no one who has been disrespectful to me because my morality comes from logic. The logic is very straightforward. If someone disrespects you they are likely to do it again. If I do not place a poster on Ignore after the first incident, then I am essentially saying it is OK to disrespect me. It is not. I do not disrespect others here, and I will not be disrespected by others here.

Religion played no part in forming my moral code.

And neither did it play any part in forming my overall moral code. The fact that all these very different religions arrived at the same basic morals logically indicates that religion had nothing to do with it. It is logic. An amoral society disintegrates. A moral one integrates. It really is that simple.

We remain in disagreement, but I have no problem with you believing whatever you wish. I am at peace with my own beliefs. Nothing you have said has caused me to rethink my faith in humanity that overall the good prevails over the bad, although not in every case, and the presence of religion really makes no difference in that.
 
Hello Dutch,

Dutch Uncle said:
Do you have any examples proving amoral societies always self-destruct? Didn't the Soviets scream for years about the decadent West? That homosexuality is amoral?

There is no universal set of moral codes. There is physics and math. There is the reality of human limitations. There is the practicality that it takes 15 years to raise a human to do work defending the village or working to feed it. Therefore it makes sense to protect children. A tribe that doesn't is doomed to die. Physics. Biology. No universal code of morality.

Is there any doubt that "morality" changes with conditions? Feminists Florence Kennedy and Gloria Steinem popularized the statement "If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament". If true, then doesn't that prove morality is situational?
Click to expand...

I agree. Morality is situational.

Humans living in a society is a situation which produces morality or doesn't endure.

Since humans have already endured for thousands of years in societies, social situations produce morality.

Some have melted down along the way, or been eradicated by others, but every society has a moral code.

The codes may differ, but they exist independent of religion.
 
PoliTalker said:
Hello Cypress,



I have my own code of morality here. Hence, I do not read Jack's posts. I read the posts of no one who has been disrespectful to me because my morality comes from logic. The logic is very straightforward. If someone disrespects you they are likely to do it again. If I do not place a poster on Ignore after the first incident, then I am essentially saying it is OK to disrespect me. It is not. I do not disrespect others here, and I will not be disrespected by others here.

Religion played no part in forming my moral code.

And neither did it play any part in forming my overall moral code. The fact that all these very different religions arrived at the same basic morals logically indicates that religion had nothing to do with it. It is logic. An amoral society disintegrates. A moral one integrates. It really is that simple.

We remain in disagreement, but I have no problem with you believing whatever you wish. I am at peace with my own beliefs. Nothing you have said has caused me to rethink my faith in humanity that overall the good prevails over the bad, although not in every case, and the presence of religion really makes no difference in that.
Click to expand...

I don't think I ever asked you to believe anything other than what you wanted to believe.

This is just a discussion of opinions.

I have a lot of respect for atheistic thought, and I have the posts and threads to prove it.


If you believe that as you grew up you independently came up with a clear moral awareness strictly on your own, that's fine.

I think human beings, their knowledge, their moral awareness are to some significant extent a result of the historical, cultural, social mileu they grew up in.

I am 100 percent convinced that if I grew up in East Asia, my life and moral awareness would at a bare minimum, be at least indirectly influenced by Buddhism or Neo-confucianism.
 
PoliTalker said:
Hello Cypress,



I have my own code of morality here. Hence, I do not read Jack's posts. I read the posts of no one who has been disrespectful to me because my morality comes from logic. The logic is very straightforward. If someone disrespects you they are likely to do it again. If I do not place a poster on Ignore after the first incident, then I am essentially saying it is OK to disrespect me. It is not. I do not disrespect others here, and I will not be disrespected by others here.

Religion played no part in forming my moral code.

And neither did it play any part in forming my overall moral code. The fact that all these very different religions arrived at the same basic morals logically indicates that religion had nothing to do with it. It is logic. An amoral society disintegrates. A moral one integrates. It really is that simple.

We remain in disagreement, but I have no problem with you believing whatever you wish. I am at peace with my own beliefs. Nothing you have said has caused me to rethink my faith in humanity that overall the good prevails over the bad, although not in every case, and the presence of religion really makes no difference in that.
Click to expand...

:(

Jack was only pointing out that Cypress, and I can think of no one else, thinks the Dark Ages was a time of scientific inquiry and the highest ethics the world has seen. If it wasn't for a 1,000 years of Ignorance, we wouldn't be where we are now. Then to validate his claim, he starts naming off Greek Scholars.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top