jcd11235 0
Recommended Posts
I can see your point, but I feel you can't see mine; if religion, in your opinion, can't address our increasing immoral Western societies, what can?
Your points simply support a general atheism amongst a society which will only provide you with the problems we see today.
I only believe my opinions through lack of alternatives.
It's rather disheartening to read peoples counter arguments which consist of non religious parents being rather astute to general morality and bringing them up well, because it's readily apparant such examples in general are of the minority. How do we ensure such parentage then? As I've said before - it's going only in one certain direction.
'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'
Your points simply support a general atheism amongst a society which will only provide you with the problems we see today.
I only believe my opinions through lack of alternatives.
It's rather disheartening to read peoples counter arguments which consist of non religious parents being rather astute to general morality and bringing them up well, because it's readily apparant such examples in general are of the minority. How do we ensure such parentage then? As I've said before - it's going only in one certain direction.
'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'
QuoteQuoteI said earlier atheists can of course be honest, upstanding members of society. But this isn't the norm.
It is the norm. Most atheists are honest, upstanding members of society. Most religious people are honest, upstanding members of society. Most agnostic people are honest, upstanding members of society. Most of the rest of the people not already mentioned are honest, upstanding members of society.
The fact is, most people are honest, upstanding members of society.
Yes, I think they are, but, unfortunately, only to a point. The boundaries and definitions of this point are arguable. Atheists can set them as they please and see fit. People observing an agreeable and generic moral code will have them set in stone, which in itself, will make them easier to abide by.
Who'll set them though? What are the chances of that happening! Goes against our nature doesn't it?
'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'
jcd11235 0
QuoteAtheists can set them as they please and see fit. People observing an agreeable and generic moral code will have them set in stone, which in itself, will make them easier to abide by.
Who'll set them though? What are the chances of that happening! Goes against our nature doesn't it?
People following a moral code because they believe it is the right thing to do are more likely to follow the code than people who follow the code because it is written in a book.
Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!
nerdgirl 0
As I read it, it sounds like you’re asking what is fundamentally a normative question – how society should be.
What hasn’t been mentioned explicitly who has power and privilege under that normative system. (Although that is what I read as the underlying basis of [kelpdiver]’s comments.)
So we have some groups that used to have much more dominance. That started changing after WWII in the US and western Europe. Some see/construct/assert that change as evidence of decline in ‘moral code,’ because their power/privilege declined. The normative structure changed. For the better, imo.
From my perspective, acknowledging a late 20th Century/early 21st Century American background, the bigger issues at the core of some of the criticisms and problems that you’ve mentioned over the last month are anti-intellectualism and promotion of being a jerk. The two are connected. There’s always been smart satire, e.g., Shakespeare’s comedies. One can speculate on the origin of the pervasive promotion of being a 'jerk' as cool.
The other is a lack of consequences for bad behavior (links to the above on one level). [Edit to add: & a lack of rewards for 'normativly' good behavior. Just getting by is the easiest path. Normatively 'good' behavior, such as being a whistleblower, more often has negative consequences.]
In the late 1980s there was a quip I heard that stuck with me as an epitomization of some of the kind of things you've cited: “The difference between right and wrong is wrong is getting caught.” That comment arose w/r/t the Wall Street scandals of the 1980s, the Keating Five scandal, Iran-Contra, and the Savings & Loan bail-out. Imo, greed/selfishness is just as much physiologically ‘hard-wired’ into the human brain as empathy and altruism are. (And I can provide evidence to support those assertions.) Waste, fraud, & abuse weren't invented by the late 20th Century (nor by hippies or ‘liberals’ 
). So what’s changed? Maybe we just hear about it more often? Better instrumentation and faster dissemination of information?
How do you measure and value doing the ‘right thing’ (a normative) when what is rewarded at the end of the day is the bottom line or fulfillment of a metric?
VR/Marg
Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying
mnealtx 0
QuoteQuoteAtheists can set them as they please and see fit. People observing an agreeable and generic moral code will have them set in stone, which in itself, will make them easier to abide by.
Who'll set them though? What are the chances of that happening! Goes against our nature doesn't it?
People following a moral code because they believe it is the right thing to do are more likely to follow the code than people who follow the code because it is written in a book.
Not so - whether the 'code' comes from society or religion, people will only follow it if they feel it is right to do so.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
It is the norm. Most atheists are honest, upstanding members of society. Most religious people are honest, upstanding members of society. Most agnostic people are honest, upstanding members of society. Most of the rest of the people not already mentioned are honest, upstanding members of society.
The fact is, most people are honest, upstanding members of society.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites