|
|
| Will you ask a question? |
| Yes. |
|
22% |
[ 5 ] |
| No. |
|
13% |
[ 3 ] |
| Perhaps. |
|
63% |
[ 14 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 22 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Fri Jan 04, 2008 3:40 pm
I am atheist. I would like to start out with that simple fact.
Is living as an atheist different than living as a Christian? Not much.
Many people are curious about things such as this. I would like to clear up any matters relating to atheism. Have you ever wondered what being atheist is like? Do atheists really believe there is no God, or are they simply trying to trick themselves into believing it so that they do not feel guilty if they do wrong?
I have been asked these questions and more. But is there anything you wonder about? I'd be glad to answer them. Please understand, I do not want to challenge your beliefs, nor try to stop you from beleiving in God. I believe that everyone should be allowed their own beliefs, whatever they may be. I respect this.
(If this topic is found innapropriate for the guild, I understand if it is deleted or locked or such. But try to have an open mind, and know that I respect your Christianity.)
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jan 05, 2008 1:04 am
Trust me, this isn't even approaching innappropriate. xd
I'm an atheist, too. Unfortunately, I believe that I have accidently cast us in a bad light. I can be a bit aggressive online...
Still, I hope they all understand that I really do believe that everyone is entitled to their beliefs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jan 05, 2008 11:01 am
I'd like to ask a question, though I know it's not simple to answer...
How do you, as an athiest, explain the common thought of "Right" and "Wrong" that has been established before mass communication enabled people to share ideas and morals worldwide? It looks as if it's been inserted into virtually every religion, and possibly every human, by a morally absolute force.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jan 05, 2008 2:08 pm
grounder91 I'd like to ask a question, though I know it's not simple to answer... How do you, as an athiest, explain the common thought of "Right" and "Wrong" that has been established before mass communication enabled people to share ideas and morals worldwide? It looks as if it's been inserted into virtually every religion, and possibly every human, by a morally absolute force. Well, first of all, most morals are not universal. But you are correct in saying that most cultures at least try to stray from killing each other too much. (That's the best example I can come up with...) In order for any society to function you'd have to refrain from killing all of your neighbors. Thus, in order for an organized thing like religion to come about they'd have to have a law that made their followers at least not kill other followers. Eventually, this idea became so ingrained in society that it became second nature. Of course, there are always deviants.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jan 05, 2008 7:48 pm
Lethkhar Trust me, this isn't even approaching innappropriate. xd I'm an atheist, too. Unfortunately, I believe that I have accidently cast us in a bad light. I can be a bit aggressive online... Still, I hope they all understand that I really do believe that everyone is entitled to their beliefs. I hope so too. =]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jan 05, 2008 8:08 pm
Lethkhar grounder91 I'd like to ask a question, though I know it's not simple to answer... How do you, as an athiest, explain the common thought of "Right" and "Wrong" that has been established before mass communication enabled people to share ideas and morals worldwide? It looks as if it's been inserted into virtually every religion, and possibly every human, by a morally absolute force. Well, first of all, most morals are not universal. But you are correct in saying that most cultures at least try to stray from killing each other too much. (That's the best example I can come up with...) In order for any society to function you'd have to refrain from killing all of your neighbors. Thus, in order for an organized thing like religion to come about they'd have to have a law that made their followers at least not kill other followers. Eventually, this idea became so ingrained in society that it became second nature. Of course, there are always deviants. True. However, there are many reasons to live by morals. Morals are basically guidelines to the ethics considered acceptable in a society (or religion, etc.). With communication between societies, similar morals may form, such as 'It is not acceptable to kill humans'. However, disconnected societies are more likely to live by what we may think of as radical morals, such as canibalism. Before communication, however, it was necessary for societies to function with relative order and general systems for surviving and aquiring neccessities. To avoid the breakdown of said societies, morals developed. Morals, such as do not kill, do not steal, and do not cheat on your partner helped keep society in order by avoiding deaths (and thus retribution), retain order among systems such as trade and buying and selling, and conflicts between members of said societies, among other consequences. Morals keep societies and religions in order, and were established by societies for this reason.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jan 05, 2008 11:45 pm
I wouldn't call cannibalism a radical moral, rather a ritual or a practice that may have the properties of morals inserted into them... Like baptism, for example.
Hmm. Seems I need to clarify a point better. As always with me. mrgreen
I mentioned a common thought of "Right" and "Wrong". Now, this stuff is present in virtually every serious argument that typical human beings have. Some examples...
1. Man A arguing with Man B over two different pieces of food (I gave you some; now give me some of yours)
2. Man A arguing with Man B over how Man B is treating Man C (Leave him alone; he isn't doing you any harm)
3. Man A arguing with Man B over a promise that Man B had broken to Man A. (Come on, you promised)
Now, the point I'm trying to make isn't about why they're arguing as much. The point of a common thought is why they try to solve the problem the way they do.
In most cases, if not all, Man B the Baddie tries to shift blame from him to something else, as if the particular case that Man A the Accuser is making doesn't apply to him. It may be something like a stomach digestion problem or a technicality in a promise made. Usually, this blame shifting is just trying to get the Accuser off the Baddie's back. In other words, the Baddie is trying to shift the Accuser's mindset from the Baddie's actions being "Wrong" to "Right".
Don't you find it curious, though? Why would the Baddie try to shift the blame when being accused by this Accuser if they don't agree on a common thought of "Right" and "Wrong" is? It would be a huge waste of time trying to convince an Accuser (who doesn't believe more or less the same things you do about "Right" and "Wrong") that the particular case set against the Baddie isn't justified because of a certain thing!
So we must all agree on each other believing in a common thought of "Right" and "Wrong". It's not the point of worrying about deviations that may appear, as it's the common thought we're talking about.
Are there any problems with that? If not, then I'll move on. >.<
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jan 05, 2008 11:54 pm
grounder91 I wouldn't call cannibalism a radical moral, rather a ritual or a practice that may have the properties of morals inserted into them... Like baptism, for example. Hmm. Seems I need to clarify a point better. As always with me. mrgreen I mentioned a common thought of "Right" and "Wrong". Now, this stuff is present in virtually every serious argument that typical human beings have. Some examples... 1. Man A arguing with Man B over two different pieces of food (I gave you some; now give me some of yours) 2. Man A arguing with Man B over how Man B is treating Man C (Leave him alone; he isn't doing you any harm) 3. Man A arguing with Man B over a promise that Man B had broken to Man A. (Come on, you promised) Now, the point I'm trying to make isn't about why they're arguing as much. The point of a common thought is why they try to solve the problem the way they do. In most cases, if not all, Man B the Baddie tries to shift blame from him to something else, as if the particular case that Man A the Accuser is making doesn't apply to him. It may be something like a stomach digestion problem or a technicality in a promise made. Usually, this blame shifting is just trying to get the Accuser off the Baddie's back. In other words, the Baddie is trying to shift the Accuser's mindset from the Baddie's actions being "Wrong" to "Right". Don't you find it curious, though? Why would the Baddie try to shift the blame when being accused by this Accuser if they don't agree on a common thought of "Right" and "Wrong" is? It would be a huge waste of time trying to convince an Accuser (who doesn't believe more or less the same things you do about "Right" and "Wrong") that the particular case set against the Baddie isn't justified because of a certain thing! So we must all agree on each other believing in a common thought of "Right" and "Wrong". It's not the point of worrying about deviations that may appear, as it's the common thought we're talking about. Are there any problems with that? If not, then I'll move on. >.< I'm not really sure why that has to be explained. It's basic human psychology. We try to shift blame, and guilt is practically artificial. (Milgram 1974).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 06, 2008 12:06 pm
Lethkhar grounder91 I wouldn't call cannibalism a radical moral, rather a ritual or a practice that may have the properties of morals inserted into them... Like baptism, for example. Hmm. Seems I need to clarify a point better. As always with me. mrgreen I mentioned a common thought of "Right" and "Wrong". Now, this stuff is present in virtually every serious argument that typical human beings have. Some examples... 1. Man A arguing with Man B over two different pieces of food (I gave you some; now give me some of yours) 2. Man A arguing with Man B over how Man B is treating Man C (Leave him alone; he isn't doing you any harm) 3. Man A arguing with Man B over a promise that Man B had broken to Man A. (Come on, you promised) Now, the point I'm trying to make isn't about why they're arguing as much. The point of a common thought is why they try to solve the problem the way they do. In most cases, if not all, Man B the Baddie tries to shift blame from him to something else, as if the particular case that Man A the Accuser is making doesn't apply to him. It may be something like a stomach digestion problem or a technicality in a promise made. Usually, this blame shifting is just trying to get the Accuser off the Baddie's back. In other words, the Baddie is trying to shift the Accuser's mindset from the Baddie's actions being "Wrong" to "Right". Don't you find it curious, though? Why would the Baddie try to shift the blame when being accused by this Accuser if they don't agree on a common thought of "Right" and "Wrong" is? It would be a huge waste of time trying to convince an Accuser (who doesn't believe more or less the same things you do about "Right" and "Wrong") that the particular case set against the Baddie isn't justified because of a certain thing! So we must all agree on each other believing in a common thought of "Right" and "Wrong". It's not the point of worrying about deviations that may appear, as it's the common thought we're talking about. Are there any problems with that? If not, then I'll move on. >.< I'm not really sure why that has to be explained. It's basic human psychology. We try to shift blame, and guilt is practically artificial. (Milgram 1974). It has to be explained because it reveals something. We all have in ourselves a common thought of morality: a Law of Human Nature. That is an important fact I need to establish as understood.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 06, 2008 6:50 pm
grounder91 Lethkhar grounder91 I wouldn't call cannibalism a radical moral, rather a ritual or a practice that may have the properties of morals inserted into them... Like baptism, for example. Hmm. Seems I need to clarify a point better. As always with me. mrgreen I mentioned a common thought of "Right" and "Wrong". Now, this stuff is present in virtually every serious argument that typical human beings have. Some examples... 1. Man A arguing with Man B over two different pieces of food (I gave you some; now give me some of yours) 2. Man A arguing with Man B over how Man B is treating Man C (Leave him alone; he isn't doing you any harm) 3. Man A arguing with Man B over a promise that Man B had broken to Man A. (Come on, you promised) Now, the point I'm trying to make isn't about why they're arguing as much. The point of a common thought is why they try to solve the problem the way they do. In most cases, if not all, Man B the Baddie tries to shift blame from him to something else, as if the particular case that Man A the Accuser is making doesn't apply to him. It may be something like a stomach digestion problem or a technicality in a promise made. Usually, this blame shifting is just trying to get the Accuser off the Baddie's back. In other words, the Baddie is trying to shift the Accuser's mindset from the Baddie's actions being "Wrong" to "Right". Don't you find it curious, though? Why would the Baddie try to shift the blame when being accused by this Accuser if they don't agree on a common thought of "Right" and "Wrong" is? It would be a huge waste of time trying to convince an Accuser (who doesn't believe more or less the same things you do about "Right" and "Wrong") that the particular case set against the Baddie isn't justified because of a certain thing! So we must all agree on each other believing in a common thought of "Right" and "Wrong". It's not the point of worrying about deviations that may appear, as it's the common thought we're talking about. Are there any problems with that? If not, then I'll move on. >.< I'm not really sure why that has to be explained. It's basic human psychology. We try to shift blame, and guilt is practically artificial. (Milgram 1974). It has to be explained because it reveals something. We all have in ourselves a common thought of morality: a Law of Human Nature. That is an important fact I need to establish as understood. I don't think that's true. What about sociopaths? Plus, those ideas of "right" and "wrong" change with the culture. Sure, we all share the idea of "right" and "wrong", but so does every animal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 06, 2008 8:28 pm
Lethkhar grounder91 Lethkhar grounder91 I wouldn't call cannibalism a radical moral, rather a ritual or a practice that may have the properties of morals inserted into them... Like baptism, for example. Hmm. Seems I need to clarify a point better. As always with me. mrgreen I mentioned a common thought of "Right" and "Wrong". Now, this stuff is present in virtually every serious argument that typical human beings have. Some examples... 1. Man A arguing with Man B over two different pieces of food (I gave you some; now give me some of yours) 2. Man A arguing with Man B over how Man B is treating Man C (Leave him alone; he isn't doing you any harm) 3. Man A arguing with Man B over a promise that Man B had broken to Man A. (Come on, you promised) Now, the point I'm trying to make isn't about why they're arguing as much. The point of a common thought is why they try to solve the problem the way they do. In most cases, if not all, Man B the Baddie tries to shift blame from him to something else, as if the particular case that Man A the Accuser is making doesn't apply to him. It may be something like a stomach digestion problem or a technicality in a promise made. Usually, this blame shifting is just trying to get the Accuser off the Baddie's back. In other words, the Baddie is trying to shift the Accuser's mindset from the Baddie's actions being "Wrong" to "Right". Don't you find it curious, though? Why would the Baddie try to shift the blame when being accused by this Accuser if they don't agree on a common thought of "Right" and "Wrong" is? It would be a huge waste of time trying to convince an Accuser (who doesn't believe more or less the same things you do about "Right" and "Wrong") that the particular case set against the Baddie isn't justified because of a certain thing! So we must all agree on each other believing in a common thought of "Right" and "Wrong". It's not the point of worrying about deviations that may appear, as it's the common thought we're talking about. Are there any problems with that? If not, then I'll move on. >.< I'm not really sure why that has to be explained. It's basic human psychology. We try to shift blame, and guilt is practically artificial. (Milgram 1974). It has to be explained because it reveals something. We all have in ourselves a common thought of morality: a Law of Human Nature. That is an important fact I need to establish as understood. I don't think that's true. What about sociopaths? Plus, those ideas of "right" and "wrong" change with the culture. Sure, we all share the idea of "right" and "wrong", but so does every animal. Sociopaths are simply a form of deviation (from normal human behavior and morals), are they not?
Though the ideas of 'right' and 'wrong' may change with the culture, the majority of the basics stay the same.
NOTE: I am unable to go online during the weekdays. I appologize, but I'll only be able to be online during weekends.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 07, 2008 10:16 am
Eaten By Cheese Lethkhar grounder91 Lethkhar grounder91 I wouldn't call cannibalism a radical moral, rather a ritual or a practice that may have the properties of morals inserted into them... Like baptism, for example. Hmm. Seems I need to clarify a point better. As always with me. mrgreen I mentioned a common thought of "Right" and "Wrong". Now, this stuff is present in virtually every serious argument that typical human beings have. Some examples... 1. Man A arguing with Man B over two different pieces of food (I gave you some; now give me some of yours) 2. Man A arguing with Man B over how Man B is treating Man C (Leave him alone; he isn't doing you any harm) 3. Man A arguing with Man B over a promise that Man B had broken to Man A. (Come on, you promised) Now, the point I'm trying to make isn't about why they're arguing as much. The point of a common thought is why they try to solve the problem the way they do. In most cases, if not all, Man B the Baddie tries to shift blame from him to something else, as if the particular case that Man A the Accuser is making doesn't apply to him. It may be something like a stomach digestion problem or a technicality in a promise made. Usually, this blame shifting is just trying to get the Accuser off the Baddie's back. In other words, the Baddie is trying to shift the Accuser's mindset from the Baddie's actions being "Wrong" to "Right". Don't you find it curious, though? Why would the Baddie try to shift the blame when being accused by this Accuser if they don't agree on a common thought of "Right" and "Wrong" is? It would be a huge waste of time trying to convince an Accuser (who doesn't believe more or less the same things you do about "Right" and "Wrong") that the particular case set against the Baddie isn't justified because of a certain thing! So we must all agree on each other believing in a common thought of "Right" and "Wrong". It's not the point of worrying about deviations that may appear, as it's the common thought we're talking about. Are there any problems with that? If not, then I'll move on. >.< I'm not really sure why that has to be explained. It's basic human psychology. We try to shift blame, and guilt is practically artificial. (Milgram 1974). It has to be explained because it reveals something. We all have in ourselves a common thought of morality: a Law of Human Nature. That is an important fact I need to establish as understood. I don't think that's true. What about sociopaths? Plus, those ideas of "right" and "wrong" change with the culture. Sure, we all share the idea of "right" and "wrong", but so does every animal. Sociopaths are simply a form of deviation (from normal human behavior and morals), are they not?
Though the ideas of 'right' and 'wrong' may change with the culture, the majority of the basics stay the same.
NOTE: I am unable to go online during the weekdays. I apologize, but I'll only be able to be online during weekends. Well, I wasn't considering sociopaths in that. Though if we compare sociopathic behavior and Satanic Pride, it seems to match very well. Whether it's a deviation or a small influence of the Satan/fallen angels in the past is something that I can't make certain... That doesn't matter right now. I think sociopaths have grown in an environment that takes away some of their humanity. Thus, I think it is in fact a deviation that takes nothing from the status of the Law of Human Nature. eek I type too much. An animal will kill and/or fight with teeth and claws if another animal compromises the Animal 'right' and 'wrong'. But I'm just trying to get something made certain right now: there is a common Human thought of 'Right' and "Wrong" shared by most people. Sorry to hear that. ninja
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 07, 2008 7:30 pm
Eaten By Cheese Lethkhar grounder91 Lethkhar grounder91 I wouldn't call cannibalism a radical moral, rather a ritual or a practice that may have the properties of morals inserted into them... Like baptism, for example. Hmm. Seems I need to clarify a point better. As always with me. mrgreen I mentioned a common thought of "Right" and "Wrong". Now, this stuff is present in virtually every serious argument that typical human beings have. Some examples... 1. Man A arguing with Man B over two different pieces of food (I gave you some; now give me some of yours) 2. Man A arguing with Man B over how Man B is treating Man C (Leave him alone; he isn't doing you any harm) 3. Man A arguing with Man B over a promise that Man B had broken to Man A. (Come on, you promised) Now, the point I'm trying to make isn't about why they're arguing as much. The point of a common thought is why they try to solve the problem the way they do. In most cases, if not all, Man B the Baddie tries to shift blame from him to something else, as if the particular case that Man A the Accuser is making doesn't apply to him. It may be something like a stomach digestion problem or a technicality in a promise made. Usually, this blame shifting is just trying to get the Accuser off the Baddie's back. In other words, the Baddie is trying to shift the Accuser's mindset from the Baddie's actions being "Wrong" to "Right". Don't you find it curious, though? Why would the Baddie try to shift the blame when being accused by this Accuser if they don't agree on a common thought of "Right" and "Wrong" is? It would be a huge waste of time trying to convince an Accuser (who doesn't believe more or less the same things you do about "Right" and "Wrong") that the particular case set against the Baddie isn't justified because of a certain thing! So we must all agree on each other believing in a common thought of "Right" and "Wrong". It's not the point of worrying about deviations that may appear, as it's the common thought we're talking about. Are there any problems with that? If not, then I'll move on. >.< I'm not really sure why that has to be explained. It's basic human psychology. We try to shift blame, and guilt is practically artificial. (Milgram 1974). It has to be explained because it reveals something. We all have in ourselves a common thought of morality: a Law of Human Nature. That is an important fact I need to establish as understood. I don't think that's true. What about sociopaths? Plus, those ideas of "right" and "wrong" change with the culture. Sure, we all share the idea of "right" and "wrong", but so does every animal. Sociopaths are simply a form of deviation (from normal human behavior and morals), are they not?
