Discipline/lack of and atheism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
12-06-2017, 05:50 AM
RE: Discipline/lack of and atheism
(12-06-2017 05:38 AM)DLJ Wrote:  
(12-06-2017 05:29 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  What is that? DLJ's weekend to-do list? Consider

Pah! That's weekday.

The weekend is for slackening off.

Drinking Beverage

Wink

[Image: giphy.gif]

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
12-06-2017, 05:53 AM (This post was last modified: 12-06-2017 05:57 AM by Jeanne.)
RE: Discipline/lack of and atheism
(11-06-2017 05:08 AM)Thinker Wrote:  I need someone to break stereotypes that atheists are far from disciplined due to their 'lack of faith but also fear in God' as an agent in governing individual discipline. Theists have often argued that atheists are corrupt, drug too much, do not keep their house tidy, do not eat proper food, party too much, have sex with multiple partners/commit to adultery whilst married with kids and slacken off excessively.

I would like to hear about atheists and how they do with self-discipline, self-regulation and responsibility as well as atheist parents who regulate discipline on their kids.

Regardless of the definition of atheism, I'd like to hear from you atheists as humans examples of discipline you do develop and regulate in yourselves (and if parents, on your children).

I am an atheist of moderate to at times rigorous discipline but I won't tell - I'd like to hear a substantial amount of examples from you before I may tell mine. I'm just sick of being ostracised, ridiculed and laughed at by many atheists for being 'too weird, religious and stuff' when I exhibit rigorous self-discipline and regulation and instead being told to 'loosen up' too frequently.

I understand what you mean, even if you may have an ulterior motive for posting.

So...in my locale and my experience Christian people are guilty of arrogance, gossip, adultery, child abuse both physical and psychological, child neglect, spousal abuse both physical and psychological, an inability to accept reality and deal with it, tax cheating, greed, gluttony, dishonesty, lack of integrity, lack of self responsibility, untidy homes and yards, drunkenness, speeding, driving while intoxicated, drug addiction, unruly children, promiscuous teenagers, swinging, lying, stealing, murder, keeping dogs tied up their whole lives, animal abuse, stupid rules against dancing, deliberately keeping girls ignorant, racism, sexism, parental abuse and elder neglect, squandering money and time and abdication of self determination.

And..they do all this under the strict guidance of their Creator Deity with fear of the same, while basking in its divine love. SUPREME FAILURE!

Of course, non-Christians are capable of doing exactly the same sort of stuff.

All any can do...if they choose to...is to live within their capability to be a person of honor and to rear their children to be the same. It will be enough if someone remembers me as an honorable person, who was no hypocrite.

Do this, with or without deity belief, and count yourself as having lived well.

"The Ox is slow, but the Earth is patient."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Jeanne's post
12-06-2017, 06:07 AM
RE: Discipline/lack of and atheism
Well...I can "hear" it now. Honor!

Yes, that is a problem. What is honor and is it similar in meaning for each?

<<adherence to what is right or to a conventional standard of conduct>> according to my computer's dictionary.

All I can say is that it is that, which doesn't bother the conscience, not even a niggling bit, when it is done.

But...even that definition is subjective. Like art, we know it when we see it and we know a piece of junk con when we see it.

Then there are those whose psyche allows them to never be bothered by their actions... But truly, isn't there something wrong there and don't we know it instinctively?

Anyway...sorry about the "honor" thing in case some disagree or disapprove of such a "loose" term.

"The Ox is slow, but the Earth is patient."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-06-2017, 06:24 AM
RE: Discipline/lack of and atheism
(12-06-2017 06:07 AM)Jeanne Wrote:  Well...I can "hear" it now. Honor!

Yes, that is a problem. What is honor and is it similar in meaning for each?

<<adherence to what is right or to a conventional standard of conduct>> according to my computer's dictionary.

All I can say is that it is that, which doesn't bother the conscience, not even a niggling bit, when it is done.

But...even that definition is subjective. Like art, we know it when we see it and we know a piece of junk con when we see it.

Then there are those whose psyche allows them to never be bothered by their actions... But truly, isn't there something wrong there and don't we know it instinctively?

Anyway...sorry about the "honor" thing in case some disagree or disapprove of such a "loose" term.

Honor is more archaic than loose and sometimes maybe even barbaric, like when woman can "shame" man by doing x so man "must" kill her to regain said honor.

For me honor is somewhat shifty concept - x say that he won't allow single hair to fall from y head and then proceed to cut it with caution. Y is dead, no single hair has fallen, honor is upheld.

The first revolt is against the supreme tyranny of theology, of the phantom of God. As long as we have a master in heaven, we will be slaves on earth.

Mikhail Bakunin.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Szuchow's post
12-06-2017, 06:52 AM
RE: Discipline/lack of and atheism
(12-06-2017 06:24 AM)Szuchow Wrote:  Honor is more archaic than loose and sometimes maybe even barbaric, like when woman can "shame" man by doing x so man "must" kill her to regain said honor.

For me honor is somewhat shifty concept - x say that he won't allow single hair to fall from y head and then proceed to cut it with caution. Y is dead, no single hair has fallen, honor is upheld.

I don't see that as honor. Honor is any personal code of conduct that attempts to live by a code of right behavior, as that person sees it, and holding themselves always accountable for behaving according to that code. It can be corrupted by ideologies that tell the person "right behavior" is something that harms others, but generally I don't see the term that way.

Honor is, to me, saying that I will not lie even when I could benefit from it, if that lie would harm another, no matter the cost to me. Honor is saying that I will keep my word when given, no matter the cost to me.

And so on. Honor is a valuable thing. That makes it even more tragic, when it is corrupted by some religious (or other) ideology that makes the person who sticks to their honor into a villain. But I do not think that is generally the case with an honorable person.

For instance: a person of honor might see that their religion "requires" them to kill the apostate, but they have themselves sworn to do no harm to their fellow human beings, and so they take the "sin" of not obeying their religion upon themselves and expect to have to account for it to their god for showing mercy, considering that the honorable thing to do.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
12-06-2017, 07:08 AM
RE: Discipline/lack of and atheism
(12-06-2017 06:52 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  
(12-06-2017 06:24 AM)Szuchow Wrote:  Honor is more archaic than loose and sometimes maybe even barbaric, like when woman can "shame" man by doing x so man "must" kill her to regain said honor.

For me honor is somewhat shifty concept - x say that he won't allow single hair to fall from y head and then proceed to cut it with caution. Y is dead, no single hair has fallen, honor is upheld.

I don't see that as honor. Honor is any personal code of conduct that attempts to live by a code of right behavior, as that person sees it, and holding themselves always accountable for behaving according to that code. It can be corrupted by ideologies that tell the person "right behavior" is something that harms others, but generally I don't see the term that way.

Honor is, to me, saying that I will not lie even when I could benefit from it, if that lie would harm another, no matter the cost to me. Honor is saying that I will keep my word when given, no matter the cost to me.

And so on. Honor is a valuable thing. That makes it even more tragic, when it is corrupted by some religious (or other) ideology that makes the person who sticks to their honor into a villain. But I do not think that is generally the case with an honorable person.

For instance: a person of honor might see that their religion "requires" them to kill the apostate, but they have themselves sworn to do no harm to their fellow human beings, and so they take the "sin" of not obeying their religion upon themselves and expect to have to account for it to their god for showing mercy, considering that the honorable thing to do.

I see honor differently - as shield to hide behind when life calls for difficult (or not, depends on cultural context I guess) decisions, like German upper command refusing to take part in coup against Hitler, under the pretense of swearing the oath of loyalty; honor for me is upholding letter of the agreement hence my earlier example of no single hair where letter was upheld and spirit violated.

In short honor is (for me) thing of the past where people needed to hide their "sins" behind the veneer of being just and true. Still no honor prevented noble knights from killing defenseless and one truly honorable died under Golubac thanks to having it.

The first revolt is against the supreme tyranny of theology, of the phantom of God. As long as we have a master in heaven, we will be slaves on earth.

Mikhail Bakunin.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Szuchow's post
12-06-2017, 09:07 AM (This post was last modified: 12-06-2017 09:10 AM by RocketSurgeon76.)
RE: Discipline/lack of and atheism
(12-06-2017 07:08 AM)Szuchow Wrote:  I see honor differently - as shield to hide behind when life calls for difficult (or not, depends on cultural context I guess) decisions, like German upper command refusing to take part in coup against Hitler, under the pretense of swearing the oath of loyalty; honor for me is upholding letter of the agreement hence my earlier example of no single hair where letter was upheld and spirit violated.

In short honor is (for me) thing of the past where people needed to hide their "sins" behind the veneer of being just and true. Still no honor prevented noble knights from killing defenseless and one truly honorable died under Golubac thanks to having it.

That's the thing... I don't think most knights had honor, in the sense either of us are using it here. That's mostly urban legend, based on stories of great heroes that focused on knightly honor. Most were just soldiers following orders, among whom some were simply greedy and/or psychopathic butchers. The ones who did live by such a code of honor were remarkable for that characteristic-- it would not be remarkable if it had been common.

And as I said, the problem too often is that even people who intend to act with honor can still be corrupted by overriding ideologies that warp their perception of what a good act actually is.

It's one of the reasons I believe it is so important to call out bad ideas for what they are, and not to simply "respect the beliefs" of others as we are so often told to do, since those beliefs can inform terrible behaviors if left unchallenged, even among people who live by the highest codes of personal honor.

The easy example to point to is the US military-- many, many, many (but not all of course) members of the military live according to strict codes of personal honor. And yet, since unquestioning obedience to orders is one of those "virtues", the members of the US military are supporting our empire-building efforts overseas, including using drone strikes that are known to routinely murder innocent women and children. That sort of ideology is why it's so easy to ask what the hells was wrong with the German soldiers who refused to assassinate Hitler-- it would have been (and was, the several times German officers tried to kill him) against their entire social structure to disobey the Leader of Germany, whomever he was. I very much doubt that, regardless of what atrocities are ordered by President Drumph, or how many wars in which he decides to involve us, any US soldier who considers himself honorable would even consider such an act.

Again, this is why ideas are so important. I think the US military, for any faults it may have, has an excellent idea in how the Oath of Allegiance is performed. Soldiers are not asked to swear loyalty to the President, personally, even though he is the Commander in Chief. They swear loyalty to the US Constitution and swear to obey the lawful orders of the officers over them, of whom the President is simply the highest ranking:

"I, (state name of enlistee), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. [So help me God.]"

I was fortunate, at the Academy, to be taught that honor meant weighing the orders I was given against their legality or morality, and to even have a seminar in which a General came and talked to us about why the "but I was under orders" excuse was not a defense against war crime charges, at the Nuremberg trials. I wish such teaching was more common... but I can see why the jingoist types don't want to promote such thinking anymore, post-9/11. Sad

Another oath taken at the Academy, in addition to the above, reads as follow:

"I will not lie, steal, or cheat, nor tolerate among us anyone who does. Furthermore, I resolve to do my duty and to live honorably. [So help me God.]"

Before we held up our hands to give that oath, I clearly remember the officer who gave us the oath explaining that if we lived according to the second sentence of that oath, we never needed to worry about violating the first half.

To me, that is honor... a voluntary code of ethical behavior that goes above and beyond what is normally expected of a citizen or soldier, and adhering to that code. And that is why I think it's so important that we ensure the notion of honor is not corrupted by bad ideas that come in to warp people's notion of what honor means in order to support the agenda associated with that idea. Leninism did it. Nazism did it. Fundamentalists of all stripes do it. [Edit to Add: And jingoists of all stripes promote such corruption of honor, as they have throughout history.] And it is up to people of (actual) honor to stand up against such corruption.

In that sense, Szuchow, I consider you to be a man of high honor. Please take that as the compliment it is intended to be. Smile

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
12-06-2017, 09:15 AM
RE: Discipline/lack of and atheism
On a related note, I think honor is something that should be an atheist/secularist virtue, because it is entirely based on holding one's own self accountable for adherence to a code of virtuous behavior.

Religion has co-opted the idea of an honor oath, with the "So help me God" part, but the reason there are brackets around that phrase in the above is because that part of the oath is not required... it's a tacit admission that one need not really have God's help to keep one's own oath. And the data bears this out. People saying "So help me God" with their hand on a Bible are no more or less likely to be lying in their testimony than a person who does neither of those things, and I think most religious people would admit that, if they really thought about it.

If you think of honor as being a high-level personal code of ethics, and the personal resolve to live by that code of ethics... what more atheistic of a notion could one have?

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
12-06-2017, 09:44 AM (This post was last modified: 12-06-2017 10:00 AM by Szuchow.)
RE: Discipline/lack of and atheism
(12-06-2017 09:07 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  That's the thing... I don't think most knights had honor, in the sense either of us are using it here. That's mostly urban legend, based on stories of great heroes that focused on knightly honor. Most were just soldiers following orders, among whom some were simply greedy and/or psychopathic butchers. The ones who did live by such a code of honor were remarkable for that characteristic-- it would not be remarkable if it had been common.


Even our definitions varies but I doubt not that majority of knights were honorable in eyes of their peers. How we consider it is immaterial.

Quote: And as I said, the problem too often is that even people who intend to act with honor can still be corrupted by overriding ideologies that warp their perception of what a good act actually is.


Honorable does not equal good. Honor is concept too absolute to be useful I would say - oathbreaker is dishonorable by definition but breaking the oath to likes of Idi Amin won't make one bad guy.

Quote: It's one of the reasons I believe it is so important to call out bad ideas for what they are, and not to simply "respect the beliefs" of others as we are so often told to do, since those beliefs can inform terrible behaviors if left unchallenged, even among people who live by the highest codes of personal honor.


Fact that people can behave terribly while living by highest code of personal honor should show how flawed this concept is I would say.

Quote: The easy example to point to is the US military-- many, many, many (but not all of course) members of the military live according to strict codes of personal honor. And yet, since unquestioning obedience to orders is one of those "virtues", the members of the US military are supporting our empire-building efforts overseas, including using drone strikes that are known to routinely murder innocent women and children. That sort of ideology is why it's so easy to ask what the hells was wrong with the German soldiers who refused to assassinate Hitler-- it would have been (and was, the several times German officers tried to kill him) against their entire social structure to disobey the Leader of Germany, whomever he was. I very much doubt that, regardless of what atrocities are ordered by President Drumph, or how many wars in which he decides to involve us, any US soldier who considers himself honorable would even consider such an act.


And that's another problem with honor. It allows to hide inaction behind veil of virtue. It tells you that you're good when you are knee depth in depravity.

As a side note I can't fully condemn those who didn't betray Hitler as I see oaths as something binding and understand psychic pressure tied to breaking them. Not to mention the fact that condemnation is easy but there is no guarantee that I would be better.

Quote: Again, this is why ideas are so important. I think the US military, for any faults it may have, has an excellent idea in how the Oath of Allegiance is performed. Soldiers are not asked to swear loyalty to the President, personally, even though he is the Commander in Chief. They swear loyalty to the US Constitution and swear to obey the lawful orders of the officers over them, of whom the President is simply the highest ranking:

"I, (state name of enlistee), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. [So help me God.]"

I was fortunate, at the Academy, to be taught that honor meant weighing the orders I was given against their legality or morality, and to even have a seminar in which a General came and talked to us about why the "but I was under orders" excuse was not a defense against war crime charges, at the Nuremberg trials. I wish such teaching was more common... but I can see why the jingoist types don't want to promote such thinking anymore, post-9/11. Sad


It sounds good on paper but how it looks in practice?

Quote: Another oath taken at the Academy, in addition to the above, reads as follow:

"I will not lie, steal, or cheat, nor tolerate among us anyone who does. Furthermore, I resolve to do my duty and to live honorably. [So help me God.]"

Before we held up our hands to give that oath, I clearly remember the officer who gave us the oath explaining that if we lived according to the second sentence of that oath, we never needed to worry about violating the first half.

To me, that is honor... a voluntary code of ethical behavior that goes above and beyond what is normally expected of a citizen or soldier, and adhering to that code. And that is why I think it's so important that we ensure the notion of honor is not corrupted by bad ideas that come in to warp people's notion of what honor means in order to support the agenda associated with that idea. Leninism did it. Nazism did it. Fundamentalists of all stripes do it. [Edit to Add: And jingoists of all stripes promote such corruption of honor, as they have throughout history.] And it is up to people of (actual) honor to stand up against such corruption.


It may sound harsh but good person wouldn't need such oath and no oath can make someone better. If somesom lied and cheated before swearing it I consider change of behaviour as highly unlikely.

Also if concept of honor is tied with obedience then conflicts of conscience are inevitable. And I'm afraid that honor might win - history gave us enough examples what happen then. Wasn't it Mannstein who said that German marschals don't betray/conspire? Hardly anyone deem him dishonorable cause of that but what can be easily questioned is his goodness.

Quote: In that sense, Szuchow, I consider you to be a man of high honor. Please take that as the compliment it is intended to be. Smile

Thanks. I don't concern myself with honor I just try to not hurt others and help where I deem it right*. I hope that I'm suceeding in it but it's not up to me to judge it.


*Inaction can hurt too so it seems I'm fucked.

The first revolt is against the supreme tyranny of theology, of the phantom of God. As long as we have a master in heaven, we will be slaves on earth.

Mikhail Bakunin.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-06-2017, 09:58 AM
RE: Discipline/lack of and atheism
(12-06-2017 09:15 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  On a related note, I think honor is something that should be an atheist/secularist virtue, because it is entirely based on holding one's own self accountable for adherence to a code of virtuous behavior.

Religion has co-opted the idea of an honor oath, with the "So help me God" part, but the reason there are brackets around that phrase in the above is because that part of the oath is not required... it's a tacit admission that one need not really have God's help to keep one's own oath. And the data bears this out. People saying "So help me God" with their hand on a Bible are no more or less likely to be lying in their testimony than a person who does neither of those things, and I think most religious people would admit that, if they really thought about it.

If you think of honor as being a high-level personal code of ethics, and the personal resolve to live by that code of ethics... what more atheistic of a notion could one have?

I see it as concept too absolute to be of use and too easily corrupted. Moreover honor may require avenging it - duels are thing of the past, but honor killings aren't.

Honor by being external can force one in action (honor killing) or contrary into disaction (conspiracy against one liege). Conscience may fare better in this regard.

The first revolt is against the supreme tyranny of theology, of the phantom of God. As long as we have a master in heaven, we will be slaves on earth.

Mikhail Bakunin.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Szuchow's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: