New Testingstan

I mean, I could be a lazy person and quote Wikipedia just like he did: Humanism is an approach in study, philosophy, world view or practice that focuses on human values and concerns. In other words it is an outlook or system of thought attaching prime importance to human rather than divine or supernatural matters.

Knubfuck wrote:

Zod wrote:i had to laugh at the 'humanism' response when chocky asked what moral codes atheists follow (i'm pretty sure i'd never heard of secular humanism until a few years ago, and i've been an atheist for awhile now)

i almost kind of wish i hadn't banned myself so i could troll the shit out of that thread

then i read one of chockle's posts and quickly get over that urge

That was my post. What's fumy about it? That's what many atheists use as a moral guide. he asked what atheists use as their moral code and I answered. But he's hell bent on assuming that atheists only have morality because of the remnants of religious morality they learned about prior to changing beliefs.

secular humanism's not really that important or central

when i started my falling out with christianity i was leaning towards buddhism as a more appealing moral guide after flirting with satanism

eventually i just started piecing together bits and pieces from different systems without any of the supernatural bullshit

just because a lot of atheists use it doesn't mean you can make that kind of blanket statement about a group that doesn't have a central anything

i'd wager there's even more atheists that don't know what secular humanism is at all and just go with the flow

Zod wrote:secular humanism's not really that important or central

when i started my falling out with christianity i was leaning towards buddhism as a more appealing moral guide after flirting with satanism

eventually i just started piecing together bits and pieces from different systems without any of the supernatural bullshit

Oh, I know. But I directly answered his question: "What I don't know is the moral code, or codes, that atheists follow. Are there any?" But he had to go all SECULAR HUMANISM LOL without even reading the rest of my post, which stated: "Humanism is all about a system of morality where human interests are the top priority; what we do to help us, as humans, prosper is ideal. It's not that difficult."

Someone who is completely foreign to this concept and is willing to learn would think about the following, after coming across it: what is the societal and human benefit in my stealing someone's possessions? Killing someone? Raping someone? Driving someone into poverty? Not helping those in poverty? The list goes on.

I'm not even going to engage him any further he's too stupid to grasp the concept.

Knubfuck wrote:

Zod wrote:secular humanism's not really that important or central

when i started my falling out with christianity i was leaning towards buddhism as a more appealing moral guide after flirting with satanism

eventually i just started piecing together bits and pieces from different systems without any of the supernatural bullshit

Oh, I know. But I directly answered his question: "What I don't know is the moral code, or codes, that atheists follow. Are there any?" But he had to go all SECULAR HUMANISM LOL without even reading the rest of my post, which stated: "Humanism is all about a system of morality where human interests are the top priority; what we do to help us, as humans, prosper is ideal. It's not that difficult."

Someone who is completely foreign to this concept and is willing to learn would think about the following, after coming across it: what is the societal and human benefit in my stealing someone's possessions? Killing someone? Raping someone? Driving someione into povertyy/ not helping those in poverty? The list goes on.

I'm not even going to engage him any further he's too stupid to grasp the concept.

well the problem wasn't what his question asks, it was the question itself

atheists are not some kind of homogenous group that you can neatly lump into any single code of morality

What if you were never raised religious?

lol at Thanas still keeping an eye on NT.

Aaron wrote:What if you were never raised religious?

lol at Thanas still keeping an eye on NT.

i sort of lump them into 'go with the flow' types

yea i was never raised religious at all

most the stuff i know about jesus i got from

wikipedia


yeah

Zod wrote:well the problem wasn't what his question asks, it was the question itself

atheists are not some kind of homogenous group that you can neatly lump into any single code of morality

I agree but that was the answer I put forth seeing as how I know many who are humanists and a few who are secular humanists. Is it really unfair and/or misguided to say that humanism is what goes with atheism for those who actually give a shit about the topic?

Knubfuck wrote:

Zod wrote:well the problem wasn't what his question asks, it was the question itself

atheists are not some kind of homogenous group that you can neatly lump into any single code of morality

I agree but that was the answer I put forth seeing as how I know many who are humanists and a few who are secular humanists. Is it really unfair and/or misguided to say that humanism is what goes with atheism for those who actually give a shit about the topic?

i find it a bit irksome

i know i can't argue the finer points of secular humanism for shit since i haven't really read all that much about it

all chockles has to do is find an atheist who doesn't know anything about sh

I was raised to be religious but turned away a few months after I turned 18. I went with the flow as well and did not care at all about the topic of morality. but when I started thinking about it, and why murder and other things were considered wrong outside of the law and religion, it made me think about how to defend myself when I am inevitably told I'm immoral.

Ps. I did a persuasive speech this semester with the argument that atheists have a higher sense of morality than theists. Many of my classmates looked shocked.

Zod wrote:all chockles has to do is find an atheist who doesn't know anything about sh

If he does, so what? It still doesn't discount the notion that many atheists use that ethical system simply because he meets one who is probably an atheist who can't defend his moral code.

there isn't any system of morality inherent to atheism, nor to theism

chocula is an idiot, but goddamn, when he drags the code of hammurabi out of its dusty tomb the response is not to say "ya but that's only the first written source there could be earlier secular origins"

it is to do like bak and say "'do unto others etc.' - what part of this requires belief in a god"

because it doesn't matter if a religious guy said it first

Knubfuck wrote:I was raised to be religious but turned away a few months after I turned 18. I went with the flow as well and did not care at all about the topic of morality. but when I started thinking about it, and why murder and other things were considered wrong outside of the law and religion, it made me think about how to defend myself when I am inevitably told I'm immoral.

I was sick of restrictions that I felt were stupid and made no sense. So I actively started trying to show why Christianity was stupid.

If he does, so what? It still doesn't discount the notion that many atheists use that ethical system simply because he meets one who is probably an atheist who can't defend his moral code.

it means you've left a gap for him to evade the point

contrary to what many people believe, most christians get their morals, not from church, but from the society they live in

this is also where most atheists get theirs


we can make an interesting connection to the utilitarianism thread

the opinion there is that it is in the utility function's interest to consume animals for food

but somewhy it seems unlikely that someone raised in a vegetarian society who also believed in utilitarianism, would suddenly look at his utility function one day and say "guys GUYS we should totally start eating these cows"

i just posted on the not being able to defend the code thing in there


now here's an interesting question: when we define ethics, a lot of it comes back to some kind of gut feeling of repugnance when you say "nah that can't be right"

where did that gut feeling come from? i mean if my hypothesis is right and morals are, in great part, passed from parent to child in a similar way as language, and when we do ethical philosophy, we're trying to formalize the rules our guts more or less already know.....

how did it .... evolve .... into what we have today? did it start from biological instincts and then all our ancestors have simply beaten bad behavior out of children over the years based on what got them by?


so "do good for society" isn't some abstract good

it's just selection bias; if our parents hadn't beaten that into us, we would have been out-competed by those that did

lol i think Dooey Jo and i are on the same path somewhat here

The Best part about thanas keeping an eye here is that clearly he doesn't have to address your points

Argument invalidated by source? WHERE IS THE DEBATE ROOLS

adr wrote:i just posted on the not being able to defend the code thing in there


now here's an interesting question: when we define ethics, a lot of it comes back to some kind of gut feeling of repugnance when you say "nah that can't be right"

where did that gut feeling come from? i mean if my hypothesis is right and morals are, in great part, passed from parent to child in a similar way as language, and when we do ethical philosophy, we're trying to formalize the rules our guts more or less already know.....

how did it .... evolve .... into what we have today? did it start from biological instincts and then all our ancestors have simply beaten bad behavior out of children over the years based on what got them by?


so "do good for society" isn't some abstract good

it's just selection bias; if our parents hadn't beaten that into us, we would have been out-competed by those that did

i'd say the simple answer is consistency

a lot of religions just aren't internally consistent, or they're not consistent with existing social norms

i think a lot of inconsistencies and contradictions are responsible for moral crises, and you have to resolve those contradictions somehow

starku wrote:The Best part about thanas keeping an eye here is that clearly he doesn't have to address your points

Argument invalidated by source? WHERE IS THE DEBATE ROOLS

Well it's not like anyone bought his "trust me, I'm a mod" schick anyway.

starku wrote:The Best part about thanas keeping an eye here is that clearly he doesn't have to address your points

yeah he made that simple post far more successful of a troll than the religion of Atheism idea could ever hope to be


so should i make peanut butter cookies? i'm tempted to do orange rolls too but that's more of a breakfast thing

its just that my oven is warm and it seems immoral to put that heat to waste

Open the door and use it to heat the house.

adr wrote:i just posted on the not being able to defend the code thing in there


now here's an interesting question: when we define ethics, a lot of it comes back to some kind of gut feeling of repugnance when you say "nah that can't be right"

where did that gut feeling come from? i mean if my hypothesis is right and morals are, in great part, passed from parent to child in a similar way as language, and when we do ethical philosophy, we're trying to formalize the rules our guts more or less already know.....

how did it .... evolve .... into what we have today? did it start from biological instincts and then all our ancestors have simply beaten bad behavior out of children over the years based on what got them by?


so "do good for society" isn't some abstract good

Can one not argue that because of our biological desire to procreate, that what's good our survival is indeed what's good?

aaron: aye, i'm reminded of an episode of gilmore girls

a window is broken in their house and it's winter in hollywood stars hollow ct

so lorelai and rory are standing by their oven to keep warm

lorelai then remarks "sylvia plath wasn't insane. she was just cold!"


i lol'd. that was was pretty great for a while


* it was great how fake the winters were. i'm not sure where the show was actually filmed, but it obviously wasn't cold and snowing there at all

Knubfuck wrote:Can one not argue that because of our biological desire to procreate, that what's good our survival is indeed what's good?

yeah, i believe so. That could lead to a good for society thing too, since a group can help each other survive.

You guys suck at this so bad it's awesome

Knubfuck wrote:

adr wrote:i just posted on the not being able to defend the code thing in there


now here's an interesting question: when we define ethics, a lot of it comes back to some kind of gut feeling of repugnance when you say "nah that can't be right"

where did that gut feeling come from? i mean if my hypothesis is right and morals are, in great part, passed from parent to child in a similar way as language, and when we do ethical philosophy, we're trying to formalize the rules our guts more or less already know.....

how did it .... evolve .... into what we have today? did it start from biological instincts and then all our ancestors have simply beaten bad behavior out of children over the years based on what got them by?


so "do good for society" isn't some abstract good

Can one not argue that because of our biological desire to procreate, that what's good our survival is indeed what's good?

you could argue that since our survival depends on killing other living creatures our existence is inherently evil