From Deism to Atheism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
27-04-2015, 07:13 PM
RE: From Deism to Atheism
(27-04-2015 07:06 PM)Chas Wrote:  From within.
From our evolved sense of fairness and empathy, from the society we grew up in, from our own emotions.

And what happens when the actions of ones society goes agains our evolved sense of fairness and empathy? Is it society that's wrong then?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-04-2015, 07:15 PM
RE: From Deism to Atheism
(27-04-2015 07:13 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(27-04-2015 07:06 PM)Chas Wrote:  From within.
From our evolved sense of fairness and empathy, from the society we grew up in, from our own emotions.

And what happens when the actions of ones society goes agains our evolved sense of fairness and empathy? Is it society that's wrong then?

I'd say so. Good examples would be North Korea, USSR, East Germany, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and the like.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
27-04-2015, 07:34 PM
RE: From Deism to Atheism
(27-04-2015 06:57 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(27-04-2015 05:42 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Are you saying that the universe only cares about humans?

I don’t recall saying anything about the universe.
What do you mean when you use the term "objective" Does this mean it is a truth independant on observer, independant on location, independant of current state or beliefs? Thus a universal truth?
Without humans who is it that cares about the actions and decisions of sentient beings throughout space?
Do sentient aliens on a distant planet care what humans do to themselves?
How can something be an objective truth if it isn't universally discoverable?
(27-04-2015 06:57 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
Quote:So when you claim an objective moral then this is subjective to humanity?
If an advance alien race flys to Earth do you think while they would be OK with their own babies being tortured they would be deeply distraught to see human babies tortured?

No, I’m saying that moral knowledge, requires beings capable of comprehending it. We don’t judge other animals the same way because we see them as not knowing any better. I don’t expect a lion to behave any differently, than to kill me, we don’t expect him to show me kindness, or mercy.
Would you expect an ISIS warrior to show you kindness or mercy?
Would they be morally wrong in chopping your head off?
(27-04-2015 06:57 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
Quote:I don't see it that way. I don't quite understand the concept of justification.

It might not be easy to understand, but it should be easy to recognize it. Murder is wrong
So you assert. But I don't believe that murder is morally wrong.
How do you propose for me to discover the objective truth on this matter?
What is it that we classify as murder? Is it only what the law states? Does the goverment get to decide what objective morality is? This would be subjective to the decisions made by those in government.
(27-04-2015 06:57 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  taking innocent life is wrong
So you assert, but I don't believe you.
How do you propose for me to discover the objective truth on this matter?
(27-04-2015 06:57 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  in order to make it acceptable we justify it. By saying that it’s necessary in some instances to kill others, to take innocent life, like collateral damage. To violate certain moral principles we resort to all sorts of self-justifying schemes, such as dehumanization.
Some people do this, I agree, Like suggesting that an unborn isn't a "person".
I don't have moral beliefs, I don't have moral principles so I don't have a need for self fabricated justifications. These made up justifications are BS right?
What we need is an objective way to discover the truth, and objective way to discover justifications, but there isn't one. Perhaps morality is a con, a delusion. Perhaps its an unobtainable ideal?
In the meantime do we just conflate our own opinions and look to force them onto others or do we look for a different approach towards constructing a society and rules governing society. Perhaps something built on more tangible ground.
(27-04-2015 06:57 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  We need these justification, true, false, or even delusional, and not particularly to convince others, but often to convince ourselves, in order transgress these moral boundaries.
I have no moral boundaries, i don't need to fabricate justification, I don't need to fool myself in order to do something that I otherwise might be uncomfortable doing.
(27-04-2015 06:57 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  We can't just take our equal from across the pond and make him a slave, he has be not our equal, he has to be less than human, an animal, cursed by God himself, in order for us do so. Why do you think that is? Opinions don’t require as much effort.
I consider a cow to be my equal. I have just as much right to live as it does, I have just as much right to be free from danger as it does, the cow and myself provide just as much value to the universe as each other. And yet, I am happy to eat the cow. I don't justify my position with regards to eating it. It isn't a matter of morality, it is a matter of my ability to digest steak and my ability to do this to a cow without threat of the cows rebelling against me.
(27-04-2015 06:57 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  You would think the folks who want to claim that morality doesn’t exist, that it’s just an opinion, would be our murders and thieves, but instead it tends to be folks who are not anything of the sort.
It isn't moral beliefs that stop us from doing such things. It's the ability to consider consequences and realise that humans will react to protect themselves. If I kill then I will go to prison. If I don't want to go to prison and I want the ability to travel the world then I don't kill.
Does that make sense from a self perspective?
(27-04-2015 06:57 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
Quote:I'm sure you don't consider your government as the authority of right and wrong,
No they are not, nor are legal systems. But these systems, distorted, barbaric, archaic, or not, are attempts to be rooted in the same underlying moral principles. The sort underlying concept like human rights, equality, and justice.
The better countries, with the better laws, try to treat adults in society as if they are adults capable of making their own decisions. The laws are there to protect society rather than to make everyone moral.
(27-04-2015 06:57 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
Quote:Firstly this is the logical fallicy of ad populum.

How so?
You seem to be saying, "Most people agree that X is immoral"
But this doesn't mean that X is immoral.
(27-04-2015 06:57 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  So you don’t try and treat your children, and wife, with love and understanding, striving to be fair with them? You don’t desire to be a good father and husband? Rather than some deadbeat, or a man who skirts his responsibilities, and abandons them?
It seems you are using the word "good" in a different context.
If I treat my wife in one way she stays with me, provides me with companionship, love, sex, helps me look after the kids and house etc.
If I treat her differently she leave me, perhaps I go to prison, perhaps she kills me.
Which future do I want? It has nothing to do with a desire to be "good".
(27-04-2015 06:57 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  If you’re not around, and will never know, do you think it’s okay for your wife to cheat on you? Would you cheat on your wife, if you knew you wouldn’t get caught?
I guess I'm not all about sex. I get enough from my wife, why would I have sex with someone else and risk STD or pregnancy?
Is it OK for my wife to cheat? What do you mean by OK?
(27-04-2015 06:57 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  Do you think it’s okay if your children grow up to treat women as mere objects, to be cruel? To view the homeless, and the crippled as folks that need to be extinguished? Or do you hope that they grow up to be kind and considerate of others?
I don't know how my girls will grow up. I'm hoping they will be financially successful and will look after their old man in his old age.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-04-2015, 08:05 PM
RE: From Deism to Atheism
"Dur dur dur dur I'll make another thread to ask the same duuuur exact questions I've gotten the same exact responses to a dozen times now dur dur dur dur!"

Tedious. :coffe:

It is held that valour is the chiefest virtue and most dignifies the haver.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-04-2015, 08:23 PM
RE: From Deism to Atheism
(27-04-2015 08:05 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  "Dur dur dur dur I'll make another thread to ask the same duuuur exact questions I've gotten the same exact responses to a dozen times now dur dur dur dur!"

Tedious. :coffe:

Q-like. Drinking Beverage

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
28-04-2015, 06:08 AM (This post was last modified: 28-04-2015 08:13 AM by Tomasia.)
RE: From Deism to Atheism
(27-04-2015 07:10 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Exactly. You LEARNED it. Humans generally find taking human life that's considered "innocent'' a bad thing. There is no absolute. At the margins, people disagree all the time about taking life for various reasons (capital punishment etc). Your thinking is very muddled. "Taking innocent life is wrong" EXCEPT that it's OK for the state to require innocent yonng men to lay theirs down for what fat old generals consider a good cause, and which 50 years later they may indeed change their minds about. There are NO absolutes. http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postmor..._--_y.html

But you ignore what these people who disagree already agree on. They're arguing about exceptions for taking innocent life, while already acknowledging that taking innocent life unnecessarily is wrong. They already agree on the wrong, but arguing over when out of necessity this wrong can be transgressed.

The difference here is between two people who acknowledge a speed limit, discussing what sort of emergency situations warrant going over the speed limit. And a third person who declares there's no speed limit at all. This third person is absent in moral disagreements, or arguments for the most part, when he appears like Stevil, we just sort of ignore him, and think he's saying crazy stuff.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-04-2015, 08:12 AM
RE: From Deism to Atheism
(27-04-2015 07:34 PM)Stevil Wrote:  So you assert. But I don't believe that murder is morally wrong.

No, I’m pretty sure, the only thing you don’t believe in is in the word “wrong”, but yet perceive the “wrongness” of murder just like everybody else does.

Quote:What do you mean when you use the term "objective" Does this mean it is a truth independant on observer, independant on location, independant of current state or beliefs? Thus a universal truth?

The only thing the word “objective” here would be used for, is in contrast to your claim that the wrongness of torturing baby’s for the fun of it, is just an opinion, or that it’s wrongness of it is merely that I don’t like it.

Quote:Without humans who is it that cares about the actions and decisions of sentient beings throughout space?

Well, it appears that as of now, it’s just humans considering moral questions, since no aliens have arrived.

Quote:How can something be an objective truth if it isn't universally discoverable?

Isn’t it though? In a lot of way morality is a common sense. The remarkable aspect of various religious moralities, is not their differences, but their similarities. Something we just take for granted. And often use to correctly claim that judeo-christianitiy says nothing unique here, but what has already been said and found in numerous cultures the world over. Consider the golden rule, it’s seemingly universal, a part of religious writing all across the world, recognized independently of each other, and nearly as old as civilization itself.

Even our sense of fairness, is so universal, that we recognize it as so ingrained in us, to declare that it’s truly within our nature, in our biological makeup.

Morality in this innate sense was recognized even by early Christian writers, like the Apostle Paul, who sees the gentiles behaving morally, and perceives morality as within them, their conciseness bearing witness to it, their thoughts alternatively accusing or else defending them. This view of conscious is also universal, acknowledged by religious and non-religious thinkers the world over, from pagan, to islamic thought, etc… We use terms like a moral compass, listen to your conscious, for much of the same reason, that we take them as given, indisputable common sense.

Quote:Would you expect an ISIS warrior to show you kindness or mercy?

Probably, since I’m not white, not a US citizen, am brown and bearded and poor, not a soldier, or symbol of western power. If I wanted to join their movement, they’ll likely welcome me with open arms.

I also don’t expect them to kill me, for much of the same reason I don’t expect suicide bombers, or Al Queda to target the projects.

Quote:Would they be morally wrong in chopping your head off?

If I truly am innocent, than yes they would be. Something I doubt even they would disagree with, that it’s wrong to take innocent life. It’s only those perceived guilty lives, those lives with blood on their hands, that allows them to cross these moral boundaries.

What I found interesting in reading about stories of the Nazi’s, is how many of the soldiers who killed woman and children, were plagued with psychological disorders, like those of combat troops:

“Robert Jay Lifton reports on an interview with a former Wehrmacht neuropsychiatrist who had treated large numbers of death-camp soldiers for psychological disorders. Their symptoms were much like those of combat troops, but they were worse and lasted longer. The men had the hardest time shooting women and children, especially children, and many of them had nightmares of punishment or retribution.

Budziszewski, J (2011-02-16). What We Cant Not Know (p. 207). Ignatius Press. Kindle Edition.

Another interesting account, is by George E. Delury, who killed his wife, claiming it as mercy killing, because his wife suffered form MS. Even though he sees himself as justified, he was still left with certain ramifications from doing what he did:

“once. Immediately after describing the killing, he writes: This act was at the base of a primitive, irrational guilt that haunted me for months after Myrna’s death. It was not a moral guilt, an awareness of having done something ethically wrong; it was more immediate than that, almost physical. . . . I have come to believe we humans, like other primates, have an instinctual block against killing our own kind, a prohibition that, if violated, sets up strong undercurrents of dissonance. .  . . I suspect that after the victorious animal finishes celebrating his or her survival and victory or comprehends the fact of death in an accident, an observer might see some unusual behavior—withdrawal, heightened sensitivity to slights or threats, increased rejection or acceptance of grooming, nervousness, and a host of other possible signs of uneasiness. It was this sort of primordial, instinctual unease that I felt and called “guilt.”

…But I had no moral guilt about the act itself, only about how I had handled it, about the silence. And, at other times, I was referring to this primitive guilt, the dissonance of a primate over the violation of a fundamental instinct.”

Budziszewski, J (2011-02-16). What We Cant Not Know (p. 158). Ignatius Press. Kindle Edition.

Something more fundamental at play here in regards to morality, even among the worst of individuals, to chalk it up as a matter of opinion.

Quote:So you assert. But I don't believe that murder is morally wrong.