Though the ideas of 'right' and 'wrong' may change with the culture, the majority of the basics stay the same.
NOTE: I am unable to go online during the weekdays. I appologize, but I'll only be able to be online during weekends. Yup. Interestingly enough, the more secluded the society is the more exotic its sense of "right" and "wrong".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 07, 2008 7:32 pm
grounder91 Eaten By Cheese Lethkhar grounder91 Lethkhar grounder91 I wouldn't call cannibalism a radical moral, rather a ritual or a practice that may have the properties of morals inserted into them... Like baptism, for example. Hmm. Seems I need to clarify a point better. As always with me. mrgreen I mentioned a common thought of "Right" and "Wrong". Now, this stuff is present in virtually every serious argument that typical human beings have. Some examples... 1. Man A arguing with Man B over two different pieces of food (I gave you some; now give me some of yours) 2. Man A arguing with Man B over how Man B is treating Man C (Leave him alone; he isn't doing you any harm) 3. Man A arguing with Man B over a promise that Man B had broken to Man A. (Come on, you promised) Now, the point I'm trying to make isn't about why they're arguing as much. The point of a common thought is why they try to solve the problem the way they do. In most cases, if not all, Man B the Baddie tries to shift blame from him to something else, as if the particular case that Man A the Accuser is making doesn't apply to him. It may be something like a stomach digestion problem or a technicality in a promise made. Usually, this blame shifting is just trying to get the Accuser off the Baddie's back. In other words, the Baddie is trying to shift the Accuser's mindset from the Baddie's actions being "Wrong" to "Right". Don't you find it curious, though? Why would the Baddie try to shift the blame when being accused by this Accuser if they don't agree on a common thought of "Right" and "Wrong" is? It would be a huge waste of time trying to convince an Accuser (who doesn't believe more or less the same things you do about "Right" and "Wrong") that the particular case set against the Baddie isn't justified because of a certain thing! So we must all agree on each other believing in a common thought of "Right" and "Wrong". It's not the point of worrying about deviations that may appear, as it's the common thought we're talking about. Are there any problems with that? If not, then I'll move on. >.< I'm not really sure why that has to be explained. It's basic human psychology. We try to shift blame, and guilt is practically artificial. (Milgram 1974). It has to be explained because it reveals something. We all have in ourselves a common thought of morality: a Law of Human Nature. That is an important fact I need to establish as understood. I don't think that's true. What about sociopaths? Plus, those ideas of "right" and "wrong" change with the culture. Sure, we all share the idea of "right" and "wrong", but so does every animal. Sociopaths are simply a form of deviation (from normal human behavior and morals), are they not?
Though the ideas of 'right' and 'wrong' may change with the culture, the majority of the basics stay the same.
NOTE: I am unable to go online during the weekdays. I apologize, but I'll only be able to be online during weekends. Well, I wasn't considering sociopaths in that. Though if we compare sociopathic behavior and Satanic Pride, it seems to match very well. Whether it's a deviation or a small influence of the Satan/fallen angels in the past is something that I can't make certain... That doesn't matter right now. I think sociopaths have grown in an environment that takes away some of their humanity. Thus, I think it is in fact a deviation that takes nothing from the status of the Law of Human Nature. eek I type too much. An animal will kill and/or fight with teeth and claws if another animal compromises the Animal 'right' and 'wrong'. But I'm just trying to get something made certain right now: there is a common Human thought of 'Right' and "Wrong" shared by most people. Sorry to hear that. ninja I suppose they do. It'd be hard for them not to, considering those ideas are exposed to them from childhood.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jan 08, 2008 6:28 pm
This is an interesting discussion, considering that I think psychology is a load of bull.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
