Atheism on the Decline; Paganism on the Rise

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Seeker
"Those are concerned with real spiritual growth and enlightenment."

WTF? Is that code for 'making people feel good about themselves'?

I think it means either golf tournaments or shopping trips to Dubai.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Seeker
"Those are concerned with real spiritual growth and enlightenment."

WTF? Is that code for 'making people feel good about themselves'?

I think it means either golf tournaments or shopping trips to Dubai.

[Elok]

Yawn. Ethics is a rationalization of what is properly called morality. People want to believe in right and wrong, but without a God, or some form of cosmic truth beyond the empirically known, there's no sensible reason for it. So they invent one that begs the question anyway. Why do you care whether people remember you when you die? You'll be dead. Does it give you a warm fuzzy feeling that humanity, in theory, will think of your rotting corpse as a just such-and-such? The preservation of society? Eh. Again, you'll be dead. Posterity and the like are false gods with promises proven to be empty. Nor is "serving your conscience" a logical justification for morality; aside from raising the question of why we should choose to obey it without answering that question, the conscience is quite frequently drugged by the rest of the mind to give bunk advice in accord with self-interest.

Assuming other people have feelings, thoughts, recliner chairs, etc., why should the Satanist respect that, aside from fear of retaliation? There's no morality at the heart of his philosophy. He acts in his own interests, and the general trend of arguments within Satanism is to ignore others until they hurt you, then to destroy them to teach them a lesson. It's one of those stupid eleven truths or whatever. And if you discard what LaVey cooked up, or stole and clumsily incorporated, there's nothing left of the "philosophy" but generalized egotism. That's not to mention that society depends on a certain amount of altruism, of "love thy neighbor," which Satanism unequivocally rejects. I do consider LaVey a form of rebellion, I'm ignoring the teenage garbage entirely here.

If a philosophy does not explain why we should be moral before it says what is or is not moral, it is by definition NOT sound. There's no intelligent reason to listen to it at all if it has no purpose. It is built on empty air. My rejection has nothing to do with whether I like the conclusion.

I am aware that religion means different things to different people. I am merely stating my opinion that all those different things are complicated or tangled versions of moral growth, pointing to the same thing in the long run. I don't believe humanity has progressed at all from a moral perspective. Moral improvement is achieved on a personal basis, not applied to society as a mass.

UR: I don't believe I'd commit any "atrocity"; the chance of vengeance is too great. Sin is more than just outward behavior.

BC: The majority of early abolitionists were preachers, genius. Theology is a complex system of reasoning, not just doing what the book says. Get a clue.

Sorry for the tangled response, I probably missed a lot. I have to go to breakfast now.

EDIT for clarity.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Elok
People want to believe in right and wrong, but without a God, or some form of cosmic truth beyond the empirically known, there's no sensible reason for it.

Sensible reasons: social order, cooperation to a greater end than simple existence or survival of one individual, avoidance of the dangers posed by inbreeding....

...lawlessness, freedom from the fear or threat of random acts of violence, security, mutual aid.


I'm sure others can furnish their own lists of 'sensible' reasons for establishing societal norms.

[Elok]

I should probably take this opportunity to remind Molly that he's on my ignore list, if by any chance that recent barrage was addressed to me. I won't elaborate on the reasons to avoid degenerating into flames, but I hope he bears in mind that none of his arguments are reaching me.

With that said, it seems to me I've been more than a trifle abrasive; I've been reading The Lost World, and strange as it sounds I think a little bit of Professor Challenger's rhetorical style has rubbed off on me. Don't take my vitriol too seriously, I'll try to tone it down.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by molly bloom



Sensible reasons: social order, cooperation to a greater end than simple existence or survival of one individual, avoidance of the dangers posed by inbreeding....

...lawlessness, freedom from the fear or threat of random acts of violence, security, mutual aid.


I'm sure others can furnish their own lists of 'sensible' reasons for establishing societal norms.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Elok
I should probably take this opportunity to remind Molly that he's on my ignore list, if by any chance that recent barrage was addressed to me. I won't elaborate on the reasons to avoid degenerating into flames, but I hope he bears in mind that none of his arguments are reaching me.

' Where ignorance is bliss, 'tis folly to be wise.'

[Elok]

Okay, I'll treat that as BC's argument, given that he supports it. I'm not talking about societal norms, I'm talking about morality. Morality is inward reflection just as much as it is outward behavior. Jealousy, envy, pride, lust, vindictiveness, all grow within the individual until they overwhelm those societal norms and wreak havoc. It is "sensible" in a sense to suppress those emotions to that end, but nobody I know of behaves for the express purpose of continuing human society. I disagree with a lot of what B.F. Skinner said, but I acknowledge that people act to gain pleasure and avoid pain. Morals involve a great deal of the opposite.

Gotta go, class. I'll pick this up later.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Elok

Jealousy, envy, pride, lust, vindictiveness, all grow within the individual until they overwhelm those societal norms and wreak havoc. It is "sensible" in a sense to suppress those emotions to that end, but nobody I know of behaves for the express purpose of continuing human society.

Presumably, this is why people codified what were felt to be generally acceptable modes of behaviour into laws, governing what was and was not permissible.

I suppose Hammurabi just sat down and thought,

'Hey! I have five minutes to spare, and I know how to annoy all the would be rapists, thieves, and burglars in society...'

[Giancarlo]

"People want to believe in right and wrong, but without a God, or some form of cosmic truth beyond the empirically known, there's no sensible reason for it."

This again is utterly ridiculous. How can you begin to even claim that? You are saying atheists do not have any morals? How so? Atheists very well have morals. I'm sick of your thinking and logical errors...

[Whaleboy]

Yawn. Ethics is a rationalization of what is properly called morality. People want to believe in right and wrong, but without a God, or some form of cosmic truth beyond the empirically known, there's no sensible reason for it.

Well again you're completely ignoring Kant here, who only takes as his assumption that other people exist. As MB says as well, there is morality as an end in itself, and morality as a means to an end (if one is to accept noumenal morality itself), what makes the latter less valid by the conclusion that you find distasteful?

Why do you care whether people remember you when you die? You'll be dead. Does it give you a warm fuzzy feeling that humanity, in theory, will think of your rotting corpse as a just such-and-such? The preservation of society? Eh. Again, you'll be dead. Posterity and the like are false gods with promises proven to be empty. Nor is "serving your conscience" a logical justification for morality; aside from raising the question of why we should choose to obey it without answering that question, the conscience is quite frequently drugged by the rest of the mind to give bunk advice in accord with self-interest.

You've ignored what I said previously in that the atheist is not motivated by mere logic in your presupposed absense of a spiritual side which I again dealt with above. Love and emotion are as human as anything and in terms of our motivation, for both morality or some kind of posthumous posturing. The absense of God does not mean the absense of a spiritual side, the absense of love, or the absense of emotion.

Posterity however is not a false God if you accept, shall we say, the love and benefit of those left behind after you die, or perhaps some love for humanity; at least no more so than anything we love can take on some kind of "faith" aspect. How does this invoke theism? It looks to me more that you are using a word that is inappropriate here to support your argument with wordplay.

And if you discard what LaVey cooked up, or stole and clumsily incorporated, there's nothing left of the "philosophy" but generalized egotism.

Trimming the fat, as I am attempting to do, results in a descriptive materialist concept that could be called existentialist by some, called nihilist by others, but is essentially the same thing. It is not mere egoism because it stresses rationality over faith as being positive. Having said that, it is a descriptive philosophy, it is not a prescriptive religion so it is not fair to compare it in that respect to one like Christianity which has elements designed for social control and cohesion... the more transcendent philosophies are aimed at the individual, i.e. therapy.

I do consider LaVey a form of rebellion, I'm ignoring the teenage garbage entirely here.

Then you must also reject Taoism, some sects of Tibetan Buddhism and also say that atheism and agnosticism itself are all forms of "rebellion".

If a philosophy does not explain why we should be moral before it says what is or is not moral, it is by definition NOT sound. There's no intelligent reason to listen to it at all if it has no purpose. It is built on empty air. My rejection has nothing to do with whether I like the conclusion.

Well morality is by definition prescriptive, something one should follow. In that sense, a single moral system cannot, by it's absolute nature, allow for any others. Certainly it's compatible with theism, it's also compatible with atheism, as is moral relativism/nihilism, but to establish a morality it is given that it should be followed, the reasons why are provided internally... consider virtue ethics as the best example of that.

I am aware that religion means different things to different people. I am merely stating my opinion that all those different things are complicated or tangled versions of moral growth, pointing to the same thing in the long run. I don't believe humanity has progressed at all from a moral perspective. Moral improvement is achieved on a personal basis, not applied to society as a mass.

Well then you must accept that either transcendent moralities or moral nihilism (allowing for subjectivism) is not "based on air", because one may achieve progress on a personal level. If you think in absolute terms you cannot also purport a subjectivist approach, so you would effectively define moral growth by your own absolute terms.

BC: The majority of early abolitionists were preachers, genius. Theology is a complex system of reasoning, not just doing what the book says. Get a clue.

But the theism is the premise for all of it which colours the rest of the arguments, and if I may say so, yours; by introducing terms such as moral progress is inherently religious, unless you concur with Kant which I doubt, seeing as you have ignored his introduction into this argument.

I should probably take this opportunity to remind Molly that he's on my ignore list, if by any chance that recent barrage was addressed to me. I won't elaborate on the reasons to avoid degenerating into flames, but I hope he bears in mind that none of his arguments are reaching me.

Forgive me if I am prying into areas that are none of my concern, but if he's on your block list for anything other than personal reasons, isn't that slightly immature?

Okay, I'll treat that as BC's argument, given that he supports it. I'm not talking about societal norms, I'm talking about morality. Morality is inward reflection just as much as it is outward behavior. Jealousy, envy, pride, lust, vindictiveness, all grow within the individual until they overwhelm those societal norms and wreak havoc. It is "sensible" in a sense to suppress those emotions to that end, but nobody I know of behaves for the express purpose of continuing human society. I disagree with a lot of what B.F. Skinner said, but I acknowledge that people act to gain pleasure and avoid pain. Morals involve a great deal of the opposite.

That's quite an oppositional approach is it not? If one rejects absolute good and evil, then the "good stuff" and the "bad stuff" inside us ceases to conflict and we are able to advance our understanding of ourselves beyond a theological battleground.

[Elok]

GC: No, I believe atheists "have morals," I just think those morals are justified by very awkward rationalizations cooked up to avoid the unpalatable idea of being taken in by some religion. They can feel on some level that there is an ultimate good, but they have associated belief in anything supersensory with ridiculousness, so they concoct something truly ridiculous instead and call it their reason. Have one's cake and eat it too, as they say.

Whaleboy: I've not read much Kant, and my books aren't available since I'm at college. I'll see if I can dig up some wikipedia on it and get back to you, but you also imply that Nietzsche is worth reading so I'm inclined to treat what you say with a bit of suspicion. Then there was this other bit you linked to in another argument, not Kant, which you said provided an example of non-theistic morals but which ultimately failed the test I have named. With no personal offense meant, I don't have a lot of enthusiasm for digging through pages and pages of philosophy-speak (it resembles algebraic notation to me, I seem to remember Kant being particularly fond of it, and I hate deciphering it) to find out I was misled. Based on the assumption that "other people exist," there appears to be no reason to be moral right there. I smell another glossover buried under vocabulary.

Morality as a means to an end is faulty. I have never heard an end that would be the entire reason for everything moral. Acting for the cohesion of society, for example, tends to ignore the misfortune or sorrow of individuals in favor of not disturbing the herd. Compromises between the individual and the group, as in utilitarianism, are impossible unless you know all circumstances and all possible consequences, which is never the case in real life. You never know who is really hurt or affected the most by things, only your own feelings and impressions, which are all you have to act on.

On that note, I dismiss acting according to emotion because emotion is by convention the absolute enemy of reason. It undermines and sabotages reason on a regular basis. Furthermore, "acting on emotion" is humanity's most primitive state, the way we would behave with no inhibitions, which is most certainly not morality. Aside from what I judge to be paranoia about conspiracies of domination (would you dismiss capitalism because lots of businesses violate antitrust laws?), it makes more sense with any body of knowledge to obtain a group consensus. Moral decisions must be made on the spot by the individual, but morals/ethics are at least partly interpersonal in nature depending on one's school of thought, so a "personal set of ethics" is not very valuable to me.

I can appreciate that I am limited by my perspective, but so is anyone. And I have chosen my perspective from all the alternatives, or so I think, though I was raised in it so who knows. My senses revolt against atheism. I cannot express why concisely, or politely as you have seen, but there is something inexpressibly wrong with the whole worldview, and it's always on the tip of my tongue. At any rate, there is no reason to suppose that you are not similarly "blinded" by the beliefs you have chosen, or were brought up in. I am trying to express myself in terms of my inclinations of judgment more than my beliefs, if that makes any sense.

Satanism endorses rationality over faith largely in the name of egotism. They support rationality just because it lets them do what they please. The rebellion is obvious, just look at the name; they have deliberately chosen a symbol that is in opposition to the norm. No, they don't "worship the devil," but their symbol is of defiance, not positive in nature. I have studied Taoism briefly, and it posits a certain overwhelming design or purpose in the totality of nature. The Te is indeed "strength," not virtue, but there is ostensible harmony outside one's own ends in the form of the Tao. It seemed to me nothing like Satanism's absolute justification of the individual. I do not view agnosticism as rebellion, only atheism can be so in a very minor sense (I think of atheism in the sense of "hard" agnosticism, positively stating that there is no God as opposed to expressing lack of knowledge, which is the literal meaning of agnostic), within the bounds of our society where theism or deism is the norm.

Incidentally, have you ever read any Orthodox theology? I know this is a tangent, but time and time again I've come to realize that we are extremely different from what most people think of when they hear the word Christianity. During my eastern religions class last semester, I was struck by the similarity of many of the tenets of buddhism, hinduism, taoism et al to my own faith. I handed Kallistos Ware's The Orthodox Way to my teacher, who is something of an ecumenist, and she agreed that there was a striking similarity in approach and feel. And I get the sense that you are arguing against something that I don't believe in. Briefly, the original Greek word we translate sin means literally "missing the mark." We think of the Fall as the clouding of the portion of our souls, the nous, which enables us to perceive God. We think of Grace as the uncreated energies of God, not a deliberate intention of thought. This all is not apparent on casual observation, but it is at the heart of our theology. We are far more "transcendent" than you think, or so it seems.

As to Molly, I'm not sure what would NOT be a personal reason for putting someone on one's ignore list, but I put him there simply because my temper is not sufficient to bear his uniquely aggressive rhetorical style. I can't argue with Molly except by flipping him the bird, all he ever seems to do is attack with the same sarcastic talk about invisible unicorns on the moon that I hear from all atheists, all the time. That, and lots of obscure historical references I can't appreciate, and appeals to the dictionary definitions of words which trip me up without clarifying the discussion in any way. I can respect MB's tremendous education and evident intelligence, but no good has ever come from my conversations with him. So I leave him be until one or both of our natures has changed enough to allow reasonable discussion, though how I will know when that day arrives is beyond me. Call that childish if you want, I think it's better than an eternal Agathon-and-Asher style sniping match.

I'm not sure how to reply to your final point. To acknowledge evil as anything less than an enemy would appear to be an abandonment of morality altogether. To talk about the light and dark sides of human nature in a balance is simply to redefine good and evil as "balanced" and "unbalanced." Plus, in my experience it encourages moral/ethical laxity by discouraging direct accountability, but that's another story. What do you suggest as an alternative?

EDIT: I read the relevant sections of Wikipedia's entry on Kant. It seems to be a lot of words to say fairly little to me, but no matter. Why does Kant say we should be moral? Why should we universalize? I'm not you, why should I care what you feel? His answer, from what I could discern, was morality as a God. Morals are a "categorical imperative," and sufficient reason in themselves, determined by following these rules. Which is to say (my reading) that ours is not to question Morality, but to obey. Have I read wrong?

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Elok
Okay, I'll treat that as BC's argument, given that he supports it. I'm not talking about societal norms, I'm talking about morality. Morality is inward reflection just as much as it is outward behavior. Jealousy, envy, pride, lust, vindictiveness, all grow within the individual until they overwhelm those societal norms and wreak havoc. It is "sensible" in a sense to suppress those emotions to that end, but nobody I know of behaves for the express purpose of continuing human society. I disagree with a lot of what B.F. Skinner said, but I acknowledge that people act to gain pleasure and avoid pain. Morals involve a great deal of the opposite.

Gotta go, class. I'll pick this up later.

Of course I support it, otherwise I wouldn't have given it a .

Your statement that it isn't possible to have inward reflections without a god is just rediculous. Those "sins" you mention has nothing to do with wether you belive in a divinity or not. Lots of religious people can't "control" them and lots of nonreligious people has no problem to do that - I'm one. Your problem is that you define morality as the one defined by your religion, and that is wrong - it's just one, and not one of the best. Moral does not in anyway imply that you have to reduce pleasure and highten pain - moral and ethic is a question about how you live your life and interact with other people, and there are no fixed definition - it changes constantly.

Talking about religion - I asked you to define what a "real religion" is - still miss the answer.

Ignore lists. Well, I have one or two times thought about setting some on the list, but they quickly became Mingced meat, so I haven't bothered (guess thats why we have mods). I think that it is pretty stupid to ignore someone just because they don't agree with me or has a harsh way to express it. If they are too lame, I just don't write counterposts. Anyway, I guess that I'm a candidate for your list since I also has used the unicorn argument - it's hard to avoid when someone claims that something written in a book is to be taken as truth.

Just a reminder : what is a "real religion" ?

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Elok
GC: No, I believe atheists "have morals," I just think those morals are justified by very awkward rationalizations cooked up to avoid the unpalatable idea of being taken in by some religion. They can feel on some level that there is an ultimate good, but they have associated belief in anything supersensory with ridiculousness, so they concoct something truly ridiculous instead and call it their reason. Have one's cake and eat it too, as they say.

There are several reasons why this wrong. Atheists have very simple morals like anybody else. Religion did not invent morality, nor did it invent a simplified version of what is right and wrong. I just find it ridiculous you even begin to say so. Religion and god is truly a ridiculous notion, that's all.

[Elok]

I object to pulling out the stupid unicorn rant in response to everything, all the time. Moderate use is obnoxious and bad debate technique, but I won't ignore you for it unless you go out of your way to irritate me. MB is alone on my ignore list, I just can't get along with him. Now do drop it, as it's really none of your business.

I wasn't implying that you need religion to reflect per se, I meant that outward "morality," the reason for most of the stuff you quoted from Molly, is not the true nature of morals. That's more a matter of obedience to law, and very few "real religions," to use the phrase you love so much, are entirely concerned with legalistic obedience.

A "real religion" by my standards is one with a well-thought-out and internally consistent ideology of morals, regardless of whether I approve of the specifics of them. Paganism is exempted for offering basically no moral guidance beyond "do no harm." Wow, that's helpful. Must improve your life to no end to tell yourself, Do No Harm. The fanatical branches of true religions, like wahhabism or the evangelicals, are inconsistent in their application of beliefs, and appear to be the result of unsettled or unhappy time periods. They'll eventually die out, and be replaced by a different set of lunacies the next time a crisis occurs. Satanism is amoral, cults are, well, cults, and atheism obviously is not strictly speaking a religion. Simple enough, or so I think.

While I admit it is possible to reflect on your own morals without a god (maybe you do, I don't know you), I must say it seems unlikely. Without a creed forcing them to inspect themselves, people tend to act without care, which is to say not entirely good or bad most of the time. For me at least, religious belief is at least nine-tenths spiritual discipline. It's a very active process if you really put your heart into it (I admit I often fail to), much more than just stopping periodically to wonder if you're acting like an ass. Ideally, I am supposed to smother evil thoughts such as jealousy or self-congratulation the moment they happen. And that's the most superficial aspect. In every religion I've bothered to investigate, including my own, the ultimate goal is an altered state of consciousness of some sort. It's extremely hard to keep doing, which is why I'm very much inclined to doubt that you can do it without deliberate concentration and a creed that explains it. And you need faith for both. Look up some deeper theology than the 700 Club, or wherever it is you got your idea of my beliefs.

I don't know if you "need" religion to be moral/ethical, but "The Ladder of Divine Ascent" contains a lot more practical and useful advice than, say, what I just read of the writings of Kant in Wikipedia. Or Rousseau, or Mill. They're nothing but outward show. External behavior is bound to reflect inward being. Satanism is concerned with inward being, but in a very bad way. It preaches self-aggrandization, thinking entirely of your own gain, which very strongly discourages honest reflection. I do that sometimes, but at least I know I shouldn't, for crying out loud...