Moral relativity is aimlessness and destruction.
Ah a true zealot !! tscht, tscht.... how did you translate being skeptic and tolerant into "aimlessness and destruction" ?
Tolerance does NOT mean one can not have specific and well-defined morals and ethical standards ??
Being skeptic, particularly in reference to pontificated rubbish postulated as gospel, which is NOT to be questioned, such as YOUR "Absolutes", is actually HEALTHY.
Tolerance really means: I want you to tolerate what I want to do whether it is right, wrong or injurious to others or not, but I will not tolerate you disagreeing with me -- that is worse than hate or murder or sexual depravity or anything else.
Oh really ??, well you ought to write to the Webster Dictionary and insert your definition amongst the SEVEN definitions that such dictionary provides, NONE of them even comes close to your definition, which seems to me a misrepresentation (at best), based on whatever the hell haunts you in your mind. Further suggesting that tolerance (as defined by you), is worse than hate, murder or sexual depravity ??? wheuuuu, this reminds me somehow of the Religious Inquisition prevalent in the thirteen century.... (or was it the eleventh.. ?)
Just for the record here is a definition of TOLERANCE:
A fair, and OBJECTIVE, attitude towards opinions and practices which differ from one's own
How does tolerance translates in the ACCEPTANCE of a specific "right, wrong, or injurious to others" ??
I don't want to get along with forces that are destructive to society. Society has a right to incarcerate and punish offenders. It is not right just because someone says it is so. There are moral absolutes.
Right, you do not want to get along with ANYTHING that deviates from YOUR OPINIONS, period.
How did you translate a simple statement in reference to tolerance and skepticism, to imply that I am suggesting to accept DESTRUCTIVE FORCES ??? or suggest that I am saying that there should be NO MORALS, ETHICS, and we should live in a free for all society ??
As for "Absolutes" well..... These are my Absolutes: (I quote Ayn Rand).
Reality is an absolute, existence is an absolute, a speck of dust is an absolute, and so is human life, Whether you live or die is an absolute. Whether you have a piece of bread or not, is an absolute. Whether you eat your piece of bread or see it vanish into a looter's stomach, (as in forced by law or moral guilt "charitable contribution"), is an absolute. (End of quote, I added the words in parenthesis).
An absolute leaves no room for the uncertainty of the life "beyond this earth", or the "faith on the mysterious mysticism"...
So... please do not talk to me about "moral absolutes" until you resolve in your own mind the contradiction that religious codes allow to establish "relative absolutes".
to believe the opposite -- moral relativism -- is to dis-"integrate" onself. Clinton is the case in point and a mirror of a corrupt society -- 'Economy is fine, he's doing a great job as pres, I don't care if he lies or cheats in private because he doesn't do that for the goverment' --- what baloney
Moral relativism is YOUR term, I never even suggested it, the statement I posted relates to TOLERANCE AND SKEPTICISM, your dreamed up translation expressed that I was suggesting non-existence of morals, and the proposal of destructive forces.
Ah ! so now we know what this is about..... good ole' Clinton, the nemesis of the Christian Coalition !!
Just for the record, I am no friend of Billy, personally I think the guy has a bunch of problems, including (but not limited to), a complete inability to be honest, then again he is a politician, (and a master at that), so what do you expect ??!!
Remember that:
"A professional politician is a professionally dishonorable man. In order to get anywhere near high office he has to make so many compromises and submit to so many humiliations that he becomes indistinguishable from a streetwalker."
However, the man has turned out to be a "necessary evil", because if it was not for this man, the Christian Coalition would have already taken over the US government and imposed their Thirteen Century ideas, and we are still not out of danger, as we speak an enormous battle is being fought for such control.
Sad thing is, most Americans are not even aware of what the hell is going on, they are too busy in their Beavis and Butthead mentality to even begin to understand the magnitude of such frightening event!!
If Pat Robertson and his cronies had their way, you can kiss good bye to the greatest document human minds have been able to create and practically implement, the Bill of Rights !!
Given your comments, your are probably one of these zealots, so you ought to know the details of this terrible ideology.
As for the "Economy being fine" if you really believe that a single politician is relevant to the welfare of the economy..... well I guess you are naive, (or simply want to paint your own picture as it best suits you).
The economy is in fine form thanks to greater forces than a single man, granted politicians still have the power to screw things up, but in this particular instance, one of the reasons the economy is fine is because, (amongst many other things), the US has the best possible scenario for business, (in spite of 40 years of Communists ruling Congress), in this new global economy, the US is the Leader in high tech, and a fine job done by Alan Greenspan (a bright disciple of Ayn Rand no less!! the creator of Objectivism, more on her later). In addition, we should mention that the forces of free markets are slowly taking over the control of world economies, away from priests and politicians, and IN SPITE OF THEM BOTH !!
If you have a problem with BC, then go tell Mr. Star, (Head Supremo Witch Hunter), I could not give a rat's arse about BC and his cronies, but so long he keeps the Christian Coalition at bay and their thirteen century ideology, I guess I will have to choose the lesser of two really bad evils, and hope that good ole' Billy can survive the present witch hunt.
Who we are is apparent in every circumstance of our lives. There are actions that are absolutely wrong and those which are absolutely right. Wake up and live!
Again, you are willfully misinterpreting my statements, I never said I do not have morals, nor ethical principles, that allows me to establish right or wrong, based on a code of conduct that rules my life, with respect for law and my fellow human being, but clearly I do not need gods, demons and hellish threats to follow my own established standards. As for waking up and live....
Well I have news for you, I am fully awaken and life is grand for me, I do not need people such as yourself to come and tell me what I can perfectly do on my own.
You on the other hand are the type of people where INTOLERANCE can thrive and fascism would take over in no time, because you will conform to ideologies professed by zealots and you will obey with blind faith whatever rubbish they will dictate to you as gospel, for the simple reason that you in your INTOLERANCE are precluded from being skeptic and question authority.
------------------------------------
As for:
You've got it all wrong. Scientists are some of the most arrogant lot. These are the new "theologians." How dare anybody question them, even in matters which they have no expertise, i.e. our origins or our purposes?
I have it "wrong"..... well, well, there goes your intolerance again...
There goes the perfect example of what I meant by:
"Moral certainty is always a sign of cultural inferiority. .... The truly civilized man is always skeptical and tolerant, in this field as in all others. His culture is based on "I am not too sure
The above (in my interpretation), tells me that before I pass judgement on someone, I should at least be (1) skeptical, as in let me hear more of what you have to say, analyze it and think about your statements. (2) tolerant, as in well, may be the other opinion may have a valid point because I have never considered things in such and such fashion, after all the other opinion MAY have some validity....
The "I am not too sure" statement, (in conjunction with the rest of the statement), does NOT mean that I propose a NO morals, NO ethics, or a free for all society. Such was YOUR interpretation.
Further, you have the gall to call scientist "arrogants" ??
Do you really not realize how you come across ??
For starters, (IMO), you sound arrogant, intolerant, and a fascist...
Scientists work based on facts, and evidence. I, for one, am more willing to believe in the theory of evolution, than in the dreamy thesis of gods, saints, mystics etc. Not to mention that the historical evidence of the "justification" of the gods and their promoters is quite bloody, and even the bible writings promote hate, wars, etc. go and read the URL's of the other posts, do not believe me. (for your convenience, I have copied the above URL's in this post
I for one, do not suggest that you should think as I do, I am perfectly willing to accept (tolerate), that you believe in whatever deity you wish to believe, I simply request that you do not push your beliefs on me or anybody else, that does not desire them, or are too young to understand the implications.
I would rather trust a scientist, (after carefully reviewing whatever proposal he postulates), rather than follow (as it is called for), with "faith" whatever theological premise, that the mere act of questioning its wisdom, is considered an offensive act, further being threatened with "eternal damnation" if I do not conform and give up my ability to think for and by myself.
Now does that sound "reasonable".....??
I will repeat the earlier statement:
"So long as theologians keep within their proper bounds, science has no quarrel with them, for it is no more able to prove that they are wrong then they themselves are able to prove that they are right. But human experience shows that they never keep within their proper bounds voluntarily; they are always bulging over the line, and making a great uproar over things that they know nothing about. "
As for:
Now, somehow in you beautiful little work of tolerance you and the media have none for those who beleive in Jesus Christ and simply want to use their votes in the Democratic process. You can find some self-righteousness if you look in churches, to be sure, but if you want to hit the motherlode -- look to the media!
First, I have NOTHING to do with the media, so do not pool me in with the media. You are beginning to sound as if you suffer of paranoia.
I already told you, I could not care less if you believe in the sacred cow, or in a bunch of aliens hidden behind a comet, the only thing I do mind is that you try to impose your beliefs on others, particularly on myself, or on children, (as it is proposed with the use of bible teachings, prayer in school, and the so called "creationism").
Such idea is wrong and unethical, since you know perfectly well, that religious indoctrination at an age that it is easily impressionable, particularly with the use of Hell as your punishing stick if you do not comply is equal to brain washing.
The main reason I oppose religious teachings in a public school environment, is because I am against to the fabrication of industrial quantities of zombies.
That, by the way, does not mean I am happy with the current educational system.
Allow the mind to think freely and establish principles based on reason not on thirteen century ideology, if after that anyone desires to believe in the sacred cow, or whatever, then I have no problem with such ideology, again do not push it down people's throats.
Do not misrepresent me and express that I mean to advocate that there should not be a family unit, or that I advocate the use of drugs freely, nor that the idea of single parenthood is "ideal", nor that I have no morals, nor ethical principles.
I am in favor of common sense, common honesty, the use of reason, respect for others, respect for property, and the ability to think freely, without the undue influence of gods, demons, hellish threats, and other sundry rubbish that religions promote. (such as the submissiveness of women to secondary roles, damnation of other ideologies, and sacrifice of my mind and body based on an unproven deity, and guilt by definition).
As to "hitting the motherlode --- look to the media " I am drawing a blank as I have no idea what the hell you are talking about.....
Democratic process ?, Votes ? look for "self-righteousness in churches"
wheuuuu..... votes ??? yeah right, let the zombies come out and let the priests rule !!.... no thanks.
Churches ?? here read this:
Church: A place in which gentlemen who have never been to Heaven brag about it to people who will never get there.
I can think by myself, I do not need the "media" to make up my mind for me, actually, come to think about this, I do not even watch television, most of it is rubbish, i.e. Beavis and Butthead, the Simpsons, the Violence, etc. etc. etc. All I need to do is simple.... TURN IT OFF !! or change the channel, I need no steeenking religious censorship to allow me to watch what I can determine on my own...
I do not need a bunch of pontifical hypocrites to tell me how to live my life, from the way in which a establish my own code of ethics, to the way I should behave with my body, and what to do in the bedroom.
And again, do not misinterprete my words, the above does not mean that I am not a homosexual, drug addict, or a morally bankrupt individual, I simply do not need nor appreciate others dictate basic standards of conduct that I am perfectly capable of establishing and executing on my own.
The bottom line has to do with education, (and I do not mean the religious influenced one).
The fact that I am opposed to religion, does not mean I accept the current educational system, (as I indicated earlier), which frankly, it is not "deficient", it is quite simply DEAD already, and it has been so for quite some time.
However, to propose that religion is going to "fill the gap", is like proposing to return to thirteen century principles.... for that all I need to do is go to present day Iran, or similar.
Thanks but no thanks, I can do far better on my own, it is called "use your head and think, use reason, and not voodoo."
---------------------------------------------------
Do you really believe that no rational person can have spiritual beliefs?
Allow me to correct the statement a bit. ( as I do not believe the above is my statement, but rather your interpretation of my expressed ideas).
No rational person can believe in the ideology that religions postulate. Again I copy an earlier statement:
"Consider the six days of Genesis as a figure of speech for what has in fact been 4 billion years. On this scale, one day equals something like six hundred and sixty-six million years, and thus, all day Monday and until Tuesday noon, creation was busy getting the world going. Life began Tuesday noon, and the beautiful organic wholeness of it developed over the next four days. At 4 pm Saturday, the big reptiles came on. Five hours later, when the redwoods appeared, there were no more big reptiles. At three minutes before midnight on the last day, man appeared. At one-fourth of a second before midnight, Christ arrived. At one-fortieth of a second before midnight, the Industrial Revolution began. We are surrounded with people who think that what we have been doing for that one-fortieth of a second can go on indefinitely. They are considered normal, but they are stark raving mad."
In addition, any rational individual looking at the long evidence of destruction, hate, brain-washing, sacrifice demanding, guilt ridden, power seeking zealots that the different religions have left in their "loving wake", can easily reject it.
As for spirituality... I guess you need to define, what do you mean by "spirituality".
The Webster Dictionary has many definitions of "Spirit", I will pick the first one:
Spirit: The principle of conscious life, the vital principle of man, animating the body, or mediating between body and soul.
My understanding of what "spirituality" deals with is as follows:
The soul and body of man is inseparable, your body is the physical being, and your soul is your mind, your consciousness.
I will use the words of Ayn Rand to better define the above, and express what I believe. (I quote):
"Man [and woman], are an indivisible entity of matter and consciousness. Renounce your consciousness and you become a brute. Renounce your body and you become a fake. Renounce the material world and you surrender it to evil.
As products of the split between man's soul and body, there are two kinds of teachers of the Morality of Death; the mystics of spirit and the mystics of muscle, whom you call the spiritualists and the materialists, those who believe in consciousness without existence and those who believe in existence without consciousness. Both demand the surrender of your mind, one to their revelations and the other to their reflexes. No matter how loudly they posture in the roles of irreconcilable antagonists, their moral codes are alike, and so are their aims: in matter ~ the enslavement of man's body, in spirit ~ the destruction of his mind." (End of quote).
Matter and consciousness are inseparable.
Below are the same links I posted earlier:
atheists.org
reasonworks.com
reasonworks.com
reasonworks.com
Here is a new link, some of the ideas I agree with, some others I do not, however, there is quite a bit to consider there:
pe.net
In closing here are some comments that hopefully will clarify to you, my thinking, and hopefully it does not add to the confusion:
"The most dangerous man, to any government, is the man who is able to think things out for himself, without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost invariably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane and intolerable, and so, if he is romantic, he tries to change it. And if he is not romantic personally, he is apt to spread discontent among those who are."
"Capitalism undoubtedly has certain boils and blotches upon it, but has it as many as government? Has it as many as marriage? Has it as many as religion? I doubt it. It is the only basic institution of modern man that shows any genuine health and vigor. ...the only serious criticism of capitalism comes from ladies and gentlemen who are palpably somewhat balmy. The trouble with all of them is that they are constructive critics: not content to tear down, they try to build up. It is a fatal error... "
Demagogue: One who preaches doctrines he knows to be untrue to men he knows to be idiots.
"Imagine the Creator as a low comedian, and at once the world becomes explicable."
"The trouble with Communism is the Communists, just as the trouble with Christianity is the Christians."
Morality: The theory that every human act must either be right or wrong, and that 99% of them are wrong.
Immorality: The morality of those who are having a better time.
For many years I lived under continuos conflict, I could never decide if I should join forces with the Communists to abolish Religions, or, Should I join forces with the Religious Zealots to abolish Communism. Mikhail Gorbachev, solved the conflict for me when in effect, he, a Communist himself, abolished (for all practical purposes), the evil empire, (Communism). Now I no longer live in conflict, indeed I live in peace and in patient wait for the self destruction of the other [even more] evil empire, as I await with eager amusement the day in which the popes, bishops, ayatohlas, rabbis, and other sundry "medicine men" of the religious tribes formally, and pompously [of course], declare their equally irrational philosophy of the absurd, no longer relevant.
Have a nice life.
Z.
*¨*
""" |