Well, you don’t think anything is morally wrong, not just murder? If a man murdered your wife and kids just for fun, however else you may respond you wouldn’t believe he committed a moral wrong, something evil. Correct?

Quote:How do you propose for me to discover the objective truth on this matter?

Well, I think you already know it, that you’re sort of just pretending here, lol. Like in the above example, I have little doubt that you see the wrongness of this, it’s just that you have a problem with using the word “immoral”.

Quote:Some people do this, I agree, Like suggesting that an unborn isn't a "person".

Exactly. Who care if it’s a person?

Quote:Perhaps morality is a con, a delusion. Perhaps its an unobtainable ideal?

And this is what I was a getting at, where I often get to a dead end, where you accused me of a fallacy ad populam. More considered atheists such as yourself, often find themselves having to declare that morality is a con, a delusion, an illusion. Something that folks such as Daniel Dennett, would go as far as saying, that we should be mindful not to let this cat out of the bag, that it has potential to undermine civilization itself. “Better, said Dennett, if the public were told that “for general purposes” the self and free will and objective morality do indeed exist”

http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/h...tml?page=2

I would perhaps tell Mr. Dennet not to worry, because people will likely reject those beliefs that led him to that corner to begin with, before they reject morality.

But the more interesting question is this, if morality is a con, a delusion, how do you account for this con? How do we explain the prevalence, and existence of this false belief? What’s the main source, that fosters, and propagates this con?

Quote:It seems you are using the word "good" in a different context.

I am, but I don’t really mean something different by Good in the context of your family, than I do in relationship to your community, society, or people as a whole. Since the family relationship is more immediate, it’s usually easier to explore these questions in relationship to it.

Quote:If I treat my wife in one way she stays with me, provides me with companionship, love, sex, helps me look after the kids and house etc. If I treat her differently she leave me, perhaps I go to prison, perhaps she kills me.

So do you treat your wife this way, out of fear, that if you didn’t she would leave you? Or are you just saying that even though these consequences would likely follow your poor treatment, they are not really the reason as to why you treat her well?

That you treat her well, tend to your children, primarily because you love them, not out of fear, because there’s no fear in love, as the verse goes?

Quote:, why would I have sex with someone else and risk STD or pregnancy?

The reasons you don’t cheat likely have little to do with STD’s or pregnancy, just like I doubt that your wife is avoiding cheating on you, out of fear of STD’s and pregnancies. If she was tempted to sleep with her coworker, but she tells you she didn’t solely because she was afraid of the risk of pregnancy and STDs, I doubt you would find this to be an acceptable reason.

While we may punish our children for not sharing their toys with their siblings, the basis for why they should share is not about the fear of punishment at all. But rather out of love for each other.

It’s interesting that you avoided saying anything about love in regards to your family, and listed a variety of fears as operative here, STDs and pregnancies, murder even, and prison time. While it’s particularly easy to not see the Good in fear. But the Goodness of love on other hand, is more self-evident.

Quote:I don't know how my girls will grow up. I'm hoping they will be financially successful and will look after their old man in his old age.

That they would look after you out of love for you, and not out of fear that you might write them out of your will if they didn’t?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-04-2015, 08:22 AM
RE: From Deism to Atheism
(27-04-2015 03:26 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(27-04-2015 02:02 PM)Adrianime Wrote:  I can't even tell what is being argued or how it ties into the OP anymore. Did this somehow shift into an argument about the definition of atheism? Consider

Well the OP wasn't an argument. I was just curious as to why folks who might have at onetime identified themselves as a deist later abandoned it for atheism. Nearly all the folks who responded to the OP, stated they clung to deism for "emotional support", a way of believing that someone was watching out for them, and not for any particular rational reason.

Some interesting arguments broke out along the way, and we just continued them.
I see. Sounds like the reason people cling to deism is the same reason most people cling to theism.

I prefer fantasy, but I have to live in reality.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-04-2015, 08:59 AM
RE: From Deism to Atheism
(28-04-2015 08:22 AM)Adrianime Wrote:  I see. Sounds like the reason people cling to deism is the same reason most people cling to theism.

That seems to be the case here, particularly for those whose deism was just a brief detour on the way to atheism, a net to carry them from belief to disbelief.

