Ai-ya! All right, already. I wanted to make that one valid point about Kohlberg. I’m not here to defend Gilligan and I didn’t drag in all her “unsupported crap,” okay? Calm down.
Another important one is that the CCP simply would not tolerate the degree of pledged allegiance that Catholics have to the Pope. Just as they tried to set up their own sham Lama, they tried to make up and control a system of bishops in China. Many brave and faithful preists spent years in jail for nothing more than refusing to give absolute allegiance to the state and party: even in recent history.
You also have to understand that China has had a LONG LONG history of various small religious movements arising and then throwing the country into chaos. The Falun Gong are being treated so harshly in part because they fit this pattern, and scare the bejizzus out of the current rulers even though they are a relatively inconsequential movement numbers-wise.
Religion, God and Morals are all figments of Mankinds imagination. Religions often dictate morals, which are rules of society often with heavy local influence. For eg: The muslim religion allows polygamy as their domianant geographic conditions had low growth rates, and to keep their society alive they needed more bodies (thousands of years ago… someone should tell them to stop now) … all religions have a major geographical influence and therefore one type may not be suitable in other geographic conditions, spawning a new thread of its parent religion.
Therefore being an atheist could be seen (thousands of years ago) as a person not willing to conform to rules of society, in other words, a criminal. God was just a way of dramatising things so centuries later the speilberg family could capitalise on it.
I am an atheist, I dont beleive in god or endorse a religion that is based on god. In todays world its alright to be an atheist because we have more equalised conditions where god is not required to be a symbol of power. Rules of society are no longer based on that ray of light coming from a really powerful bulb in hollywood (I hope… :dubious:)
Again, more a political reson than a strictly religious one, which was my point.
You see, we´re starting to digress in this board (not something bad in my opinion), but te thing that there´s more than just religion subjects in most of religious conflicts it´s quite an interesting debate. The thing that disappoints me more of religion is its too-much-very-often marriage with political power.
Great example.
kid 2 is moral if he blows up the swing out of turn! he is immoral if he blows up the swing in his turn!
kid 1 is the poor joe blogg who gets blown up by moral kid 2’s.
:eek:
Moral of the story : morality has nothing to do with religion. And as is seen from the story religion has nothing to do with morality either. ;j
Atheists like me are are poor suckers :rolleyes: who get blown up by confused religious fanatics.
Morality:
Treat others as you would have them treat you.
All people have the following unalienable rights: Life, Liberty and Pursuit of happiness.
All other “morals” are false morals. Religions and people that impose their “morals” on others are immoral.
This is incorrect. The Lamas have always been selected according to a method approved by the Qing government, and they always needed to be ratified by the central government.
There’s nothing wrong with what the CCP did.
Not quite. The Falun Gong claims millions of followers, but what enraged the CCP was the group had over 10,000 followers surrounding and blockading Zhongnamhai, sort of like Capitol Hill, so to speak.
My, we are a backward bunch, aren’t you boys?
Like Neanderthals squatted around a newly discovered fire you debate the flatness of earth while man-made satellites spin merrily about in space. Didn’t you all listen when **Cervaise ** posted,
“I believe morality is a by-product of civilization going back to the earliest forms of social organization.” ???
The question above is rhetorical. Of course you didn’t listen. Out of 33 posters posting 61 posts no one responded to the crux of his point. A point that is almost universally accepted by those who bother to think about how social structures come into being.
No! Many of you were too busy marching as if you were in a Gay Pride Parade, or else it was like you were at an AA meeting and at long last you were getting your chance to stand up and shout… “I too am a Atheist!”
Or, others of you, with equal dogma, have been praising the Lord for giving us the right to be good to one another.
Admittedly** Cervaise** did a poor job of making his point ( By-product of cilivization, Cervaise? Cilivization is moreso a product of morality.) so please allow me to capsulize below…
Morality is an invention of evolution that is evolving today. Groups with morality systems that are detrimental to the groups survival likely won’t survive, while those with a healthy system of morality will.
Far be it from me to criticize the “smartest man from Delaware” or whatever, but a rhetorical question is usually, I dunno, usually a question? You can add question marks to a sentance, of course, but “Hi, my name is Milum???” is apt to net you only confused looks.
Anyway, you’re a little late to the party here, in that we’ve discussed Cervaise’s point ad naseum before (or did you think this was the first crack we’ve ever made a this, wadda-call-it, “morality” thing?). More importantly, his point, while important and all, is technically a little off-topic. This issue in THIS thread is to inquire why people would think atheism is immoral. Sadly, almost no one who represents this view has popped in to enlighten us, so things have been a little muddled up until now.
But since you, apparently, seem like someone who could likely argue vociferiously for the immorality of atheism, perhaps you’d like to contribute to the actual thread topic in some way other than calling everyone Neanderthals?
Except there are very specific proceedures for figuring out who the reincarnation of the Lama is that have far more to do with the belief system than the feelings of any government.
Yeah, kipnapping, brainwashing, and torture is definately a hunky dory to rig a process so that the actual approved kid dissappears, and your hand-picked nobody is set up in his place.
They still don’t match many of the movements that caused trouble before in terms of relative numbers to the total population. That one incident was hardly the ONLY thing that enraged the CCP. It was also troubled to find FG members within its own ranks. And, as I said, there is a long long history of these sorts of movements being very dangerous to social control that makes things like the FG seem even more omninous and dangerous than they actually are.
Really? *That[/]'s what morality is?
So, hypothetically, if one group calculates that for its best chances of survival it must commit genocide against all other (competing) groups, then that is a moral decision? And a healthy system?
Apos, now really. It is in poor taste to interupt an ongoing discussion with personal attacks. But since you have…
Apos:* Far be it from me to criticize the “smartest man from Delaware”…*
Apparently it wasn’t far enough, but anyway, get your phrasing right, I am only certified as the “Smartest man in the Southeast”. And please do be careful to include “USA” after the appellation, there’s a guy in Southeastern Asia that get’s his feelings hurt if you don’t.
Apos: * …but a rhetorical question is usually, I dunno, usually a question? You can add question marks to a sentance, of course, but “Hi, my name is Milum???” is apt to net you only confused looks.*
Uh, Apos, the sentence was constructed as a quotation within a question. The redundant question marks were added as a kindness to aid comprehension. Apparently again I failed to know well those to whom I spoke.
Apos: * THIS thread is to inquire why people would think atheism is immoral. Sadly, almost no one who represents this view has popped in to enlighten us, so things have been a little muddled up until now.*
Mmmm. I’m of the old school. I think that before you can discuss whether atheism is or is not immoral there must be at least a modicum of agreement of what the terms “atheism” and “morality” actually mean.
And lastly…
Apos: * But since you, apparently, seem like someone who could likely argue vociferiously for the immorality of atheism, perhaps you’d like to contribute to the actual thread topic in some way other than calling everyone Neanderthals?*
What’s wrong with Neaderthrals, Apos? But no matter, I didn’t call anyone a Neanderthral. I said you were “like” Neanderthrals" meaning that your understanding of the world about you is “primitive” compared to what modern man thinks.
And a signature of this primitive way of thinking is a man who calls himself an Atheist.
**The Great Unwashed **: Really? That’s what morality is?
So, hypothetically, if one group calculates that for its best chances of survival it must commit genocide against all other (competing) groups, then that is a moral decision? And a healthy system?
Really,** Mister Unwashed**, you prostitute the term "*moral*".
A calculation is not a "*moral*".
Take care with the King's English.
:)Milum, do you ever intend to post anything with any content on this board?
Also who exactly “certified” you as “smart?” How much did you pay for your “certification?” Do you have a link to the website that scammed you?
One more thing: it’s n-e-a-n-d-e-r-t-h-a-l, smart guy, not “neanderthral.”
I’ll see reason to get my phrasing right when I have any evidence at all that the appellation resembles anything in our actual reality.
But perhaps the smartest man in the Southeast, USA would enjoy the Pit more than GD? This is generally the proper place for posts that add nothing to an ongoing discussion other than insulting even the author of the sentence you are insulting the rest us for not commenting on.
Well, excoooooooose me!
Previously, you had seemed to offer a definition of morality:
and I just wondered how that fitted with the notion of a fascist (yet fecund, and in terms of its own survival, succesful) society.
Kind of a question really, feel free to answer it.
And here’s another – would you care to provide arguments that support your assertion that morality can’t be calculated?
Diogenes the Cynic, I’m glad you’re back – I never understood your point earlier in the thread, the Hitler/Huck Finn thing…
Sorry, GW I missed your question earlier. I was responding to the suggestion that belief was the determinant factor of whether something was “moral” or not. I was citing examples where the objective morality of an act was contrary to the beliefs of the people commiting the acts. Hitler believed that his cause was just. He actually believed that exterminating Jews was a morally justified act. Very few people would argue that Hitler’s actions were moral simply because he believed they were moral.
Huck Finn (an admittedly fictional character, but i think the example holds up rhetorically) helped a slave to escape. Huck expresses a belief in the book that he is committing a sin by doing so and that he will go to Hell. He believes that he is acting immorally, yet, ironically, he is doing something deeply moral and self-sacrificing.
So the personal belief of an individual can be wrong either way. I think “morality,” such as it is, is largely determined by cultural consensus rather than individual belief (and yes, a “consensus” based morality is non-static and subject to any number of cultural biases, but an individually determined morality is even more subject to those flaws).