Morality

[Brian37]

Do you have a "theory" of Thor being the cause of lightening? No? I bet you rightfully accept humans made that up right? How much time do you spend every day trying to debunk that old mythology?

I know there are good people worldwide. I only disagree as to where they think our species morality is coming from. When you are a kid it is easy for parents to sell you the mythology of Santa, but most kids grow out of that over time. 

I value the likes of Martin Luther King Jr, but no, there is no such thing as a magic baby with super powers. I value the likes of Malala, but her courage to fight male oppression isn't because of Allah. I value the likes of Ann Frank who said "In spite of everything" she thought humans were good at heart, meaning if it were not for the bad leaders, we could get along. I love those who have that empathy in my species. But that empathy is in our species, not old writings.

Do you really know whom you are dealing with? Judging from your responses it seems you had a lot of misconceptions coming in. Then like many, when you didn't get the responses you wanted, it jarred you. 

Ok, so let me clear some of this up for you.

1. We are not a gang.

2. We are not a political party.

3. We are not a religion.

4. We do not love dictators.

5. We will not barbecue your kittens or rape your women.

6. We don't agree on all things all the time.

7. We are just as diverse and come from all nations and come in all skin tones.

8. ^^^^^^^ Keep re reading this list until it sinks in.

Ur the guy that has my Gibbon theory. B37. I asked u some question. No asnwer. Why? I didn't aim this post at u. Everyone else but u it was for
Extremely dissapointed. I though from reading ur theory u would be open to discussion. But uv got 10 commandments. Or 8

Did u read my response to that? How your theory is one I have based on the Gibbon monkey society? Seems not. Very dissapointed.
I thought I had a person to have a logical conversation with
I was very open to ur theory. Its one of mine. But ur dogma somehow still rejects my thought of open theories

Pessimisim is healthy but it seems people are trying to read between the lines instead of taking words off face value. Just an observation


Oh well I never completed my objective of understanding where atheist hate comes from. Might try another forum.
Differnet approach. Come clean with my whole agnostic christian morals theory. And be selesctive to only respond to reason

A glimmer of hope that B37 missed my responses, sees them now  and comes back with an open mind knowing more about where im coming from.
Its a tiny light but

How the hell is valuing human empathy "pessimism"? Skepticism is not pessimism. 

"Pessimism" is insisting that we have to cling to social norms otherwise the world will come to a violent end.

"Skepticism" is POSITIVE, not negative. 

If our species never questioned social norms, our species never would have left the caves.

What would, or should be so frightening to you if you figure out the ride ends? That humans are finite, and not special to the planet or universe? I hope you don't stupidly confuse that with "pessimism".  The ride ending isn't advocating lawlessness or violence. It is simply a statement of natural reality.

It is possible to accept that the ride is finite and be positive at the same time. You go to a movie knowing it ends, but you still go and enjoy it. You go to a music concert knowing it plays a last song, but you still go. You go to a sporting event knowing one team will win, and one team will loose, but you still go. You read a good book knowing it has a last page, but you still read it. You get a pet cat or pet dog, knowing it will not live as long as you, but you get one, and even after it dies you mourn for a while, and even get another after that.

Accepting reality does not make one pessimistic, but realistic. If I am "pessimistic" about anything, it isn't the good in our species, there is lots of good in our species. If I am "pessimistic" about anything, it is that my fellow humans are very capable of better logic and reason, but cling to the past out of fear of change far more than they should.

MOST humans are good. Most humans ARE capable of empathy, compassion and non violence. You are falsely using the word "pessimistic" to ignore considering that our species ability to do good and be good are not rooted in old mythology.

I do fear death FYI, but not the way a theist might think. I fear prolonged pain. I fear not having time with my loved ones and friends. I fear the pain they will feel after I die. But I don't fear any after life punishment/reward anymore than I fear my non existence before I was born. 

Our value as a species, is now, between the time we are born to the time we die. I see good in life, and bad in life. I simply do not assign either to super natural claims or old mythology. I see good in my species and we can choose that, but it is still up to our species to strive for that.

[Peebothuhlu]

 Hello!

I don't think in "Theories".

I have beliefs and ideas.

"I went through all the statements and found this one to be very insighful into the atheist mind
First thing is "I don't think" regardless what u posit after that its a damning statement
Second "in theories"."

Yoo wot mate?

'Ere?! Does yoo do English, Guv?

In case you missed it. That was a complete sentence. NO commas. NO fullstops. The whole thing is one, encompassing thought.

How's this for a different take?

"My mind does not process its cognizant concepts in the way, shape or form of 'Thoery'.

Capise?


There are quite a few definitions of theory. Scientific, philisophical and iv picked this one as it mirrors the way I use the term
"an idea used to account for a situation or justify a course of action"


That's won'erful, Guv. Thanks for explaining how your mind and personallity have chosen to use the English language. I'll try and keep that in my mind when I reply/conversie further with yourself.

Of course, You don't get to tell other people how they should use their language.

So, if folks point out that you should perhaps try and use the words in the same way that every one else is using them? I'm sure we'll get to understand each other quicker, simpler... Dare I say better?

I would suggest dissmissing ur beliefs. They come from a place of feelings and emotion. Not goot for logical thinking
I would encourge u to use ur ideas, ur thoughts. They are much more rational and is a much better way of reching conclusions. They are theories in my book

Again, we're now putting different meanings behind our words. I don't use the word 'Belief' the way you're using it here. The sentence makes as much sense as saying "You should dismiss all your ideas/thoughts."

Kind of like sayiung. "You should stop thinking." Doesn't make sense ofr people to stop thinking if you want them to converse with yourself. Since it takes the marshalling of thoughts into coherant words and sentences to (Imperfectly) convey such notioins.

As for, "Comming from feeling and emotions" ?  

Whot mate? Am I s'posed ta be a bloody Vulcan or somit?

Look to yourself. I'm pretty sure you'll find it impossible to be truly 'At peace with your inner Zen.' when cogitating pretty much about every thing.

Our emotions are just as much a part of us as putting thoughts together coherantly... with the aim of thence producing logic in the form of our swords and entences.

"I predicted no one would give straight answers.
Ive made so many falsifiable predicions on the reactions and comments from the atheists and they've all been true.
According to Karl Popper my impression of atheists still stands true."

And I would posit it's because you are USING ENGLISH differently to almost every one that's posting to your responses.

If you want meaningful dialogue with folks. You have to meet them at least half way.

You have to take note of how we use the words and hence the sentence structure to convey our thoughts to you.

Youi simply... doing what ever it is you're doing with the letters is... becoming baffling.

"Hehehehe since learning about Karl Popper his slowly over time made it into my top 5 scientis.
And then slowly again his now beeing promoted into my top 3. I love his thought proces and methodology."

That's nice Guv. Ah'm glad fer yer self, truly I iz.

Who you like in the world is a naffy bit a trivia. Bravo.

"I've got 3 theories that explain things from 200,000 BC to the begining of written history. I have them ranked from most to least probable
Their always changing. Yet people will laugh at me from these dogmatic position."

No Mr Agnostico, you don't have 'Theories'.
What you have are 'Hypotheses' and the hope that when your number of posts have repeated themselves such that their empty platitudes overwhelm us, we're no longer bothering to reply to yourself.
Because... If we are... You'll be so tied up in your vapid rhetoric as to be shown the shallow thinker you seem to be.

Also... do your ideas take into account for the method that ancient people used to pass on information with out the written form?

"Iv got some lines that look corny, sound weird but hey, they work for me."

That's great, Guv.

You keep bein' luverly you, then.

"I know people will laugh and troll but it worries me not. I know who im dealing with now."

No... I do not believe/think/ you really are conizant to whom you post......

 I really do find the 'Quote' function on this board a tad irksome to get right.
Not at work.

[The Grand Nudger]

Ive got 3 theories that explain things from 200,000 BC to the begining of written history. I have them ranked from most to least probable
Their always changing. Yet people will laugh at me from these dogmatic position

Iv got some lines that look corny, sound weird but hey, they work for me

Whether or not something "works for you" is no indication of an ideas veracity.  People are laughing at your ideas because they're risible. In truth, you don't have a single theory that explains anything from 200,000bce. These thoughts of yours only explain -you-.

[Agnostico]

How the hell is valuing human empathy "pessimism"? Skepticism is not pessimism. 
"Pessimism" is insisting that we have to cling to social norms otherwise the world will come to a violent end.
"Skepticism" is POSITIVE, not negative.

I think ur confused about the definition of skeptic
"doubt as to the truth of something"   Oxford dictionary
"an attitude that shows you doubt wheather something is true or useful"   Cambridge dictionary


Skepticism is  a negative that is similar to pessimism
"A tendency to see the worst aspect of things or believe that the worst will happen"   Oxford dictionary
"feeling that bad things are more likely to happen rather than good things"   Cambridge dictionary

Optamistic is listed as an antonym of pessimistic.
I cannot find your definition of pessimism anywhere B37. I advise u confirm ur definitions. Don't use google. Oxford and Cambridge are the best in my opinion


Anyway B37. I don't understand. How u can be hostile to me when I actually agree with ur theory and articulated it in the most positive way i could.
Empathy? Did u even read my reply to ur post? On page 3 of this thread? None of this addresses my reply to u on page 3. I haven't a clue what ur talking about here.

Go to page 3 and read my response to ur post. People may as well start trolling u seeing u have the same theory as me.
Wyzas also agrees with me us. But heaps of young kids here who are closed for discussion, rejecting the theories of fellow atheists. LoL

I was never hostile to u B37. In fact i was never hostile to anyone despite being trolled by everyone I remained civil.
I never used foul language and i never insulted anyone, I didn't lie about my position or anything. So I don't know. People here are affraid of opinions

If ur still this closed minded after reading my post i'll have no choice but to pull the pin on this forum leaving with a very low view of atheists. Extremely dogmatic

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

We do not love dictators.

Oh, I dunno, Brian - there have been a few dictators down through the ages who merit a good deal of respect.

Boru

[Agnostico]

We do not love dictators.

Oh, I dunno, Brian - there have been a few dictators down through the ages who merit a good deal of respect.

Boru

Iv dictated nothing. Everyone is so afraid of another thought process that they don't comprehend so they just use cheap ad hominem attacks


Morality. No one offered shit apart from 1 or 2.
Civilization. No one offered shit besides 1 or 2.
Philisophical questions. Everyone failed and was exposed as having alterior motives besides 1.
Definition. A confusion among atheists themselves.
Fallacies. Countless different logical fallacies. I never had 1.

If no one can point out where iv been a dictator this just adds to the untrustworthy nature of atheists without morals.

[Brian37]

We do not love dictators.

Oh, I dunno, Brian - there have been a few dictators down through the ages who merit a good deal of respect.

Boru

No, there is no such thing as a good dictator. Just like there is no such thing as a good abusive spouse.

Authoritarian leaders that have power that cannot be challenged are oppressive. They at best might treat loyalists well, but anyone who speaks up to that power takes great risk at arrest or death.


I do not respect ideas of absolute power with no checks on power.

[Agnostico]

---

No, there is no such thing as a good dictator. Just like there is no such thing as a good abusive spouse.

Authoritarian leaders that have power that cannot be challenged are oppressive. They at best might treat loyalists well, but anyone who speaks up to that power takes great risk at arrest or death.


I do not respect ideas of absolute power with no checks on power.

Brian37 did u read my post on page 3???
Or should I just go home???

[Peebothuhlu]

---

 Just a question Agnostico.

Is English your first language?

Or are you using some sort of translator software between your native language and then into English?

Just curious.

Not at work.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Oh, I dunno, Brian - there have been a few dictators down through the ages who merit a good deal of respect.

Boru

No, there is no such thing as a good dictator. Just like there is no such thing as a good abusive spouse.

Authoritarian leaders that have power that cannot be challenged are oppressive. They at best might treat loyalists well, but anyone who speaks up to that power takes great risk at arrest or death.


I do not respect ideas of absolute power with no checks on power.

Suppose I could supply you with the name of a dictator who was sincerely beloved by the populace (as opposed to shamming loyalty to keep out of prison), made sure even the poorest had enough to eat, struck no one off the public dole, kept taxes as low as possible, instituted massive infrastructure projects that benefited everyone, and pushed hard to maintain both freedom of speech and the rule of law. This dictator had no checks on his power (other than the limits he placed on himself) and ruled for life.  Yet with all conceivable power in his hands, he managed to rule efficiently and justly for more than forty years.

Any respect at all for someone like this?

Boru