Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
|
Nov 18, 2018 - 08:49pm PT
|
I am *really* trying to get off this website. My wife said I was addicted, and I looked at that. She has a point. I have art to tackle.
Now and then there looks to be a good conversation to be had, and this one below is one of those.
donini: I am an athiest who, I believe, leads a reasonably moral life. When I see so many avowed christians lead what I believe are hypocritical lives where morals are secondary to closely held beliefs...I am not swayed to join their ranks.
I fail to see a positive relationship to having a religious affiliation and practicing good morals.
May I say, that your use of “moral” calls to religious or mythical explanations. If it doesn’t, then it would seem that your word “moral” is equivalent to the word “legal.” What is moral is what is legal, and legality stands only on rationality.
I’d say that position is actually pretty shaky ground. I look across many different cultures and states, and I see many conflicts among them. At the end of the day, rationality cannot be tested but through performance: whatever works to keep societies together constitutes the good. That, I would say, is a workingman’s approach to action and being.
Above I think I asked what Norton thought was sacred. He dodged the question. I would say it is THE Question. Without it we are nothing more than meat. Q.E.D. Interesting meat, I guess.
Ed: It [Bell’s Theorem] shows that nature violates the most general assumptions behind classical pictures, not just details of some particular models. No combination of local deterministic and local random variables can reproduce the phenomena predicted by quantum mechanics and repeatedly observed in experiments."
Ha-ha. I think that is a most excellent expression of just What This Is.
A-dios.
|
|
Contractor
Boulder climber
CA
|
|
|
Nov 19, 2018 - 06:26am PT
|
May I say, that your use of “moral” calls to religious or mythical explanations. If it doesn’t, then it would seem that your word “moral” is equivalent to the word “legal.” What is moral is what is legal, and legality stands only on rationality.
whatever works to keep societies together constitutes the good. That, I would say, is a workingman’s approach to action and being.
So Religious dogma is the better answer as long as you don't rock the boat.
Narco strongman, through brutality bring tranquility with a fearful and complicit population- that's workmanlike there...
Yes, unapologetically legal- as in the Bill of Rights, The United Nations International Court of Justice, The Geniva Conventions and every other imperfect attemp by legal minded people to rid society of witchcraft and abuse. By written legal presidents and their outcomes we strive to create a balance that protects the individual while advancing society.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Nov 19, 2018 - 07:34am PT
|
So Religious dogma is the better answer
NO ...
When it's dogma it's NOT religion anymore.
Gross materialists are completely clueless what religion truly is.
All they see is dogma.
True religion is very rarely seen in the west and the whole planet in general ......
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Nov 19, 2018 - 10:09am PT
|
You're a perfect example of a idiotic fool scientist, Malemute
It was perfectly intelligently designed to BE imperfect!
We are NOT these gross material bodies and have no real reason to be here in the first place.
Only an unintelligent brainwashed fool would be happy in the material world .....
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Nov 19, 2018 - 10:35am PT
|
Cancer was caused by nutcase so-called scientists like you Malemute, not God ....
As you are a perfect example of a nutcase son who disobeys his father and then gets in trouble and blames his father.
You take zero responsibility for any actions you do ...
|
|
Norton
climber
The Wastelands
|
|
|
Nov 19, 2018 - 02:33pm PT
|
*Above I think I asked what Norton thought was sacred. He dodged the question.
Hi Mike, for those who do not remember, upthread I was responding to Paul using the word "sacred" while referring to ancient Biblical writings.
I do remember you asking me what I considered sacred, I did not dodge your question, I just chose not to answer it for the personal reason of not wishing to attacked, again, for being an atheist
But ok, I will not dodge it now, so first the definition of sacred.
sa·cred
adjective
connected with God (or the gods), dedicated to a religious purpose and so deserving veneration.
What I believe is that there is nothing in this world that is "sacred" per the above ^
|
|
Lituya
Mountain climber
|
|
|
Nov 19, 2018 - 04:57pm PT
|
donini: I am an athiest who, I believe, leads a reasonably moral life. When I see so many avowed christians lead what I believe are hypocritical lives where morals are secondary to closely held beliefs...I am not swayed to join their ranks.
Like flying to Pakistan, New Zealand, Patagonia within the space of a year all the while pontificating about climate change and poverty? Like casually referring to your fellow Americans as "enemies?" Like showing audiences the photographs you took of Toni Egger's shattered body?
Morality is fuzzy for sure; atheist or believer. Hypocrisy, apparently, is equal opportunity.
|
|
Jim Clipper
climber
|
|
|
Nov 19, 2018 - 07:08pm PT
|
This view of nearly 10,000 galaxies is the [human's] deepest visible-light image of the cosmos.
Did I fix that?
If life exists on other planets, that makes us aliens.
A question that "got" a renowned evolutionary biologist, or at least made him pause, "Does god exist on other planets?"
|
|
Jim Clipper
climber
|
|
|
Nov 19, 2018 - 10:33pm PT
|
The reality of leaving a religious group is that you are sometimes disowned. Also, it can require a shift in thinking that may make you question your identity and self worth. Moreover, it may lead you to view those who still believe, including those closest to you, as lessened. Tough sell.
If atheists did more to support those who left their religion, I would respect them much more than those who simply deny others their beliefs. Also, is religion cultural? We have always changed. Cultures have always changed.
Moreover, their rate of change is often dependent on a society's wealth, and it's contact and alliances with other groups. Access to education, technology, and modern medicine? I maybe thought of this when I read that people are still being stoned in some parts of the world, for reasons listed in the Bible.
I've typed this before. If you want to see where Christ walked, maybe skip the tourist spots in Jerusalem. Go where the poor Arabs and Jews live. Things likely have changed more slowly there. My brother once thought, Christ 1 was probably someone like Gandhi, or MLK.
Children of a lesser god? Ivory towers? We are privileged. Sometimes acquiring those privileges has required us to deny others of theirs. Their beliefs, their culture is often the excuse. However, denying them is relinquishing a part of our humanity. Seeing that we do this both as atheists, and followers of religion seems more honest.
Moreover, criticizing people for their beliefs without recognizing their lack of access to change seems as self-limiting. Pointing out that explanations of the world, which are thousands of years old and created without the knowledge base we take for granted today, don't jibe with modern science is simplistic and maybe folly. People then, and perhaps sometimes, over there, are no less human, although, they often own, or inherit a very different world view.
Religion doesn't deal so much in objective truth. It's currency is more often wisdom, reflection, and morals. Atheists who proclaim their science and deny god sometimes fail to recognize their belief in the abstraction of money or even systems of governing. Neither has much value without inherently accepted collective agreements. What is the moral basis of our government? Once, religion was government.
There are undeniably manifestations of gods and goddesses around us. We enjoy creating beautiful things, often grand, and made together. Why are they preserved? Our identity? There are many symbolic representations of wisdom in the monuments we've preserved that aren't too difficult to see.
Maybe, finally, consider the value of your children. Think of a time when resources were more uncertain, literacy limited. Add in primogeniture, slavery if you aren't the "right" group, the relative worth of women, who could own property, etc. Your family was likely a large determinant of your wealth, your son your inheritance, and maybe your longevity too. Pretty valuable. Ultimately, your son over your neighbor's? Giving up your only begotten son, for something greater? You don't have to. Sacrifice?
Wealth and education has recently been shown to be correlated with longevity. I would think that was true centuries before those studies were completed. I don't think science and religion will ever necessarily reconcile. Group selection theory 2? Do we need to go there?
With global threats like a warming planet, are there more pressing issues? Angkor Wat, Cedars in the Mideast, the Torah and stewardship of our environment, symbolism in mesoamerican cultures, and the second growth rainforests? A greater humanity hasn't always influenced the direction of our scientific endeavors. Did we build the bomb before the first practical nuclear generators?
I dont know. Maybe I'll co-opt some culture. Think of this as a free climbers manifesto. I may go to the hills, buy what I can used, eat lower on the food chain, or what I catch myself (trophic levels?). The rats are gonna race, doesn't mean they are any less sacred. Does there have to be a meaning? It may just be a less expensive, a less impactful way to live. Help some others, on the way?
Nah, just means I have too much time and I've been here typing..
footnotes:
1. who wants to be that guy
2. don't be a dick
|
|
Lituya
Mountain climber
|
|
|
Nov 19, 2018 - 11:10pm PT
|
It's all about the social construction of reality. (A great, albeit dated book by Berger and Luckmann)
Religion "vs" Science? I think the premise itself is a bit off. Religion, philosophy, and science all have a place informing how we view reality. And each seems well positioned to temper the others.
For example, science, left to its practitioners, can be cold and calculating. Hence, it is in need of tempering by philosophy and religion.
Religion asks for faith alone--a pretty big ask IMO. Philosophy demands reason. Science offers answers that temper mysticism and extend reason.
Kind of a big game of rock/paper/scissors, I suppose.
I have no problem with atheists, but many of them strongly resemble the same people they decry.
|
|
donini
Trad climber
Ouray, Colorado
|
|
|
Nov 19, 2018 - 11:44pm PT
|
Atheists decry people who are religious....a constant complaunt leveled at them. While this is sometimes true I would posit that there would be hard to find a group decried against more than atheists.
They represent an existential threat to people who cling to religious belief on something as tenuous as faith.
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
|
Nov 20, 2018 - 07:32am PT
|
I might have written too abstractly in my argument above. Perhaps what might be more useful would be to provide a detailed example that climbers might relate to.
Here is a particular code of conduct, a set of morals—one riddled with religious mores. It relies upon values and beliefs taken from Zen, Shintoism, and Confuscism. Nitobe (1905) claimed these were its core elements.
Rectitude or Justice: This refers to the power to decide upon a course of action without wavering. “Right reason” always leads to duty.
Courage: Courage requires a worthy cause. One should only die when it is right to die. Tranquility is simply courage in repose. One should regard one’s enemy proudly for providing the opportunity to express courage.
Benevolence: This refers to mercy and being loving. It implies a due regard for justice and the power to save. It expresses a concern for the weak.
Politeness: Politeness is a poor virtue if it is meant to avoid offending good taste. Politeness is a sympathetic regard for others’ feelings.
Veracity and Sincerity: Sincerity is the beginning and the end of everything. Lying or equivocation is cowardly, and oaths are derogatory to honor and character. (The profession of arms is what is most removed from commerce in these regards.)
Honor: Honor is the opposite of shame and disgrace. Defending one’s honor is required when laughed at. However, honor also demands patience and forbearance. Honor is never vainglorious or oriented to worldly appropriations. Honor is never oriented to fame.
Loyalty: Loyalty must be accorded to parents, to spouses, and obedience to masters. It means always putting duty over affection.
The ideal man or woman of this code of conduct is one who is oriented to action: “To know and act, one in the same.”
Luxury is the greatest menace to manhood; people of this code of conduct require the severest simplicity of living.
This code of conduct is completely devoted to “right character” and to chivalry. For example, the true purpose of education is to build character rather than to minds stored with information. Teachers must be endowed with great personality, without lacking erudition. Teachers are grave personifications of high spirits undaunted by adversity. They are the very embodiment of the end of all learning; they are exemplars of self control. Self control is stoic: it means showing no sign of joy or anger; it comes from a calm and composed mind. People who follow this code of conduct never wear their hearts on their sleeves.
Suicide and redress are important issues that arise in this code of conduct. One should not hasten or court death, because that is actually a sign of cowardice. Instead, one should bear all calamities and adversities with patience and conscience. When life is more terrible than death, it expresses the truest valor to dare to live. (As for redress, Confucius advised that injury must be repaid by justice.)
This code of conduct’s core value is a doctrine of service to higher causes. In this code, women surrender to their men, and men to their lords. On the other hand, this code gave great praise indeed to those women who emancipated themselves from frailty and displayed heroic fortitude worthy of the strongest men. It also gave equal praise to the accomplishment of gentle graces.
Bushido is a set of morals, a code of conduct, oriented to a particular notion of chivalry. It is a consistent set of morals. Nothing about it is irrational or unreasonable because reason and rationality are essentially irrelevant to its social belief system—other than to make it internally consistent.
Reason and rationality cannot provide the most fundamental basis for a set of morals. First comes a vision about human nature and the human condition. In that, there is always some sense of what is or must be sacred. Nietzsche said all of this a few hundred years ago. What's left after the demise of God is simply the will to power.
Be well.
|
|
Jim Clipper
climber
|
|
|
Nov 20, 2018 - 08:57am PT
|
I liked it Mike. I need more time to consider it. A couple quick reactions.
Luxury is a gray area. Some are "gifted". Agreed, there is beauty in simplicity, sustainability?
"In this code, women surrender to their men, and men to their lords."
True 'dat, but should it be? Especially the first part. I truly believe that the buddah understood that even women would not be re-incarnated.
Men are women re-incarnate? Maybe, in a way? Re-incarnation used to justify an inhumane caste system. Yeah. Simplicity? More of the same after enlightenment?!
Also, some quote like: because I serve the emperor I am not filial, because I am filial I can not serve the emperor. So much beyond me.
Anyway, do you practice? One thing I'm grateful for is to have heard a master say "Sensei!"
When receiving a black belt (not me), he said "You're too white." I think you would have liked that one. He trained them all the same though, men and women too. He said they liked it. Ha!
Full disclosure, the war was brutal. Crimes against humanity, exponential until it stopped. Still, they got Dachau..
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Nov 20, 2018 - 09:01am PT
|
Jim Clipper
You are like a child that has got hold of a match and a stick of dynamite with no clue what either does .....
|
|
Jim Clipper
climber
|
|
|
Nov 20, 2018 - 09:54am PT
|
you saying I may end up empty?
edit: ok. here goes. i beleive that some have said, if an aunt or uncle has died, they went first to show us the way. Maybe native american? The way is should be, the way it has been. I've heard about a "shooting way", maybe in reference to a lost son, who flew high.
We may benefit if we take some time. A way we find? Do our best to follow it. The teachings of the buddah, on his feet when at rest, before reaching nirvana.
Why do I mention two? Really, I can't say, but sometimes I'll try.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Nov 20, 2018 - 10:18am PT
|
LOL ... the nutcase wannabee so-called insecure scientist ^^^^ would take the match and light the stick of dynamite and then blame God that he says doesn't exist after he blows himself up ....
LOL .... what a nutcase .....
|
|
Jim Clipper
climber
|
|
|
Nov 20, 2018 - 10:24am PT
|
could god blow himself up? yeah he might deserve it?
Also, is that a fuse above your head? Maybe it's not so short, if a bit old and singed. Contagious light, like a smile.
(mine I mean)
|
|
Jim Clipper
climber
|
|
|
Nov 20, 2018 - 11:15am PT
|
antichrist = so called guru
anti-antichrist = maybe guruish?
not mine?
I'll take my response from a distance, no need to hang out in the impact zone..
Edit: Guru, is blowing up unbecoming? No mas eh? Hugs to the antichrist.
|
|
Jim Clipper
climber
|
|
|
Nov 20, 2018 - 03:37pm PT
|
I was thinking about both of you. Still, I agree that Jimmy Walker and Werner both have soul. The manifestation may be a bit different though. Cool is cool.
Anyway, I'd hold a rope for either of you, even if Werner had to tell me to go piss up one more than once. His roped tricks seem legendary.
Finally, seems atheists can argue as vehemently as the "religious zealot".
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!