Though this doesn't seem to be the case for more committed deist. I had asked this question in a Facebook forum in which actual deist hang out, and for the most part the arguments seemed to revolve around a certain perceived incredulity of alternative explanations, while lacking any real emotional investment in their deism. Their deism seemed to be similar to Thomas Nagel's "neutral monism", which he believes more so for rational reasons, even if one thinks his reasons are wrong, than any emotional appeal.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-04-2015, 03:46 PM
RE: From Deism to Atheism
(28-04-2015 08:12 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  The only thing the word “objective” here would be used for, is in contrast to your claim that the wrongness of torturing baby’s for the fun of it, is just an opinion, or that it’s wrongness of it is merely that I don’t like it.
But that is the truth. You claim something as universally wrong because you don't like it.
An alien race may see human's torturing human babies as an interesting human behavior rather than something morally wrong.
There is a tribe in the Amazon that kill defective babies. Are they morally wrong to do so? Perhaps they consider it morally wrong to let defective babies live.
Many Jewish and Christians circumcise babies, this is a form of torture, some people consider circumcision morally wrong, some people consider it morally wrong not to circumcise.
It seems to me that moral rights and wrongs are a matter of opinion of the individual who is making the judgement. And it is evident that people differ on such judgements hence we cannot trust people's opinions to know objective moral truths.

(28-04-2015 08:12 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
Quote:Without humans who is it that cares about the actions and decisions of sentient beings throughout space?

Well, it appears that as of now, it’s just humans considering moral questions, since no aliens have arrived.
You can't prove that aliens aren't somewhere in the universe. Are we humans concerned about the moral wrong doing of aliens? Should we be determined to develop space travel and seek these aliens out and forcibly stop them performing any moral wrong doings? Or should we let them live life as they see fit rather than try to aggressively force our own subjective moral beliefs onto them?

What about the Amazon tribe? Should we interfere in their lives and stop them killing their own defective babies? Merely because we don't like it?

(28-04-2015 08:12 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
Quote:How can something be an objective truth if it isn't universally discoverable?

Isn’t it though? In a lot of way morality is a common sense. The remarkable aspect of various religious moralities, is not their differences, but their similarities.
This is the thing, you are noticing a pattern calling it remarkable and are coming to a conclusion of deep, profound, universal truth. But you aren't considering the alternatives.
Probably because your already held beliefs are confirmed by your conclusion of your observation. "confirmation bias"
You are ignoring the exceptions. People do kill other people, people do rape other people, it is part of human behaviour. But you assume that most people don't do these things because of some sort of universal moral truth.
Don't you think that living in a society of people it makes sense to outlaw murder because no one in that society wants to be murdered? Same goes for rape. You don't want to be murdered so you create a society that does not allow for murder. It also means you can't murder others but that is a concession you are willing to make in order to not be murdered yourself.
It is common sense from a self preservation perspective, from a selfish perspective. It isn't common sense that murder is objectively morally wrong. You don't avoid putting your finger in an electrical socket because of the morality of it, you avoid doing that because you want to live.
If I murder someone in NZ, people in Russia aren't going to know about it or even care. The universe isn't affected. There is no way to detect if a moral transgression is made.

(28-04-2015 08:12 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Even our sense of fairness, is so universal, that we recognize it as so ingrained in us, to declare that it’s truly within our nature, in our biological makeup.
Fairness is not within our nature.
If there is not government or police then often the big boys will get want they want and the smaller people will have to cater to the big boys.
The thing is, there are more smaller people than the fewer big boys, we are smart enough to band together and to over power the big boys. The idea of fairness is a compromise from a more aggressive alternative of might makes right.

(28-04-2015 08:12 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
Quote:Would you expect an ISIS warrior to show you kindness or mercy?

Probably, since I’m not white, not a US citizen, am brown and bearded and poor, not a soldier, or symbol of western power. If I wanted to join their movement, they’ll likely welcome me with open arms.
If they found out you believe in the Christian god they would likely kill you.

(28-04-2015 08:12 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
Quote:Would they be morally wrong in chopping your head off?

If I truly am innocent, than yes they would be.
Being a Christian you are not innocent, they have the right to kill you.

(28-04-2015 08:12 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
Quote:So you assert. But I don't believe that murder is morally wrong.

Well, you don’t think anything is morally wrong, not just murder? If a man murdered your wife and kids just for fun, however else you may respond you wouldn’t believe he committed a moral wrong, something evil. Correct?
I don't believe in evil.
If a man kills my family he did it for some reason, or for fun or whatever. I wouldn't like that he did it but that doesn't make his actions objectively morally wrong. My likes and dislikes are not the authority with regards to morality.

(28-04-2015 08:12 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
Quote:How do you propose for me to discover the objective truth on this matter?

Well, I think you already know it, that you’re sort of just pretending here, lol.
No I am not pretending. I understand that my emotions, my opinions, my likes and dislikes are not the authority regarding objective moral truth. I am not a god, I don't get to decide what is right and what is wrong for all people. I am not in tune with the universe, I don't have knowledge on what is right and what is wrong.

(28-04-2015 08:12 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Like in the above example, I have little doubt that you see the wrongness of this, it’s just that you have a problem with using the word “immoral”.
I have no knowledge of objective wrong and right. Given this, how can I conclude that something is wrong? It is not my place to make such bold claims. Even if I do choose to make such a bold claim, I couldn't support my claim by offering evidence. Saying that something is wrong merely because I don't like it, or because I feel shocked by the event, this doesn't make it a universal truth. To know a truth, the truth must be objectively discoverable, my own emotions, feelings, opinions don't make an objective method of discovery.
(28-04-2015 08:12 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
Quote:Some people do this, I agree, Like suggesting that an unborn isn't a "person".

Exactly. Who care if it’s a person?
If you consider abortion to be murder then here is an example where i don't see murder as something dangerous to myself or to society. I support people's choice to have abortions and I wouldn't be opposed to my wife having one.
I also support euthanasia and executions of dangerous repeat offenders.
(28-04-2015 08:12 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  And this is what I was a getting at, where I often get to a dead end, where you accused me of a fallacy ad populam. More considered atheists such as yourself, often find themselves having to declare that morality is a con, a delusion, an illusion.
It's not that I have to declare morality to be a con. I am asking where is the evidence for moral truths? Am I to believe even though I have not seen?
(28-04-2015 08:12 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  I would perhaps tell Mr. Dennet not to worry, because people will likely reject those beliefs that led him to that corner to begin with, before they reject morality.
As with beliefs it is very hard to convince someone to even consider that their beliefs may not be real. Belief in morality is very strong with people. It is very hard to get them to reject them. They often assume without their moral values that people would behave in a cruel fashion, would steal, lie, murder etc. People often struggle to see beyond this strawman.
(28-04-2015 08:12 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  But the more interesting question is this, if morality is a con, a delusion, how do you account for this con? How do we explain the prevalence, and existence of this false belief? What’s the main source, that fosters, and propagates this con?
I have already addressed this.
People don't murder because they don't want to be murdered so they want a society that prevents murder, adults tell their kids to be good and reward "good" behaviour, our cultural memes are propogated on this concept.

(28-04-2015 08:12 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  So do you treat your wife this way, out of fear, that if you didn’t she would leave you? Or are you just saying that even though these consequences would likely follow your poor treatment, they are not really the reason as to why you treat her well?
Out of my expectation regarding the consequences of my actions and my desire to have a certain future.
We are always making choices, we are always evaluating the outcomes of our actions, we navigate life trying to influence our own futures in a desirable way.
(28-04-2015 08:12 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  That you treat her well, tend to your children, primarily because you love them, not out of fear, because there’s no fear in love, as the verse goes?
Love is a vague concept. I would expect it means something somewhat magical to you. Something godly.
(28-04-2015 08:12 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
Quote:, why would I have sex with someone else and risk STD or pregnancy?

The reasons you don’t cheat likely have little to do with STD’s or pregnancy
We both have our different opinions as to the root cause for my own behaviour. I didn't sleep around with people when I was single and available. I consider STDs and pregnancy a risk of sex.

(28-04-2015 08:12 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
Quote:I don't know how my girls will grow up. I'm hoping they will be financially successful and will look after their old man in his old age.

That they would look after you out of love for you, and not out of fear that you might write them out of your will if they didn’t?
Perhaps they may feel an act of loyalty towards me, a desire to repay me for all I have done for them. Perhaps they may feel empathy towards me, perhaps they may enjoy my company? Who knows?
I am also saving up for my retirement as a contingency for the situation that my girls don't want to look after me in my old age.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: