Atheistic forms of morality

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Elok


I've heard the phrase "enlightened self-interest" used so many ways that it's lost all meaning to me. It's been used by Randian objectivists, LaVeyan satanists...

But I don't think of ethics as merely not causing trouble. Altruism is the essence of moral behavior, and the opposite of self-interest. Note that I'm not talking about monkeys watching each others' young or some such. If it's a reciprocated convention, it's hardly altruism, just an exchange of favors.

If a rich guy gives to charity for the poor anonymously, it ain't self-interest in any way, shape or form. The odds of the rich guy ever needing somebody else's charity are negligible. It might make him feel good, I guess...do you stretch that to "self-interest?"

It could be argued that keeping the poor from becoming too disgruntled is very much in the rich man's interest. We wouldn't want a repeat of 1917 would we? From an objective point of view it can be argued that we are not only individuals, but also members of a common society, a sort of extended family by virtue of sharing a common home. Keeping the poor from getting sick protects the rich man's health. Keeping them from going bankrupt protect's the health of the economy the rich man depends upon. Keeping them from becoming frustrated to the breaking point protects social stability.

You'd be surprised how many wealthy familiies eventually fail. Where are the Vanderbilt's now?

[Elok]

Originally posted by BlackCat
No, it was actually quite sencical. Especially since it is common knowledge that god is interfering in what happens on this planet - if not activated by prayers, then by demonstrating gods wrath though different kinds of actions wether it's just a simple storm killing some few people, a hurricane killig more, a tsunmai just more efficient or the best weapon in gods arsenal, an earthquake. Though, I guess that we still have to experience the more deadly meteor or for that matter when the sun decides to change state.

All of those things are considered acts of god and that was just the big ones - several smaller incidents are also his work, so how can you say that god isn't actively intervening ?

Perhaps English isn't your first language? "Act of God" is the name given to natural disasters by insurance salesmen and Pat Robertson (provided at least one person killed by said disaster is/was gay or wiccan). If some people choose to see every unusually strong natural occurence as directly guided by the almighty, that's their business, but I claim no such thing. Frankly, at this point I can't even tell how many layers of sarcasm you're using here, or if you actually think my mind works that simply, or what.

Strangelove: Do you think that's why the rich give to charity? To prevent commoner rebellions, or to stabilize the economy? If that's their motive of self-interest, they take an unusually long-term view of things in that one area when they usually gladly drive the competition out of business. Given the complexity of society, they'd have to give a lot to be sure of having an effect. Ultimately, I don't think you can argue that it's self-interest.

[Philosophiser]

Originally posted by Odin


As a biology major, I find this just plain insulting (especially "evolutionists" as if it were a religion ). Darwinian evolution is one of the best supported concepts is all of science. The creationists twist data, make up BS, or create strawmen in order to trick uneducated laymen who don't understand biology. And, if you think all evolutionary biologists are athiests you are seriously mistaken.

Odin as a biology major you have much to learn. You might want to take some courses on the philosophy of science as well. Since you are still undergrad you have a ways to go yet.

[Philosophiser]

Originally posted by BlackCat


No, it was actually quite sencical. Especially since it is common knowledge that god is interfering in what happens on this planet - if not activated by prayers, then by demonstrating gods wrath though different kinds of actions wether it's just a simple storm killing some few people, a hurricane killig more, a tsunmai just more efficient or the best weapon in gods arsenal, an earthquake. Though, I guess that we still have to experience the more deadly meteor or for that matter when the sun decides to change state.

All of those things are considered acts of god and that was just the big ones - several smaller incidents are also his work, so how can you say that god isn't actively intervening ?

God interferes in EVERYTHING and yes He is very active and concerned with humanity. Nothing is upheld except by God's power. My intelligence (ie my brilliance or lack thereof) is not a factor in the integrity of my beliefs. They stand on their own and can withstand serious philosophical assault. I'm an Ivy League grad and I know plenty of Ivy League and Oxford grad friends who agree with me on these issues.

[Elok]

Originally posted by Philosophiser
Odin as a biology major you have much to learn. You might want to take some courses on the philosophy of science as well. Since you are still undergrad you have a ways to go yet.

As someone new to 'poly, you have much to learn. Hang around for a while and see how many people buy the kind of argument you're trying to sell. Hint: rhymes with "hero."

EDIT: "Ivy league grad." George W. Bush is an ivy league grad, for crying out loud.

[Philosophiser]

Originally posted by Elok


Perhaps English isn't your first language? "Act of God" is the name given to natural disasters by insurance salesmen and Pat Robertson (provided at least one person killed by said disaster is/was gay or wiccan). If some people choose to see every unusually strong natural occurence as directly guided by the almighty, that's their business, but I claim no such thing. Frankly, at this point I can't even tell how many layers of sarcasm you're using here, or if you actually think my mind works that simply, or what.

Strangelove: Do you think that's why the rich give to charity? To prevent commoner rebellions, or to stabilize the economy? If that's their motive of self-interest, they take an unusually long-term view of things in that one area when they usually gladly drive the competition out of business. Given the complexity of society, they'd have to give a lot to be sure of having an effect. Ultimately, I don't think you can argue that it's self-interest.

Pat Roberston if I remember correctly- is a Yale grad and quite intelligent. I'm sure he could hold his own in a debate with any silly Apolytoner .

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Elok
As someone new to 'poly, you have much to learn. Hang around for a while and see how many people buy the kind of argument you're trying to sell. Hint: rhymes with "hero."

He's not new.

[Philosophiser]

Originally posted by Elok


As someone new to 'poly, you have much to learn. Hang around for a while and see how many people buy the kind of argument you're trying to sell. Hint: rhymes with "hero."

That would have more to do with a defect in their own interior position than the actual integrity of my own claims. Modern man has placed reason on a level far above where it should be. God could literally show up at your doorstep and you could invent "reasons" for why you don't want to think that He is God. Reasons are just that- reasons. They are good at helping us make sense of reality, they are good at helping us try to find ways to piece raw observations together, but in the end they are just theorems that are limited and cannot create infallible certitude.

All that being said- To assume that Christ was a fraud, or that His apostles were all liars, and Christianity's success is total chance- and to risk your eternal damnation- is most unreasonable indeed.

[Elok]

If thirty other members of the Christian coalition were the audience and Falwell was the moderator, yes, undoubtedly. Now please stop, every word you type is like an early Christmas present for folks like Black Cat and Molly Bloom.

[Philosophiser]

Originally posted by Elok
If thirty other members of the Christian coalition were the audience and Falwell was the moderator, yes, undoubtedly. Now please stop, every word you type is like an early Christmas present for folks like Black Cat and Molly Bloom.

I have no idea what you are talking about- BUT if you think you can refute my claims and prove my system false you are more than free to give it a shot. I posit you can't, your silly immature ad hominems notwithstanding.

Repent or perish! Christ is the foundation of logic (which as all good philosophers know is inherently circular). Christ is the foundation of all knowledge, His word the Holy Bible informs all things. If you attempt to reason apart from the word of God as your foundation, the whole system is automatically flawed. The true God must be assumed for a man to come to an accurate formulation of the knowledge of the universe.

If you have a problem with Presuppositionalism, you are free to take it up with me or Van Til.

[Elok]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
He's not new.

His profile is. Nov. 2005. If he's a DL, I'd like to know whose. If he's trying to discredit Xtianity, the impression of a real fundie is astonishingly good. If he's got the opposite intention, the person whose DL he is must be new here too, 'cause....well, you know.

[Philosophiser]

Originally posted by Elok


His profile is. Nov. 2005. If he's a DL, I'd like to know whose. If he's trying to discredit Xtianity, the impression of a real fundie is astonishingly good. If he's got the opposite intention, the person whose DL he is must be new here too, 'cause....well, you know.

More immature ad hominems. *yawn*. I was CivNation and DefensorFidei. I guess you weren't using these boards 3-5 years ago.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Elok
His profile is. Nov. 2005. If he's a DL, I'd like to know whose. If he's trying to discredit Xtianity, the impression of a real fundie is astonishingly good. If he's got the opposite intention, the person whose DL he is must be new here too, 'cause....well, you know.

He's CivNation.

[loinburger]

Wasn't he IP-banned?

[Elok]

Before my time, I see. I gather he was some sort of Anti-Fez?