When it comes to morality, one religion's "morality" is another religion's "immorality."

Thinktwice

[thinktwice]

When it comes to morality, one religion's "morality" is another religion's "immorality."

And that contradiction is evidence of serious flaws in religious moralities.

For me, a rational ethics -- free from religion -- is the only ethics worthy of carrying the name "moral."

Aristotle produced a simplistic rational ethics based on virtues visible in respected people, and vices visible in non-respected humans. And teaching Aristotle's non-denominational ethics in public schools would be a great idea, but ... We'd be turning out individuals with the same moral upbringing of Alexander the Great, and that wouldn't do in a socialistic world.

Even better is Ayn Rand's ethics. Her's is an ethics metaphysically based in reality and epistemologically based in reason; making it a clear and concise rational ethics that makes sense. Ayn Rand's ethics is clearly also what America's founding fathers had in mind when writing the founding documents that recognized and moved to preserve individual freedom -- the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution, and the Bill of Rights.

[Prysson]

You cant be serious.

First of all you reveal yourself with your constant negative references to religion..you are a religious bigot. Fine. I will continue to debate with you.

Your assertion that classic greek culture was more "cultured" that a judaeu-chritianic culture is utterly ludicrous. You have been reading too many of the classics and romanticising abit too much. Either that or you are smoking something.

The Ancient "cultured" greece that you talk about was filled with city-states that constantly warred upon one another. There were by contemporary accounts utterly barbaric tribes that practiced canibalism and performed acts such as beastiality and pedophilia regularly.

They waged constant warfare and practiced slavery. While there were clearly some "thinkers" that came out of classic greece. It was hardly a paradise of intellectual pursuits. So spare me the BS propoganda. The greeks may have been the founders of what we consider western cultures but they were hardly shining examples of everything good and pure.

Your comment about all souls going to Hades. is essentially the same philosophy of an afterlife and those who behave "properly" are treated better than those that dont. Of course what they ascribe as good behavior can sometime be dated but it nevertheless boils down to the same thing.

But your notion that there was no evil in the world of the greeks is not accurate. Every culture that has any sort of deity reference has good and evil. The representation of good is that which makes the gods happy and evil is that which makes the gods unhappy. Thus you get stories like
Orestes being chased by the furies for slaying his own mother. But of course the crime was mitgated by the fact that he avenged his fathers murder. Even the greek for all of their often time befuddling moral relativism differentiated between killing and murder as the difference between good and bad. Pleasing to the gods and displeasing to the gods...something for which divine punishment could be meeted out.

So your attempt to raise the Greeks as a sort of pantheon of atheism just doesnt wash..interestingly enough it was the Greeks who first embrassed Chirstianity by the way. That happens to be where most of Paul's work was done as well.

As for your complaint that if there is a good and evil then there is a god and an anti-god as being a circular argument.

That is not a circular argument but a valid philisophical argument that has been posited and argued by better thinkers than either you or myself. It is not circular to say that because their is good therefor there is a god.

It comes from a logical progression of thought that essentially argues that you can not have a central guiding judgment of what is right and what is wrong unless there is an determining force that specifies what is right and what is wrong. Rigthness and wrongness being thus determined by a supreme being/entity actually does stipulate that something would be good and evil. That which is for him is good...that which is against him is evil.

Your dismissal of this argument as circular just once again reveals your animosity towards religion. If you want to be an athiest that is fine. But spare me your prejudices when you are trying to make a point. You do not win arguments with me by dismissing as nonsense superstition religious philosophy and holding up long dead semi-barbaric cultures as shining examples of intellectual virtue.

Your position that religious cultures are far less cultured than that of ancient greece is such utter nonsense I dont know whether to laugh or just stop wasting my time with you. Factually modern western culture is more heavily influence by Judaeo-Christianic belief systems then it is by "Classic Greek" culture since arguably after the fall of the roman empire as the world disolved into utter chaos the development of "civilization" was closly tied with the spread of christian "kingdoms" Ther advanced and devloped their culture and societies almost in relative isolation of Greek influence save for the remnant influence of the Romans until the Renaisance. But that influence did not SHAPE the western nation is simply transformed its thought processes (nevertheless chirstian). Like it or not the greatness that is WESTERN CULTURE can NOT be seperated from its Judaeo-Christianic origins. For myself I will take modern day America over 200 BD Greece any day.

[thinktwice]

BTW, did the Randian system agree in all points with the Aristotelian system? Just asking...

Aristotle's Ethics of eudaemonism is known as the ethics of human happiness. And that happiness is best described in an old man that can only sit ... and smile.

Aristotle's Nichomachean Ethics is the collection of observations regarding virtues and vices.

Rand's ethics is developed using the rational framework of reality along with man's nature and needs, and it is philosophically presented in chapter one of the collection known as "The Virtue of Selfishness."

Rand chose that "Selfishness" title for its shock value, mainly because the word selfishness has bad connotations as a result of Christian/socialist ethics and public brainwashing. Look selfish up in your own dictionary to see what it really means.

[Gophack]

I respectfully disagree with your analysis.

Our country was founded by God-fearing men and women who wanted the freedom to worship, the freedom to choose their religion. Our founding fathers were to differing degrees devout and most, if not all, were Christians. Even Thomas Jefferson, who everyone calls a "Deist", said:

I concur with the author in considering the moral precepts of Jesus as more pure, correct, and sublime than those of ancient philosophers.

While Ayn Rand had many wonderful ideas about individual rights and liberty, when it comes down to morality, unless you deny the existence of God, there IS a divine moral order and there ARE commandments which we are all subject to.

So, if you say you're an Atheist, we have a different debate. If you say you believe in God, that's another story altogether.

And that contradiction is evidence of serious flaws in religious moralities.

I can honestly say that my church follows the word of God and the moral laws it requires of its members are universal moral truths based on the Word of God and Sacred Tradition. You can't honestly believe that there is no definitive right and wrong. There clearly is. There is evil and there is good. Satan is evil. God is good. And we sinners are striving to be more good than evil (hopefully) so that we may have eternal life.

Because that is the choice you have: eternal life, or eternal death.

[thinktwice]

city-states that constantly warred upon one another

Isn't it wonderful that war's been abolished?

By the way, haven't you noticed that war is usually the only way idiological and religious differences can be settled?

Does "civilization" require religion, or is religion sometimes the antithesis of civilization?

[w_over_w]

I dont know whether to laugh or just stop wasting my time with you.

That's a tough call. For what's it worth, I'm taking notes on some of your well researched, thought-out (twice?) points of fact. So don't feel as though it's a total waste.

[Prysson]

You are proving my own point.

Any please dont quote Ayn Rand at me I have read her books numerous times.

My point remains however that Ayn Rand was a religious Bigot. She percieved religion as a scapegoat of man offering excuse for failure and providing opiates to peoples unpleasant truths. They need a God to explain their sense of smallness, a heaven to answer for the hell they create for themselves in life. She had all kinds of reasons. She despised churches because she percieved them to prey off of peoples insecurities and shackle them to some false hope of a worth that they did not earn.

Her aruments were in the end utterly flawed by her own blind animosity.

Her prejudice is dripping from every word. Just because Ayn Rand who hated religion calls religion a mystic fantasy does not make it a mystic fantasy. Because she BELIEVED it was a social convention does not make a social convention. Ayn Rand stating something to be fact does not make it a fact. It makes it an opinion.

Her claim of a natural life as I explained earlier is by her own admission left unanswered....why is it unanswered. Because she doesnt have a solution. She doesnt like the answer that a god determines those things...so lets just leave them unanswered. Its a fact of nature she claims. Based on what. Your understanding of rightness and wrongness...I come again to the argument. Where is that perspective of rightness and wrongness coming from. It is where as a philosopher Ayn Rand FAILED UTTERLY. You can not dismiss as superstiction a question that you yourself refuse to answer.

She claims that it is right because the value of her own mind makes it so...end of story. Talk about a circular argument. What gives her that understanding that what she percieves to be good is right and good. She refuses to answer. She intentionally and blatently refuses to answer. The reason is clear. She has no answer and she doesn like where it leads her. So she ends the line with her own reasoning and goes no further.

I would also mention that Ayn Rand suffered a sever amount of criticism for living what many would regard as an immoral lifestyle. She had a multitude of affairs (as did her own husband) and she had the openly. She was highly criticized and had a very personal reason to want to create arguments why morality is not a "social" convention. Depsite your romantic view of Ayn Rand she was not by all accounts a terribly happy woman. She was by no means perfect and I while I have tremendous respect for some of her positions regarding mans worth and value I do not by any stretch hold her up and a demi-god as you seem to do.
She had her own issues and those issues effected her philosophy and her worldview. Issues like hating religion.

I have been down that road. I have argued and argued and turned her words inside and out trying to grasp hold of what she was getting at. She fails utterly to answer the question. She posites as a truth a belief that something is right and something is wrong. But she refuses to answer WHY it is right and wrong. To say that because I decided it was does not cut the mustard.

[w_over_w]

Because that is the choice you have: eternal life, or eternal death.

For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

John 3:17

Amen Bro!

[Prysson]

Examine what. Just because you think something is irrational you dismiss it as religious fanaticism.

For one thing I would argue that in thier worldview there actions were very rational. Just because you dont undertsnad something doesnt make it nonsense. That is the most retarded argument I have ever heard.

I wont answer to the kamikazee pilots because I have never been of their culture or belief system. But as for the Crusades. You throw out something I daresay you dont knwo very much about and you start to tread on thin ice. There were a multidude of practical cultural political reasons that lead to the crusades and "religious fanaticism" was not one of them... it may have been used a s a tool or weapon and it may have been a result of certain actions taken..but religious fanaticism did not cause the crusades.


My premises stands

[Prysson]

I never suggested that war was over..I sure wish you would stop picking as little points like some little ptulant child. Cant you put together a cohesive argument.

You through out some silly question like

Does "civilization" require religion, or is religion sometimes the antithesis of civilization?


and think that it wins your point. Questions dont win arguments.

I would first off argue that war does not settle religious differences except in that one might be wiped out in the process. but since in my opinion wars are not fought for religion but rather for control of resources you point falls flat. Religion may be the dividing line between two oposing sides. But the war is fought for control over resources=wealth=power. It is not fought over religion. You may figh for one side over another because they share your particular interest/religious perspective. But that doesnt make the war ABOUT religion.

Religion is not the antithesis of civilization. It is at the heart of it.

[Prysson]

I need to take a break I am starting to get angry and I dont want to. I want to have a RATIONAL discussion with you about this because as you clearly do I too think it is an important topic. I have staretd to get nasty with you and for that I apologize. I will takea breather for a time and come back after I have calmed down. Please forgive iny intemprate remarks. I truly intend to keep it civil but sometimes my temper rises.

For what its worth I actually do think you are thinking well I just disagree with your conclusions.

[Jeff Chandler]

If I wanted to acquaint myself with Rand's writings, in what order would you recommend I read them?

[NatureGirl]

Bookmarked for later.

[Prysson]

I neglected to answer one of your questions...you asked

to explain why one culture can believe in suicide bombers as going to heaven whiel another thinks they are going to hell...

You asked that in reference to how I could state that the belief in god can be based on and lead to a religion that is founded upon rational logic.

I will answer that.

Just because two belief systems disagree on an issue does not mean that they are irrational. It does mean that one is wrong and one is not...or perhaps that both are wrong. But being wrong does not make something irrational. Look at you and I . You dont believe in religion (or at least you act like you dont so forgive me if I assume incorrectly) I believe in God. One of us is right and the other is wrong. Period. That does not mean that the one who is wrong is irrational. It does not make him insane or illogical. It jst simply means that through his own interpretation of the facts he sees before him he was wrong...incorrect. The world is full of philosiphers that wew later dismissed as wrong. It certainly did not make them wrong.

Some of the world most celbrated philosiphers were ardent Christians. Does that make them crackpots. Homer was a pagan who believed in a multitude of dieties..does that make him a freak of nature. An irrational weirdo who can tthink. I dont think so. Your position that one has to be one or the other is what I take umbrage to. Just because someone is wrong does not make them irrational. It is the same animosity that defeated Ayn Rand. She could not argue successfully against religion because ever word that came from her mouth was dripping with her contempt for it. She could not even discuss it from a objective perspective. It colors the value of her observations.

I believe you are wrong. But I dont think you are an idiot. Why must you assume that because I believe in God I must be a irrational nutscase who believes in "mystical fantasies"?

Now as for why two religions can contradict themselves and how that doesnt mean they have apposing moral perspectives.

Suicide bombing is a modern development. There isnt even any writings in the Koran about suicide bombings. It is clear in a religious context (lets speak in Judaeo-Chritianic terms) that murder is evil however.

Nevertheless even the bible offers up justifications for war. So clearly in some instances killing is not "murder" and therefor does not consitute a sin...and just so you know the original greek interpretations out of the aramaic do in fact differentiate between the act of murder and kill.

Where an action falls in that line of reasoning is a matter of interpretation. That interpretation may very well as you believe be a result of irrational behavior and belief systems. But it is not necessarily so. A person could have a very clearly thought out and very logical explanation as to why a suicide bombing is not evil. I dont doubt that the palestinians have just that. The only question is whetehr you AGREE with their reasoning.

Now as for who is right and who is wrong...That is where things get interesting.

There are muslims who believ that suicide bombing is evil because it slays innocent lives. Are they right? I would argue that since the number of people who are actually out doing suicide bombing is significantly lower then than full number of muslims thatg the majority of muslims...while happy to have their brethren kill a few infidels dont necessarily believe it is a one way ticket to paradise.

That is a matter of indoctrination...Now I could really get heavy here and start quoting the Koran surah for surah and give yu all kinds of rational reasons why I personally believe that the Koran is a false religion and why I believe it builds upon religious doctrinal turths that came before it and then perverts them to its own ends...but that is a whole seperate discussion.

The bottom line is that religious doctrine dictates that killing is wrong. It is MEN that draw the distinctions that say oh suicide bombing is fine or no its not.


But neither of those behaviors are in and of themselves necessarily irrational.

[IronJack]

For me, a rational ethics -- free from religion -- is the only ethics worthy of carrying the name "moral."

First of all, a system of values is not "AN ethics;" it is an ETHIC (singular). "Ethics" are the values themselves.

Now that the semantics are cleared up, I certainly can't debate what's "true" in your personal opinion. But a "rational ethic" is subject to the same flaws as any based on religion, for the simple reason that men are notoriously poor at judging their own rationality and its derivatives. Liberals are a prime example. They will defend their empty values to the death, firmly convinced in their own minds that their irrationality is fully justifiable. Never mind that their track record is deplorable. Never mind that the "logic" they use is valid under no construct known to man. In their minds, it makes sense, and all other lines of reasoning are hollow.

Besides, since logic is itself a construct, by what values do you form an ethic? Utilitarianism? Transcendentalism? Judeo-Christian cosmology? Ultimately, everything you know and believe come from the values formed over 2,000 years of Western thought. How do you propose to divorce them from Judeo-Christian influence?

Ayn Rand's Objectivism is a pipe dream, itself fatally flawed.

[thinktwice]

Because that is the choice you have: eternal life, or eternal death.

It's that eternal life that doesn't make sense, no matter how hard you might wish it true.

"Eternal life" is a fantastic selling point in religions; but ... sex sells, too, and religions haven't impressed me with all their contradictions and wild-eyed fanatics.

Nevertheless, assuming there is eternal life, I've had some thoughts about what God might ask people when they get to Heaven's gare.

I think it will have something to do with how well you have used your God-given mind to think about things like ethics, and how well you've avoided religions in getting there.

[Gophack]

It's that eternal life that doesn't make sense, no matter how hard you might wish it true.

You obviously don't believe in God, or that He gave us His Word in the holy scriptures. I will pray for you. God bless.

[thinktwice]

war is fought for control over resources=wealth=power. It is not fought over religion.

Men will not willingly go out to fight and die without some moral reason.

It would be a classic mistake to ask troops to fight and die for resources=wealth=power.