Why might one wish to mitigate one's lack of belief ...

[MikeF]

Yeah, but it is not tangible and real as say a piece of rock.

*sigh*

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

*sigh*

And that is not tangible and real like say a piece of rock.
What is going on, is that we think/fell differently and you can't see that I can't do it. You think/feel that your thinking/feeling is better. But it is only better to you, because of how you think/feel.

 

[Polymath257]

Death is always the crowning insult of a life well lived in Atheist theology. Eventually the sun will eat the earth and there won't be anyone to remember your virtue or your condescension.

So why do you regard that as an insult? As I see it, what is important is what is right now. The people around me, the ways I influence things. I don't need to live forever to feel meaningful. Everyone dies. The question is whether you ever actually live.

 

[Polymath257]

Surely it is the lack of following the ancient ethics which is pushing humanity to extinction.

I would strongly disagree. Adherence to outmoded, ancient ethics is the major problem. It simply isn't equipped to deal with modern problems.

 

[Colt]

So why do you regard that as an insult? As I see it, what is important is what is right now. The people around me, the ways I influence things. I don't need to live forever to feel meaningful. Everyone dies. The question is whether you ever actually live.

Its insulting because your work and character growth are extinguished by death in Atheist theology. You won't exist anyone.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I would strongly disagree. Adherence to outmoded, ancient ethics is the major problem. It simply isn't equipped to deal with modern problems.

That includes some versions of old time philosophy, which are still around. Ans which some non-religious people push today.

 

[PureX]

And part of the problem is that those ancient superstitions have a lot of devotees that think their system is the only way to conduct ethical reasoning. And many of those people make the laws determining where the money goes.

So I agree with you. It would be wonderful if we could actually start a good discussion about ethics. But the first step would have to be to get people to think beyond their traditional systems.

No one is being given even the slightest encouragement to think about human ethics beyond those ancient systems. We spend billions of dollars encouraging increased physical functionality via science, and we spent nothing at all encouraging new ways of exploring our own or collective ethical imperatives. And as a consequence we get more and more powerful, while remaining dangerously unwise.

 

[RestlessSoul]

I would strongly disagree. Adherence to outmoded, ancient ethics is the major problem. It simply isn't equipped to deal with modern problems.

I'm not sure that's necessarily more problematic than the abandonment of ethics altogether, on the grounds that morality and virtue are outmoded concepts.

 

[MikeF]

I'm not sure that's necessarily more problematic than the abandonment of ethics altogether, on the grounds that morality and virtue are outmoded concepts.

I'm not sure how setting aside outmoded and ancient ethics necessitates the elimination of any ethical system.

 

[RestlessSoul]

I'm not sure how setting aside outmoded and ancient ethics necessitates the elimination of any ethical system.

It doesn't. But it does raise the question of what informs the ethics and values of any given society, and on how communities collectively arrive at their common values. There is also the question, of course, of who decides what is ancient and outmoded, and how?

 

[MikeF]

It doesn't. But it does raise the question of what informs the ethics and values of any given society, and on how communities collectively arrive at their common values. There is also the question, of course, of who decides what is ancient and outmoded, and how?

Exactly! Let's ask those questions! As to your second question of who decides, you answered it in your first, collectively.

 

[Alien826]

Its insulting because your work and character growth are extinguished by death in Atheist theology. You won't exist anyone.

First, it's not "atheist theology" that creates death. It's reality. If a doctor told you you had terminal cancer, would you say that the doctor created the cancer? Or that if you believed that there was no cancer you wouldn't have it?

If in fact there was a cure for cancer that doctors knew about and were withholding, then your death would certainly be their fault, but (to drop the analogy) there is no suggestion that atheists are deliberately lying about their beliefs.

A question, if I may? If death makes what we do meaningless, how does infinite life confer meaning? Let's say that we lived for a thousand years. Is what we do still meaningless? How about a billion year lifespan? Still meaningless? Is there any lifespan that ends in death that would not be meaningless? Where does the meaning come from when life becomes infinite? After all, we can never get to infinity, so the only difference (when we are in it) between a billion year life and an infinite life is the knowledge that we won't ever die.

 

[Colt]

First, it's not "atheist theology" that creates death. It's reality. If a doctor told you you had terminal cancer, would you say that the doctor created the cancer? Or that if you believed that there was no cancer you wouldn't have it?

If in fact there was a cure for cancer that doctors knew about and were withholding, then your death would certainly be their fault, but (to drop the analogy) there is no suggestion that atheists are deliberately lying about their beliefs.

A question, if I may? If death makes what we do meaningless, how does infinite life confer meaning? Let's say that we lived for a thousand years. Is what we do still meaningless? How about a billion year lifespan? Still meaningless? Is there any lifespan that ends in death that would not be meaningless? Where does the meaning come from when life becomes infinite? After all, we can never get to infinity, so the only difference (when we are in it) between a billion year life and an infinite life is the knowledge that we won't ever die.

Meaning is an experience in a reflective conscience. No matter how long you live, 100 years or 1 billion years, once dead and gone you have no more conscious mind to reflect on the meanings of your experience.

One living on eternally continues to reflect on the meaning of past experiences.

No matter how far we go in experiencing the many parts of God there will always be more to know.

 

[Revoltingest]

There is no we when you use we and science. That we is not humanity as such. It is a local part of humanity in time and space. A sub-culture.


Sorry, there is no we. That is no different than the one and only True God.

We (many on RF) disagree with you.

 

[PureX]

Surely it is the lack of following the ancient ethics which is pushing humanity to extinction.

Ancient ethics included the efficacy of slavery, warfare, genocide, rape, pillage and murder. All in all, not espcially sophisticated, ethically speaking. I think with some more modern reasoning, we could probably eliminate most of these as ethical possibilities. Unfortunately, no one is even considering it as a serious ethical issue. No one is studying it, or investigating the necessary elimination of these atrocities from common human behavior choices. And saddest of all, no is teaching our succeeding generations why these are hopelessly illogical courses of action. To the contrary, in fact. We routinely infect them with our ignorant love of extreme violence as a solution to life's problems.

We can build machines that will fly us to the moon and back thanks to science, but we still can't reason why engaging in warfare or why poisoning the only environment capable of sustaining human life for the sake of personal profit is an ethically untenable course of action.

Or even why ethics should be our primary motive in how we decide to act, in life, as opposed to, say, greed, ego, or personal comfort.

 

[Polymath257]

It doesn't. But it does raise the question of what informs the ethics and values of any given society, and on how communities collectively arrive at their common values. There is also the question, of course, of who decides what is ancient and outmoded, and how?

Well, we need to learn how to think and train better about ethics. At the very least, it is a good idea to look at ethical questions and what types of things dupe arriving at ethical conclusions.


The clear answer on how to arrive at common values is, as you say, collectively. I would support a strong emphasis on caring about others and thinking through the consequences of our actions. As I see it, compassion for others is one place where ancient systems are weakest. They always have an in group of believers and an out group of disbelievers. Those outside are typically treated with scorn and derision. That is what often leads to unethical behavior based on these systems.