No Gods and therfore no moral code

Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by altec, Nov 26, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. spookz Banned Banned

    Messages:
    6,390
    Bah. I am sorry that I did not feel the need to have to reassert everything in the 'origin of the species'.

    wrong book

    The statement I made that the human aims to survive is prettu much standard knowledge now.

    the human aims to survive!

    this is a lie! i assert.... they aim to die!

    hehehe
    cmon seriously
    do you really see that as some profound statement?

    the human aims to survive!

    hehe
    if so, why? explain the profundity

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. thefountainhed Fully Realized Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,076
    You have reached new lows my moronic fellow sciforumer.

    You are explaining a "technicality" by calling me a woman? LMAO. You aspire to be the hed; I cannot blame you.

    Spock: "i sense desperation. "
    Considering you are merely reading words I am typing, you cannot sense anything I feel. The only logical conclusion within the context therefore is that you sense yourself getting desperate. See, simple deduction.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    . You will do yourself good to learn.

    Even when you wriggle, you fail to move even a needle. Pathetic. Look below:

    Precisely. And this was before you expanded on what you meant by basic morality..

    Moron!!!

    You later state here that basic morality is tantamount to social instinct: i hold that a basic morality is instinctive. it is then properly called a social instinct as the conventional meaning of morality suggest something that is learned. this is exactly why i qualified the term as basic

    If social instinct provides the FOUNDATION for basic morality, the two cannot be the SAME. Yuck.

    I'm sure you know you how I use it fool.


    This is patehtic Spock.


    Like I said, a new low.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. spookz Banned Banned

    Messages:
    6,390
    If social instinct provides the FOUNDATION for basic morality, the two cannot be the SAME. Yuck.

    do you realize this is the only thing in that useless post that is worth a response?

    await destruction, nitpicker
    i will demonstrate how basic morality formed from the social instincts is indistinguishable from the latter

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. thefountainhed Fully Realized Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,076
    And there goes Spock with the abundant smilies, trying to see if the hed will let off a little bit. It's ok, I realized long ago that you were clearly out of sorts once profanities and the like were disallowed. I did cut you some slack and you still disappointed. Move on, find a different "front" and see if you can match me there. I suggest you pick areas you can at least look competent in...

    So far, your attempts to wriggle have been pathetic at best. So I cannot say I am looking forward to this "demonstrat"ion. I am running out of pity.
     
  8. spookz Banned Banned

    Messages:
    6,390
    ahh the indulgent and pitying mode

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  9. thefountainhed Fully Realized Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,076
    I just can't help but pity you at times, my moronic fellow sciforumer. You say I am your "enemy" LMAO, but to me, you are my best form of entertainment on sciforums right now. Your pathetic attempts to make my life "hell" are simply great entertainment for they are so moronic and tepid.
     
  10. spookz Banned Banned

    Messages:
    6,390
    enough of the small talk

    the "moronic" and "tepid" are considered entertainment!
    you certainly are one of a kind, mr head

    ps:that is not flattery by the way

    ok lets eyeball some chinese morality. god? or no god? i wonder what confucius has to say

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  11. thefountainhed Fully Realized Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,076
    They are moronic but with gusto!! You actually think you might get something done. LOL. It is in the presentation. and200x's bran of moronic for instance is simply annoying. Hence, my desire to shoot him-- now that would be entertainment.

    Jeez. Pick a different "front" already. If you have a challenge to anything I have said, post it.
     
  12. thefountainhed Fully Realized Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,076
    where?

    And what happens when one desecrates say the grave of ancestor? What happens when you kill another?

    LOL. So before confucius, there was no morality, eh? LOL

    You are blind. Gods/supernatural/ancestors/etc etc everywhere

    Also here are some more societies, all 'animalistic': Benin, Ashanti, Inca, etc ...

    Or do you want to go all the way back to Babylon?


    Ack. Realize that the whole morality must not be based on religion.

    Also you look at actions that are considered immoral, And their subsequent punishments. Whereever you detect a punishment from the divine/gods/etc etc you have an investment of morality in religion. You bore me now Spookz.
     
  13. spookz Banned Banned

    Messages:
    6,390
    apologies. this post is prior to the one above

    This assertion "it is due to the advent of monotheism that found morality invested in divinity (spookz)", is in itself broad and very incorrect. The Aztecs, Egyptians, Chinese, Indians, etc etc all did not have monotheism and yet had societies that had morality "invested" in divinity (head).

    you can find evidence to the contrary regarding the aztecs and hindus here

    now onto the chinese. for a civ that did not have anything resembling a conventional religion, asserting that morality was divined from the "religion" is imo, impossible.

    the have been a couple of philosophies that originated in china....

    *taoism which deal with the the harmonization of man with the nature.
    *confucianism emphasized a reiteration of current moral values. (status quo)

    *tradition also had the peasants worshipping nature spirits in order to curry favors along with ancestor worship.

    *it was during brother confucius time when a comprehensive moral code was worked out.

    i see no gods. anywhere
     
  14. spookz Banned Banned

    Messages:
    6,390


    i rather hear your thoughts on this. you introduce the aztecs as proof of an assertion. you back it up. fully.

    merely picking up the first reference given by google (city of sacrifice@amazon) and posting it as a reference is bogus. you have not read the book

    The moral code in relation to the gods in essentially pleasing them. And in doing so, the gods rewards them with morality.

    there is somthing whacked about the structure of this. what is "rewarding with morality"?
     
  15. spookz Banned Banned

    Messages:
    6,390
    where?

    in this thread. the link is in the sentence

    And what happens when one desecrates say the grave of ancestor? What happens when you kill another?

    what a strange question! what do you think happens?

    LOL. So before confucius, there was no morality, eh? LOL

    i did not say that. you are way too hasty to score points. the operative word is "comprehensive"

    You are blind. Gods/supernatural/ancestors/etc etc everywhere

    in that case you should have no problem educating me. who are these that you speak of? what is more relevant is... what was their role in the moral conduct of the chinese?

    Also here are some more societies, all 'animalistic': Benin, Ashanti, Inca, etc

    you have to back all this up or i will regard it as vomit. show me how the gods were involved in the morality

    Or do you want to go all the way back to Babylon?

    little man. that is up to you. you make assertions, you back em up.

    Ack. Realize that the whole morality must not be based on religion.

    ahh tempering your original assertion eh? perhaps i might make a big deal out of this attempt to modify your original statement.

    Also you look at actions that are considered immoral, And their subsequent punishments. Whereever you detect a punishment from the divine/gods/etc etc you have an investment of morality in religion.

    so? use this to back your play up. i deny that polythieistic religions delivered a morality to their followers in the same line as the monothiestic ones. i provide examples.

    since you still disagree, make your case or simply, shut the fuck up

    You bore me now Spookz.

    bore? who give a shit
    live or die head. aint gonna bother me none
     
  16. thefountainhed Fully Realized Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,076
    merely picking up the first reference given by google (city of sacrifice@amazon) and posting it as a reference is bogus. you have not read the book

    Perhaps you should find out why it is the first reference given by google.

    Try these combinations too: Kant + morality; Egypt + morality, etc. There is a simple reason why those books are the first referenced.


    The moral code in relation to the gods in essentially pleasing them. And in doing so, the gods rewards them with morality.

    there is somthing whacked about the structure of this. what is "rewarding with morality"?


    What is whacked u about the structure? It is circular because the entire idea is circular. You do good things for the gods and they reward you with good things.

    Firstly, what is your level of knowledge about the Aztecs? This would let me know how much detail, if any I need to delve into. Either way, Aztec life was predicated on their religion. It should be simple for you to see that if religion is a way of life, then the rules governing how you live will necessarily be based on that religion.
     
  17. thefountainhed Fully Realized Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,076
    You have provided no examples. Also who said anything about "same line"? Morality differs from society to society.

    This is self evident. If punishment is rendered by a divine for an immoral act, you have an investment of morality in religion.


    If you want quotes from authority, not today. I get off work at 9:30.
     
  18. spookz Banned Banned

    Messages:
    6,390
    Perhaps you should find out why it is the first reference given by google.

    Try these combinations too: Kant + morality; Egypt + morality, etc. There is a simple reason why those books are the first referenced.


    i accuse you of dishonesty and you reply with crap about search engine tech?.

    The moral code in relation to the gods in essentially pleasing them. And in doing so, the gods rewards them with morality.

    there is somthing whacked about the structure of this. what is "rewarding with morality"?

    What is whacked u about the structure? It is circular because the entire idea is circular. You do good things for the gods and they reward you with good things.

    with morality? give me reference

    Firstly, what is your level of knowledge about the Aztecs?

    everything except the origins of their morality

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Either way, Aztec life was predicated on their religion.
    It should be simple for you to see that if religion is a way of life, then the rules governing how you live will necessarily be based on that religion.


    if you approach things in this manner i have no problem with it.
    that is logical. it makes sense. there is a paucity of data and an application of commonsense as evinced here is probably is the best explanation.
    "neccessarily" could be replaced "probably" in order to err on the side of caution. you can never tell if there is a head out there itching to nitpick
     
  19. spookz Banned Banned

    Messages:
    6,390
    If you wish, as I do, to build a society in which individuals cooperate generously and unselfishly towards a common good, you can expect little help from biological nature. Let us try to teach generosity and altruism, because we are born selfish."(dawkins)

    lies all lies. the "selfish gene" should have been dumped into the trash long time ago. dawkins unneccessarily chooses to empasize a particular drive that humans have over others. back in the wilderness it would have been impossible to survive alone. making decisions that favor oneself alone will result in a weakening of the group or result in ostracization. reciprocity seem to be a fundamental trait. if you share with others they will share with you. selfishness does not pay

    note: these observations are specific to certain time period. in these modern times, rational thought and intelligence has developed to such an extent that it is possible to engineer our biological systems to our liking. inheritance is not a prominent factor in human nature. it has been subsumed by rational thought. i focus on a certain stage in our evolution (grunt grunt!)

    lets look at apes, what do they do? take care of the handicapped/kids, groom me, i groom you, share food, striving for a peaceful community ala breaking up fights and shit. punishments if above is transgressed.

    aint that us? now would you have that the apes sat down in a council and deliberated a code of conduct? or would it be more plausible that they choose to favor those innate drives that advance their wellbeing over those that do not? the initial impetus for morality was instinctive in nature

    the gene wants to perpetuate itself. this does not correlate to the notion that the gene is thus selfish
     
  20. thefountainhed Fully Realized Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,076
    By the way, here is an analysis of a merging of morality and religion prior to monotheism: http://www.nafcon.dircon.co.uk/christian4.html

    You 'accuse' me because you do not know any better. The book is simply popular.

    …rewarding with earthly goods. You must realize for instance that the sacrifice of humans, which you may deem immoral, was considered perfectly moral; in fact, it was holy, as far as that sacrifice was to a deity that demanded human sacrifice.

    http://www.epcc.edu/ftp/Homes/monicaw/borderlands/17_aztecs_ruled.htm

    You can alternatively, simply read a good book on Mexican history.
    You realize they had a god of morality-- Quetzalcoatl, no?

    No, necessarily applies because of the sentence structure. The sentence is tautological; a way of life means rules for life.

    I think you oversimplify things to fit your argument. Reciprocity is not a fundamental trait that stands on its own without the self; reciprocity is exercised simply because both parties receive a desire in return. The individual has a desire and insofar as he/she cannot accomplish that desire or aim by himself or herself, he/she will seek the help of others-- with the promise of help as the lure. The notion of simply ‘giving’ (excluding that between the parent and the child) is in itself, an invention of society. Wittgenstein, if I recall, makes the argument that altruism (outside the fundamental group) is instinctive. He asserts that pity and the like for instance are traits we have a priori-- without experience, a trait that is part of our being-- a primitive, if you will, mindset that is indistinguishable from the human. I tend to disagree with that notion. Morality, laws and the like exist for a reason; without them, we will have people raping, etc. Instinctive altruism or your idea that, as humans needed each other to survive, they must not be naturally selfish, is a flawed idea simply because selfishness is self evident in all the vices. However, what is termed a vice is relative...

    I think this focus weakens your argument. If rationality does note precede this "time period" of yours, then the notion of caring for others outside the fundamental was simply a product of a need to survive-- the self.

    Yea, let's look at apes. If you want to be groomed and I don't need grooming, I will ignore you; you will move on to another. The altruism between the parent and the child is biological. In addition, ape groups have different dynamics than a human society that exists past the basic groups—clan, family.

    It depends fully on the group

    Your conclusion does not follow from the argument. A human society can include individuals who never have to encounter one another, and can provide functions that do not affect each other. The dynamics are necessarily different when the level of organization goes up. You cannot simply equate ape society to human society for sake of argument.

    Of course it does. When the choice exists between choosing between itself and another gene that helped prolong the original gene's survival, it will choose itself. Hence, the gene is selfish.


    I see that you are trying, and I was thus, easy on you-- even though you suggest otherwise. If I feel that you have a strong argument, I won't be so "easy" on you, my moronic fellow sciforumer.
     
  21. spookz Banned Banned

    Messages:
    6,390
    4 pages down the road and you finally get an inkling about the issue here what frantic research did you engage in order to pull out wittgenstein? (you recall shit). perhaps a philosopher that backs your view might be appropiate?
    i fear you are going "atomic" on yourself.

    do yourself a favor and engage with no hold barred. it is a weak ploy to say you are "easy" on me. in forum jargon, it is known to mean that you are running on empty

    frikkin newbies!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  22. spookz Banned Banned

    Messages:
    6,390
    I see that you are trying, and I was thus, easy on you

    give me the hard version. it should be a cakewalk for you eh? i challenge you woman
     
  23. spookz Banned Banned

    Messages:
    6,390
    the problem with social darwinism is that it is easy to abuse. most get uncomfortable with this line of reasoning as it opens up a bunch of other shit.

    but thats them.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page