Secular Morality
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
15-05-2014, 10:58 PM
Secular Morality
I'm interested in more beginner's mind.

But, anyway, yes.

“It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.”
― Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-05-2014, 11:17 PM
RE: Secular Morality
(15-05-2014 10:58 PM)rampant.a.i. Wrote:  I'm interested in more beginner's mind.

But, anyway, yes.

Yes, Shunryu Suzuki. I saw him as being "onto something", within the context of his origins in the mahayana sects. It seemed to me that he was trying to break out of a lot of the mahayana dogmatism.

I'll dig up something I think I have posted a couple of times here, which I think is a prime example of this Buddha guy explaining the core of his teachings to outsiders in a simple, clear and concise way.

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Taqiyya Mockingbird's post
15-05-2014, 11:39 PM
RE: Secular Morality
OK, so here's this, RAI, look this over and tell me what you think.


It's pretty much the Buddha espousing a "Golden Rule" Ethics of Reciprocity, 500 years before this Jeebus guy was said to have lived.








Veludvareyya Sutta, Discourse to the People of Bamboo Gate

S 55.7


"I will teach you, householders, a Dhamma exposition applicable to oneself. Listen to that and attend closely, I will speak."

"Yes, sir," those brahmin householders of Bamboo Gate replied. The Blessed One said this:

"What, householders, is the Dhamma exposition applicable to oneself?

Here, householders, a noble disciple reflects thus: 'I am one who wishes to live, who does not wish to die; I desire happiness and am averse to suffering. Since I am one who wishes to live, who does not wish to die; who desires happiness and is averse to suffering; if someone were to take my life, that would not be pleasing and agreeable to me. Now if I were to take the life of another -- of one who wishes to live, who does not wish to die, who desires happiness and is averse to suffering--that would not be pleasing and agreeable to the other either. What is displeasing and disagreeable to me is displeasing and disagreeable to the other too. How can I inflict upon another what is displeasing and disagreeable to me?' Having reflected thus, he himself abstains from the destruction of life, exhorts others to abstain from the destruction of life, and speaks in praise of abstinence from the destruction of life. Thus this bodily conduct of his is purified in three respects.

"Again [Furthermore], householders, a noble disciple reflects thus: 'If someone were to take from me what I have not given, that is, to commit theft, that would not be pleasing and agreeable to me. Now if I were to take from another what he has not given, that is, to commit theft, that would not be pleasing and agreeable to the other either. What is displeasing and disagreeable to me is displeasing and disagreeable to the other too. How can I inflict upon another what is displeasing and disagreeable to me?' Having reflected thus, he himself abstains from taking what is not given, exhorts others to abstain from taking what is not given, and speaks in praise of abstinence from taking what is not given. Thus this bodily conduct of his is purified in three respects.

"Again [Furthermore], householders, a noble disciple reflects thus: 'If someone were to commit adultery with my wives, that would not be pleasing and agreeable to me. Now if I were to commit adultery with the wives of another, that would not be pleasing and agreeable to the other either. What is displeasing and disagreeable to me is displeasing and disagreeable to the other too. How can I inflict upon another what is displeasing and disagreeable to me?' Having reflected thus, he himself abstains from sexual misconduct, exhorts others to abstain from sexual misconduct, and speaks in praise of abstinence from sexual misconduct. Thus this bodily conduct of his is purified in three respects.

"Again [Furthermore], householders, a noble disciple reflects thus: 'If someone were to damage my welfare with false speech, that would not be pleasing and agreeable to me. Now if I were to damage the welfare of another with false speech, that would not be pleasing and agreeable to the other either. What is displeasing and disagreeable to me is displeasing and disagreeable to the other too. How can I inflict upon another what is displeasing and disagreeable to me?' Having reflected thus, he himself abstains from false speech, exhorts others to abstain from false speech, and speaks in praise of abstinence from false speech. Thus this verbal conduct of his is purified in three respects.

"Again [Furthermore], householders, a noble disciple reflects thus: 'If someone were to divide me from my friends by divisive speech, that would not be pleasing and agreeable to me. Now if I were to divide another from his friends by divisive speech, that would not be pleasing and agreeable to the other either. What is displeasing and disagreeable to me is displeasing and disagreeable to the other too. How can I inflict upon another what is displeasing and disagreeable to me?' Having reflected thus, he himself abstains from divisive speech, exhorts others to abstain from divisive speech, and speaks in praise of abstinence from divisive speech. ' Thus this verbal conduct of his is purified in three respects.

"Again [Furthermore], householders, a noble disciple reflects thus: 'If someone were to address me with harsh speech, that would not be pleasing and agreeable to me. Now if I were to address another with harsh speech, that would not be pleasing and agreeable to the other either What is displeasing and disagreeable to me is displeasing and disagreeable to the other too. How can I inflict upon another what is displeasing and disagreeable to me?' Having reflected thus, he himself abstains from harsh speech, exhorts others to abstain from harsh speech, and speaks in praise of abstinence from harsh speech. ' Thus this verbal conduct of his is purified in three respects.

"Again [Furthermore], householders, a noble disciple reflects thus: 'If someone were to address me with frivolous speech and idle chatter, that would not be pleasing and agreeable to me. Now if I were to address another with frivolous speech and idle chatter, that would not be pleasing and agreeable to the other either. What is displeasing and disagreeable to me is displeasing and disagreeable to the other too. How can I inflict upon another what is displeasing and disagreeable to me?' Having reflected thus, he himself abstains from idle chatter, exhorts others to abstain from idle chatter, and speaks in praise of abstinence from idle chatter. Thus this verbal conduct of his is purified in three respects."












Keep in mind that this is an entirely "secular", non-superstitious, "god-less", moral system that was devised some 500 years before this Jeebus guy was supposed to have come onto the scene. Pretty remarkable, says I.

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-05-2014, 12:27 AM
RE: Secular Morality
trying to get a Christian to admit a single thing they said is wrong. Is like trying to get Ken Ham to admit Creationism is stupid.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Shadow Fox's post
20-05-2014, 02:31 AM
Secular Morality
(15-05-2014 11:39 PM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  OK, so here's this, RAI, look this over and tell me what you think.


It's pretty much the Buddha espousing a "Golden Rule" Ethics of Reciprocity, 500 years before this Jeebus guy was said to have lived.








Veludvareyya Sutta, Discourse to the People of Bamboo Gate

S 55.7


"I will teach you, householders, a Dhamma exposition applicable to oneself. Listen to that and attend closely, I will speak."

"Yes, sir," those brahmin householders of Bamboo Gate replied. The Blessed One said this:

"What, householders, is the Dhamma exposition applicable to oneself?

Here, householders, a noble disciple reflects thus: 'I am one who wishes to live, who does not wish to die; I desire happiness and am averse to suffering. Since I am one who wishes to live, who does not wish to die; who desires happiness and is averse to suffering; if someone were to take my life, that would not be pleasing and agreeable to me. Now if I were to take the life of another -- of one who wishes to live, who does not wish to die, who desires happiness and is averse to suffering--that would not be pleasing and agreeable to the other either. What is displeasing and disagreeable to me is displeasing and disagreeable to the other too. How can I inflict upon another what is displeasing and disagreeable to me?' Having reflected thus, he himself abstains from the destruction of life, exhorts others to abstain from the destruction of life, and speaks in praise of abstinence from the destruction of life. Thus this bodily conduct of his is purified in three respects.

"Again [Furthermore], householders, a noble disciple reflects thus: 'If someone were to take from me what I have not given, that is, to commit theft, that would not be pleasing and agreeable to me. Now if I were to take from another what he has not given, that is, to commit theft, that would not be pleasing and agreeable to the other either. What is displeasing and disagreeable to me is displeasing and disagreeable to the other too. How can I inflict upon another what is displeasing and disagreeable to me?' Having reflected thus, he himself abstains from taking what is not given, exhorts others to abstain from taking what is not given, and speaks in praise of abstinence from taking what is not given. Thus this bodily conduct of his is purified in three respects.

"Again [Furthermore], householders, a noble disciple reflects thus: 'If someone were to commit adultery with my wives, that would not be pleasing and agreeable to me. Now if I were to commit adultery with the wives of another, that would not be pleasing and agreeable to the other either. What is displeasing and disagreeable to me is displeasing and disagreeable to the other too. How can I inflict upon another what is displeasing and disagreeable to me?' Having reflected thus, he himself abstains from sexual misconduct, exhorts others to abstain from sexual misconduct, and speaks in praise of abstinence from sexual misconduct. Thus this bodily conduct of his is purified in three respects.

"Again [Furthermore], householders, a noble disciple reflects thus: 'If someone were to damage my welfare with false speech, that would not be pleasing and agreeable to me. Now if I were to damage the welfare of another with false speech, that would not be pleasing and agreeable to the other either. What is displeasing and disagreeable to me is displeasing and disagreeable to the other too. How can I inflict upon another what is displeasing and disagreeable to me?' Having reflected thus, he himself abstains from false speech, exhorts others to abstain from false speech, and speaks in praise of abstinence from false speech. Thus this verbal conduct of his is purified in three respects.

"Again [Furthermore], householders, a noble disciple reflects thus: 'If someone were to divide me from my friends by divisive speech, that would not be pleasing and agreeable to me. Now if I were to divide another from his friends by divisive speech, that would not be pleasing and agreeable to the other either. What is displeasing and disagreeable to me is displeasing and disagreeable to the other too. How can I inflict upon another what is displeasing and disagreeable to me?' Having reflected thus, he himself abstains from divisive speech, exhorts others to abstain from divisive speech, and speaks in praise of abstinence from divisive speech. ' Thus this verbal conduct of his is purified in three respects.

"Again [Furthermore], householders, a noble disciple reflects thus: 'If someone were to address me with harsh speech, that would not be pleasing and agreeable to me. Now if I were to address another with harsh speech, that would not be pleasing and agreeable to the other either What is displeasing and disagreeable to me is displeasing and disagreeable to the other too. How can I inflict upon another what is displeasing and disagreeable to me?' Having reflected thus, he himself abstains from harsh speech, exhorts others to abstain from harsh speech, and speaks in praise of abstinence from harsh speech. ' Thus this verbal conduct of his is purified in three respects.

"Again [Furthermore], householders, a noble disciple reflects thus: 'If someone were to address me with frivolous speech and idle chatter, that would not be pleasing and agreeable to me. Now if I were to address another with frivolous speech and idle chatter, that would not be pleasing and agreeable to the other either. What is displeasing and disagreeable to me is displeasing and disagreeable to the other too. How can I inflict upon another what is displeasing and disagreeable to me?' Having reflected thus, he himself abstains from idle chatter, exhorts others to abstain from idle chatter, and speaks in praise of abstinence from idle chatter. Thus this verbal conduct of his is purified in three respects."












Keep in mind that this is an entirely "secular", non-superstitious, "god-less", moral system that was devised some 500 years before this Jeebus guy was supposed to have come onto the scene. Pretty remarkable, says I.

Taq, I'm of the mind that there are relatively "no" new philosophical discoveries to a person who studies history.

"Prophets," however you may define them, are men who stood up before their time, like Jesus and Siddhartha, and pointed out the social inequities of their day. Often, as in the case of Siddhartha, they were men able to see the origins of the religious tradition of their day, who urged their followers to heed their message and not their words, lest they be codified into a religious tradition as corrupt as the last.

And we can see how that went for Buddha.

To me, there is little to no difference between Buddha, Jesus, or Zororaster walking into a room and going "Hey look, guys. I'm the son of God, just like you. We need to fix this shit; here's my ideas on how we do this." and the literal, immaculately conceived Son of God setting up a podium, and saying "Hey look: you guys are being assholes. We need to fix this (appeal to authority) because shit is not right."

“It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.”
― Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes rampant.a.i.'s post
23-05-2014, 02:57 AM
RE: Secular Morality
You know… theists cannot get moral oughts from an is, only rational oughts… just like secularists.


What moral obligation are they doing what they are doing by? Being saved? Eternal bliss? Gods love? Well, they are all rationale oughts… not moral ones.

Also, their theology does not add up once you bring forth the Euphyphro Dillema. They tend to say neither, but it really makes no sense. How does a THEIST define good and evil?

“Take the risk of thinking for yourself, much more happiness, truth, beauty, and wisdom will come to you that way.

-Christopher Hitchens
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-05-2014, 03:39 AM
RE: Secular Morality
(12-05-2014 07:51 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  Why is any of this important if everyone here will be dead within five or six decades and will be worm food?

Because living itself is important. We still need to talk by the way Jeremy but I have been busy but why would this all matter anyways if you would live forever in heaven if you just gave your life here on earth for God? Wouldn't that make this presence relatively useless especially since God would know if you went to heaven or not unless he isn't all knowing. If he isn't all knowing then why not interact with us in a better way instead of a way that all other religions that are apparently false have done? It leads to an endless amount of questions that need to be answered if a God did exist and it was a God of the Bible he would be a psychopath. I believe last time I read your message you said that God could take lives because he created it. To me that was just weird because such a justification means mothers could kill their babies because they and their male counterpart created the child with their genes. So someone like Andrea Yates would be completely fine with drowning her children in the name of God.





Well I hope to get back on topic I found this interesting and although I believe we definitely have to look much more into this I do find it laughable they call babies creatures but its something we humans should definitely look into but if you think this is a waste of time Jeremy I suggest to take a vacation, go to a different country or simply enjoy time with friends or family. I think no matter if someone is theist or atheist we should enjoy our life now in healthy, good ways.

In any way I definitely believe morality is created within the society you live in. You learn it whether its religion, family, society or culture its taught to us and things can be good and bad. Some of that bad is definitely due to religion and I want to stop that.

"Mankind must put an end to war, or war will put an end to mankind." -John F Kennedy

The way to see by Faith is to shut the eye of Reason.” -Benjamin Franklin

It has been a long time. How have you been?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes ShirubaDangan's post
23-05-2014, 06:54 AM
RE: Secular Morality
(12-05-2014 02:07 AM)rampant.a.i. Wrote:  I know this topic has been beaten to death. And yet, there are still Christians who flop out their tired, dusty copy of "You Can't Be
Moral Without God!" argument, and present it as if it's never been challenged, and unassailably true.

Rampant I so know how you feel. Whenever someone tells me that now, I just tell them that they are lying. Seriously, if they truly don't know it is wrong to murder, rape and pillage without a god to tell them they don't belong in a civil society. I don't believe any sane person doesn't know it is wrong to do these things and it says a lot about their character that they are willing to abase themselves to such an extent as to pretend they don't know this stuff in order to defend their belief in god.

I think you are absolutely right that the doctrine of forgiveness for acts of evil is unspeakably immoral. mercy is the opposite of justice. It is anti life. It evinces a total lack of self esteem and is the mark of a sacrificial animal. But that is what Christianity teaches people to be.

Errors of knowledge should always be forgiven if the person is willing to make amends but to forgive acts of conscious evil is to sanction them.

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-05-2014, 06:56 AM
RE: Secular Morality
(12-05-2014 02:07 AM)rampant.a.i. Wrote:  I know this topic has been beaten to death. And yet, there are still Christians who flop out their tired, dusty copy of "You Can't Be
Moral Without God!" argument, and present it as if it's never been challenged, and unassailably true.

Rampant I so know how you feel. Whenever someone tells me that now, I just tell them that they are lying. Seriously, if they truly don't know it is wrong to murder, rape and pillage without a god to tell them they don't belong in a civil society. I don't believe any sane person doesn't know it is wrong to do these things and it says a lot about their character that they are willing to abase themselves to such an extent as to pretend they don't know this stuff in order to defend their belief in god.

I think you are absolutely right that the doctrine of forgiveness for acts of evil is unspeakably immoral. Mercy is the opposite of justice. It is anti life. It evinces a total lack of self esteem and is the mark of a sacrificial animal. But that is what Christianity teaches people to be.

Errors of knowledge should always be forgiven if the person is willing to make amends but to forgive acts of conscious evil is to sanction them.

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: