Atheism a 'Mental Illness'

[Omnaka]

I would say, just offhand, you understand, that professing atheism in a place where atheists are beheaded would seem to be a form of mental illness.

LoL.

[Leonardo]

No. That is a false dichotomy dependent on YOUR logic and definition, which I do not accept.

If it is logic, MW, then it is not "mine" by definition.

So, again, you have exercised your self-determination and disagreed. I'm happy that you have yet to expose any flaw in the reasoning behind my statement.

[Duke Wellington]

You have misinterpreted my statement, WCF.

It states that the individual's life is the individual's to live. Those Muslims, if asked whether the statement is true would answer "Yes, my life is mine to live." Those prisoners, despite their antipathy for society, if asked would say "Yes, my life is mine to live."

Any individual, capable of independent thought, would agree the statement "My life is mine to live", is true. Thus the ethic of self-determination - even if that is to give up that determination to another - is universal and 'correct'.

Having agreed that the individual's life is that individuals to live, no person can argue that another person is not entitled to live their own life for themself, without contradicting the ethic they have agreed. Thus, they either agree each individual is entitled to self-determination, or they make the argument that no individual is entitled to self-determination. And that argument is logically flawed in that, if no-one is entitled to self-determination, it is impossible for any individual to argue the case for that.

There is no relativity in the statement "My life is mine to live", because it applies to all individuals universally.

I'm going to argue against this because people are not islands cut off from the rest of the world. Their actions impact other peoples lives so there needs to be a focus on the society not the individual. The society should say 'this is how you are expected to behave' because its in all of our members best interests that you do. Only a few countries on this planet are as individualistic as the US and boy do they have social problems.

A country is a team who all need to function together correctly if its to perform at its best.

[Leonardo]

I'm going to argue against this because people are not islands cut off from the rest of the world. Their actions impact other peoples lives so there needs to be a focus on the society not the individual. The society should say 'this is how you are expected to behave' because its in all of our members best interests that you do. Only a few countries on this planet are as individualistic as the US and boy do they have social problems.

A country is a team who all need to function together correctly if its to perform at its best.

My statement of universal ethic does not negatively impact the proper functioning of a society. All people have the choice to be selfish or co-operative - and most choose co-operation, which is fine by me. But the point is those people have that choice. While there are pressures and expectations to comply with the majority (or another's) view, it is still an individual's choice to do so.

Which does not contradict the universal ethic of self-determination at all.

Edited June 27, 2014 by Leonardo

[Duke Wellington]

That is the problem with Theocracy, it is inherently a fascist system, that steps on your human rights and tells you they are doing you a favor, because it is religion. Religion is not the job of government. Sewer, water, roads, security, schools, etc... is the job of government. Religion is the job of a Church, Temple, Mosque. You get Government people in your Church. then they want to take over, because they are the government. It is the nature of the beast. It never turns out well, you just end up paying taxes to the Church and following a lot of silly rules.

Religion is about taking the blue prints for a perfectly happy and morally good civilization then applying them. If the moral codes are just then how is imposing them a violation of human rights? The only people falling foul of it are the immoral.

Lets imagine a future Sim City title. In it you get to see the impact on peoples lives that lust, gluttony, greed, sloth, wrath, envy and pride have (or another faiths version of them). Then you'd realise religion isn't just a collection of silly rules but that it makes sense.

You can even apply the moral codes without a theocracy. Most of the moral codes in the Bible and Quran are infact laws in your country or have been at some time. The breakdown of society is being caused by their dilution.

[Duke Wellington]

My statement of universal ethic does not negatively impact the proper functioning of a society. All people have the choice to be selfish or co-operative - and most choose co-operation, which is fine by me. But the point is those people have that choice. While there are pressures and expectations to comply with the majority (or another's) view, it is still an individual's choice to do so.

Which does not contradict the universal ethic of self-determination at all.

Freedom works if people are morally perfect. Control works if people are perfectly morally flawed. Both are wrong because we aren't all at the same level of personal responsibility.

Freedom is an ideal to aim towards, for when people are morally perfect, not a human right many are entitled to right now.

[Mr Walker]

I didn't misunderstand you. You've always been very clear - mostly.

The punishing of people for straying from the ideological norm (be it religious or political ) is not healthy for any society.

This thread gave you the opportunity to promote one of your favourite theories, and sympathise with a entire society that hasn't grown up.

Fair enough. But people who are different are often not "'punished", but have negative natural consequences imposed on them, when a society requires its members to be uniform in order to promote unity safety prosperity and progress. In one era that might be women who want to go to work and not stay at home and be wives and have children. In another era it might be women who don't want to go to work but stay home be house wives, and have a large family Where you are out of step with social requirements there will always be a cost.

In a very rich and complex society, like modern western ones, we can give people a bit of latitude in difference, but this is not always the case and certainly has not been the case historically. People who won't cooperate with group norms can be quite dangerous to achieving group ideals and progress. And even in modern societies, individuals who want to go their own way, not cooperate etc., can create high costs harm and danger, which I am not certain we should tolerate just because, being so wealthy, we can almost wear/accept/bear.

[Mr Walker]

I would say, just offhand, you understand, that professing atheism in a place where atheists are beheaded would seem to be a form of mental illness.

Or great courage and commitment to a belief

[Mr Walker]

If it is logic, MW, then it is not "mine" by definition.

So, again, you have exercised your self-determination and disagreed. I'm happy that you have yet to expose any flaw in the reasoning behind my statement.

I exposed the flaw in a post above but you do not see or accpet it Self determination does not mean our lives are ours to live as we choose. I think we are arguing because you used the wrong statement in your opening argument Yes all humans have an unfettered right to chose how they live their lives. But that unfettered right does not logically mean that all humans consider their lives are their's to live as they wish. Which was your original statement. Edited June 27, 2014 by Mr Walker

[Mr Walker]

No, it's not.

Ask anyone - anyone - whether the following statement is true.

"My life is mine to live."

I guarantee everyone, given time to consider their response, will answer in the affirmative. From this 'correct' statement of ethics, the core of self-determination, all other 'correct' ethical values can be reasoned.

This was your post with your own words

The statement is not true BECAUSE a human being might NOT logically and rationally consider that their life is their own to live as they chose to live it. You guaranteed, moreover, that all humans given time and an application of logical thought, would answer in the affirmative, yet large numbers do not. We believe our life is not our own, but a gift from others, such as god or our parents and our society, and thus it is not ours to live, but something we must utilise to repay that gift of life, education, nurture etc..

And you see this leads to a critical divergence in all ethics and moralities. If I do not believe my life is my own to live, but that it exists to serve others and not my own needs, then my moralities and ethics will diverge markedly from anyone who thinks their life is theirs to live as they chose to live it.

I no longer believe that ANYONE has an ethical or moral right just to live their life as they wish, just because they have an independent mind in an independent host body, UNLESS they go out into the woods, find a cave and live as a hermit. Then their life can revolve around their own needs and desires. Even then they are abrogating an owed duty and responsibility to all those who cared for them, kept them alive, and raised/skilled them to the point when they could live independently.

Edited June 27, 2014 by Mr Walker

[Leonardo]

I exposed the flaw in a post above but you do not see or accpet it Self determination does not mean our lives are ours to live as we choose. I think we are arguing because you used the wrong statement in your opening argument Yes all humans have an unfettered right to chose how they live their lives. But that unfettered right does not logically mean that all humans consider their lives are their's to live as they wish. Which was your original statement.

This was your post with your own words

The statement is not true BECAUSE a human being might NOT logically and rationally consider that their life is their own to live as they chose to live it. You guaranteed, moreover, that all humans given time and an application of logical thought, would answer in the affirmative, yet large numbers do not. We believe our life is not our own, but a gift from others, such as god or our parents and our society, and thus it is not ours to live, but something we must utilise to repay that gift of life, education, nurture etc..

And you see this leads to a critical divergence in all ethics and moralities. If I do not believe my life is my own to live, but that it exists to serve others and not my own needs, then my moralities and ethics will diverge markedly from anyone who thinks their life is theirs to live as they chose to live it.

I no longer believe that ANYONE has an ethical or moral right just to live their life as they wish, just because they have an independent mind in an independent host body, UNLESS they go out into the woods, find a cave and live as a hermit. Then their life can revolve around their own needs and desires. Even then they are abrogating an owed duty and responsibility to all those who cared for them, kept them alive, and raised/skilled them to the point when they could live independently.

MW,

Might I suggest i is you who is "not logically and rationally considering" the statements you are making?

I get that you object to the statement I made, and I am not attempting to convince you to agree because whether you agree or object you are still reinforcing the concept of self-determination as a universal ethic - as would any person who "logically and rationally considered their life was not theirs to live".

Any person is free to surrender their self-determination, but that surrender is itself an act of self-determination. They have chosen to allow their life to be dictated by another. This choice may be free of any pressure, or may constitute a very limited choice between unpleasant alternatives - but it is still a choice.

And might I also remind you, it is you who has added the "as they wish" to the statement I made - I never suggested "desire" played any part in the choices an individual makes. If you wish to keep arguing that strawman, please do so, but I will ignore any argument you base on your addition as irrelevant to the universal ethic I espoused.

Edited June 27, 2014 by Leonardo

[gatekeeper32]

If had enough of any religion there are the atheist utopias of China and North Korea

[Omnaka]

I'm going to argue against this because people are not islands cut off from the rest of the world. Their actions impact other peoples lives so there needs to be a focus on the society not the individual. The society should say 'this is how you are expected to behave' because its in all of our members best interests that you do. Only a few countries on this planet are as individualistic as the US and boy do they have social problems.

A country is a team who all need to function together correctly if its to perform at its best.

Even if its wrong?

Laws are bought and paid for by special intrests here. That only benifit the Corp, that bought em.

[Duke Wellington]

If had enough of any religion there are the atheist utopias of China and North Korea

With the way their philosophies are there is more focus in those countries on moral conduct. Systems thinking is at the heart of how their societies are run. If the atheists don't like their present countries then they will hate North Korea and China even more.

[Duke Wellington]

Even if its wrong?

Laws are bought and paid for by special intrests here. That only benifit the Corp, that bought em.

Thats the US, like I said you got problems over there.

Your country is too focused on the individual or the individual business instead of society as a whole. Whether the US succeeds or fails then you all succeed or fail together. You are all on the same team so you should function properly as one.

[Frank Merton]

We are all on the same planet so we all succeed of fail together. The days when nations could stand independently of disasters elsewhere are over.

[Arbenol]

Fair enough. But people who are different are often not "'punished", but have negative natural consequences imposed on them, when a society requires its members to be uniform in order to promote unity safety prosperity and progress. In one era that might be women who want to go to work and not stay at home and be wives and have children. In another era it might be women who don't want to go to work but stay home be house wives, and have a large family Where you are out of step with social requirements there will always be a cost.

In a very rich and complex society, like modern western ones, we can give people a bit of latitude in difference, but this is not always the case and certainly has not been the case historically. People who won't cooperate with group norms can be quite dangerous to achieving group ideals and progress. And even in modern societies, individuals who want to go their own way, not cooperate etc., can create high costs harm and danger, which I am not certain we should tolerate just because, being so wealthy, we can almost wear/accept/bear.

Maybe 'western' societies have the luxury of granting freedom of expression of thought. Where this expression does no harm, then it really should be the norm.

Nigeria is clearly one nation that has a serious problem with this. It's not just atheists that are in danger there. Depending on the area, people are being killed for being Muslim or Christian.

This has nothing to do with it not being an affluent 'western' nation. Most developing countries are managing to avoid this kind of situation.

[Davros of Skaro]

If had enough of any religion there are the atheist utopias of China and North Korea

Wouldn't Sodom and Gomorrah be the ideal Atheist Utopia?This way Atheists can worship their own Sin they love so much, instead of wasting lust on a State, or a single Dictator.

[gatekeeper32]

Wouldn't Sodom and Gomorrah be the ideal Atheist Utopia?This way Atheists can worship their own Sin they love so much, instead of wasting lust on a State, or a single Dictator.

Obviously based on your prejudice attitude in these forum, you are unhappy in living within a society diverse in beliefs and faiths. Consider the suggestion of others places to relocate to where there is no religion and you don’t have to interact with those who differ in thought as mandated by the state.

Edited June 27, 2014 by gatekeeper32

[Davros of Skaro]

Obviously based on your prejudice attitude in these forum, you are unhappy in living within a society diverse in beliefs and faiths. Consider the suggestion of others places to relocate to where there is no religion and you don’t have to interact with those who differ in thought as mandated by the state.

1984 would be your nirvana if it was scripture based.

[gatekeeper32]

1984 would be your nirvana if it was scripture based.

and you sound like a man who could benefit from reading Lord of the Flies

[Skep B]

and you sound like a man who could benefit from reading Lord of the Flies

Nobody benefits from Lord of the Flies.

[Davros of Skaro]

and you sound like a man who could benefit from reading Lord of the Flies

I read it, but I suggest you read a book on critical, or logical thinking.

Edited June 28, 2014 by davros of skaro

[rodentraiser]

Thats the US, like I said you got problems over there.

Your country is too focused on the individual or the individual business instead of society as a whole. Whether the US succeeds or fails then you all succeed or fail together. You are all on the same team so you should function properly as one.

Agreed. At a time when the business mantra is "Be one of the team!" or we get fired for not being a team player, we have way too many people here who would willingly sacrifice all of us just so they can stand up and say we died "free", whatever that is. Personally, I'm in no mood to lay down and die because of someone else's idiot beliefs. Right now I want to be like the reed in the wind and bend to have things a little better. There are some principles I won't give up, but if people in this country can be fed, clothed, sheltered, and kept healthy by what some call socialism, well, then let's have socialism. I'd rather see a nation of live sheeple than of dead individual citizens (although personally, I think the majority of US citizens can be sheeple and still rise up like a lion whose tail is on fire if they ever need to). If you're alive, you can rise to fight another day. If you're dead, you can't do anything. To the people who find this horrific, all I can say is sometimes you have to bite the bullet and do what you have to do. Either you have freedom inside your heart or you don't have it at all. Our country is a disgrace and if this is the way to fix it (and nothing else is working), then let's quit being stupid and fix it!

Edited June 28, 2014 by rodentraiser

[rodentraiser]

Fair enough. But people who are different are often not "'punished", but have negative natural consequences imposed on them, when a society requires its members to be uniform in order to promote unity safety prosperity and progress. In one era that might be women who want to go to work and not stay at home and be wives and have children. In another era it might be women who don't want to go to work but stay home be house wives, and have a large family Where you are out of step with social requirements there will always be a cost.

In a very rich and complex society, like modern western ones, we can give people a bit of latitude in difference, but this is not always the case and certainly has not been the case historically. People who won't cooperate with group norms can be quite dangerous to achieving group ideals and progress. And even in modern societies, individuals who want to go their own way, not cooperate etc., can create high costs harm and danger, which I am not certain we should tolerate just because, being so wealthy, we can almost wear/accept/bear.

But at the same time, look at all the people who DID stand up and be different, at whatever cost: Martin Luther, Copernicus, Johannes Kepler, Rosa Parks, Charles Darwin, Galileo, Henry Ford, Susan B. Anthony......I could go on and on. Capitualtion to the group is something that is ignored over and over again. Being part of the group might be natural for humans, but breaking out of the boundaries seems to be just as natural.