My sense of right and wrong admittedly comes from a Judeo-Christian, Western background. Some core tenets are right out of the Bible (do unto others…). The basic idea to me is don’t screw with somebody else’s life, property, and happiness. Everything else is derivative or can be agreed upon by society.
I don’t think we need a higher power to dictate what’s right and wrong to do to each other. In fact, a higher power has never decided that, because there isn’t one.
How do you determine bad behavior? It may sound pedantic, but that is exactly the question you are asking us. Even you, a Christian, evaluates social mores (and the Bible) using a nebulous source, simply put, what you *feel *is wrong or right.
I wrote responses to all your comments but the above is really all thats relevant so I deleted them.
I think that most so-called atheists are truely think that their own religion is odd.Because simply, atheism is Denying the Undeniable 
(Corrupted beliefs - Be Muslims !)
Well, I are think that I don’t have a religion. That’s what makes I a atheist.
To me, “bad behavior” is any action which is very likely to cause significant harm to myself or others. Your right to swing your arms ends where my nose begins, but I’m all for negotiating a larger buffer zone if that’s okay with you. If I jack off in my bathroom looking at pictures your religion says are “nasty”, that’s not my problem, nor is it yours. The same works from your perspective, I suppose. How do you determine what constitutes bad behavior? Seriously, you’ll be helping me figure out my own position (or at least how to articulate it).
If it is undeniable then it is proveable. Prove it. No one has been able to yet in the history of mankind, so undeniably, absopositively with sugar on top, there is no __d*.
*SSgtBaloo, unless your friend is reading this thread, you are allowed to play with us adults and call the ‘undeniably’ fictional construct, g_d, god.
Read the essay. When come back, bring less strawmen and more substance.
I got a dose of it last week, as a matter of fact. Folks I was bowling with got into a discussion of ethics, etc., and somehow we got around to religion. I said I was agnostic and someone in the group blurted out, “But you’re honest!”
As if non-belief in a god of some sort automatically makes you a liar. I got kinda pissed about it and managed to educate the individual somewhat.
Don’t harm people unless they deserve it
Consider others to your mood’s content
Pain’s a problem, get rid of it
No morals so no one’s bound. Help others if you want
The simple knowledge that you lack, is that individual and social morality was developed way before the object of your superstition of choice was alive - if he even existed.
Humans behave in semi-predictable ways and we can safely expect people to refrain from doing to others what they don’t want done to them in return. It’s Psychology 101.
Science tells us that a society of advanced species like humans, bees, ants, giraffes, elephants, primates, or even flowers, seem to be capable of evolving a moral behavior that would promote a common welfare - otherwise known as morality.
Therefore associating morality with religion is a sign of a failed argument on your part.
Expecting people to fill in the gaps of someone else’s knowledge, when that someone else is unaware of the things they don’t know, is a waste of everyone’s time.
Pretty much the same way you do, it appears. Which leaves me to wonder how Christianity is relevant for you then.
The Golden Rule is just rational self-interest, no divinity required.
I don’t think you’re right, since technically the Golden Rule gets taken advantage of–but if we modify to “a combination of the Golden Rule and the Tit-for-Tat strategy…”
Shinto is a religion, Bushido is not.
Both are over a thousand years old.
I can provide more detail, but that would be a major hi-jack.
Allow me to add another aspect to the debate.
I recently read an article about how the human brain has been shrinking.
Just so there is no misunderstanding, the shrinking brain is fact, we just don’t know why.
But there are a number of theories out there like “we are getting dumber because we don’t need to be smart to survive”, or “we are more efficient at using our brains, so we don’t need big brains”.
My favorite theory is the one where we (humans) have been domesticated. Apparently, all domesticated animals have smaller brains compared to their wild counterparts. So, the theory goes, humans too have been domesticated. Throughout history, humans have been executing people with bad behavior. Murderers for sure, but there used to be death penalties for even minor offenses such as theft. You can also add to that executions of non-believers.
The point is, as an atheist, I would say my morals are dictated by empathy, but perhaps it actually comes from breeding.
Just thought I’d put it out there as I think it is relevant to SSgtBaloo initial question.
Thoughts?
I deny it; therefore it isn’t undeniable.
Religion is in fact quite silly, and would deserve to be simply laughed at if it didn’t cause so much evil.
Ok, I guess we are going there after all. Excuse the hi-jack everyone.
Bushido was part of the Samurai code. The Samurai were warriors of the Shoguns.
The emperor had for hundreds of years had no real power. The power in Japan was held by the Shogun. However, the Shogun could not do anything about the emperor because he was the living god in the Shinto religion. In fact, he was like a Pope in that sense.
The Shoguns were extremely xenophobic and kept Japan isolated. In fact the Japanese only allowed trade with the Dutch and the Chinese and they were only allowed on the island of Dejima.
Then in early 1850’s the US Admiral Perry sailed in to Tokyo harbor and demanded that the Japanese open their borders for trade. Classic gunboat diplomacy.
The Japanese realized how backward they were and so started a few years of civil war in what was called the Meiji restoration. By the early 1870’s the last Shogun Tokugawa stepped down and with him the Samurai were disbanded.
After the emperor was restored to power, there was a race to catch up to the rest of the world and Japan’s industry and military grew very quickly.
You may think that disbandment of the Samurai was the end of the Bushido code, but it wasn’t quite like that. The Meiji restoration left a huge number of Samurai unemployed. It was logical to employ them in the new Imperial army. In fact they became the backbone of the Japanese military and their Bushido philosophy from the days under the Shogun was adapted into the Imperial Army.
You are correct in that Bushido in the Imperial Army was different from the medieval Shogunate Samurai, but it was not reinvented as you suggest, rather it was adapted for a new type of military from what was brought in by the ex-samurai in the new Imperial Army.
SSgtBaloo, I’d really like to hear your response to #111 and #112.
And #115.
Hope the hi-jack didn’t turn you off.