Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

I just became an atheist

124»

Comments

  • #152
    Húrin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,045 ✭✭✭Húrin


    Asiaprod wrote: »
    Emotional time right now, best friend's wife currently dying in ICU

    I'm real sorry to hear that Asiaprod. I am praying for your friend and his wife.


  • #153
    sink
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,314 ✭✭✭sink


    Húrin, you might be interested a the discussion on Natural law and positivism over on the philosophy forum, as it has a lot to do with whether there is a divine and objective law or whether laws are derived from naturally evolved ethics and are subjective.

    I would counter your opinion on the divine nature of law with my own but since I've already expressed it in the other thread and as it is an off topic discussion for this one why don't you take the discussion there.

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055483646


  • #154
    youcrazyjesus!
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,146 ✭✭✭youcrazyjesus!


    KieranKennedy wrote: »
    I ask that you just take one moment to read this please, I feel as if I need to thank you, I mean you specifically as you sit here, and that is because I believe that the straight forward, intellectually rigorous and caring message which I have seen here, and in the other I atheists I have subsequently met as a result, played a huge part in helping me make the final leap.

    Perhaps it is strange to use the word epiphany, but that is exactly how it happened. I was sitting in my sitting at the desk in my bedroom, looking out the window at the street below, listing to the music playing on my laptop. One line from a song called how it ends hit me, “You already know how this will end”. It was as if somebody switched a light on. In an instant I knew. I do already know how this will end. There is nothing more after death. No afterlife, no god, nothing. I already know how this will end. The people downstairs, my family, the four people I love more than anything in the world, I now know that at some point in the future we will all be together, and it will be the last time that ever happens. I know that some day when I feel the wind in my hair and the sun on my skin, it will be the last time I ever experience that. I know there will be no more life after I die, so I have to make the absolute best I can out of every moment I live. I have to breathe life in like a scarce perfume and not let go of anything, because I already know how this will end.

    Thank you for reading this, and thank you for your help.

    You have to have sympathy for people who move from strongly religious to atheism. The whole basis for their existence is tectonically shifted. Luckily I went through this as a 13/14 year old and there were other things to move on to at that age. The good news is though: there's nothing to worry about. No hell below us, above us only sky. Everybody is in it together, when you die you'll be in good company.

    Best of luck.


  • #155
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    Húrin wrote: »
    What they actually mean is that there is no basis for a universal morality without the divine command, because without God, universal morality does not exist. The best most atheists can come up with is that their conscience tells them things are wrong. Which is fine, but it's also subjective.

    Some claim that our morality comes from evolution. The problem with this is that it's descriptive, rather than prescriptive. You're still no closer to knowing what is universally right and what is wrong.
    You approaching this from the wrong angle. You say "without God, universal morality does not exist". Well you are right - there is no "universal morality". So what now?

    This is because of the way our morality has evolved. What our conscience says is wrong in one era or location will not necessarily be wrong in another. What we do have are the basic elements of morality that deem what we can and cannot do to survive as a society - murder, rape, theft etc - but nothing universal.

    And even with your Christian God - where is the unity in morality? How many branches of Christianity have how many different interpretations? In reality it's a mirror of society where morality is no more universal than taste in food.


  • #156
    youcrazyjesus!
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,146 ✭✭✭youcrazyjesus!


    Dades wrote: »
    You approaching this from the wrong angle. You say "without God, universal morality does not exist". Well you are right - there is no "universal morality". So what now?

    This is because of the way our morality has evolved. What our conscience says is wrong in one era or location will not necessarily be wrong in another. What we do have are the basic elements of morality that deem what we can and cannot do to survive as a society - murder, rape, theft etc - but nothing universal.

    And even with your Christian God - where is the unity in morality? How many branches of Christianity have how many different interpretations? In reality it's a mirror of society where morality is no more universal than taste in food.

    It is stupid for an atheist to even consider the concept of "Christian morality". It doesn't exist. We have human morality only.


  • Advertisement
  • #157
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    youcrazyjesus! wrote: »
    It is stupid for an atheist to even consider the concept of "Christian morality". It doesn't exist. We have human morality only.
    Of course the concept of Christian morality exists.

    It may not be unified, and the historical 'facts' behind it may not be true; but any concept can exist.


  • #158
    youcrazyjesus!
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,146 ✭✭✭youcrazyjesus!


    Dades wrote: »
    Of course the concept of Christian morality exists.

    It may not be unified, and the historical 'facts' behind it may not be true; but any concept can exist.

    Ok, they shouldn't consider it as valid or a topic of serious discussion.


  • #159
    ChocolateSauce
    Registered Users Posts: 2,892 ✭✭✭ChocolateSauce


    youcrazyjesus! wrote: »
    Ok, they shouldn't consider it as valid or a topic of serious discussion.

    We have to, because so many people subscribe to it. We can't bury our heads in the sand and pretend it will go away if we ignore it. We have to confront it.


  • #160
    Overblood
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,359 ✭✭✭Overblood


    Any sign of Kieran?


  • #161
    Galvasean
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    Overblood wrote: »
    Any sign of Kieran?

    God smote him for his trechary.


  • Advertisement
  • #162
    AtomicHorror
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭AtomicHorror


    Húrin wrote: »
    Ah, so you agree that all people have an inbuilt value system?

    Of course. And those values are generally similar across most people. That makes sense, since some of those values enhance our survival.
    Húrin wrote: »
    I agree, and I think that God put it there.

    That's fine. Though there's no particular need to invoke God. Our values all feed moral systems which enhance our survival. None of them seems to contradict evolution, so it is not as if evolution cannot explain our values and morals.
    Húrin wrote: »
    There's a difference between seeing "no reason not to randomly rape/murder if that authority were not there," and seeing no motive.

    I agree, but the assertion being made by many Christians (and I'm not accusing you of this) is that atheists will be less moral because of the lack of moral authority. So that's a rather confusing contradiction. If true, we'd expect countries with greater secularity or higher rates of atheism to have higher rates of violent crime on average (since we might assume that the "motive" element will be equal in both groups). This isn't borne out by the evidence.
    Húrin wrote: »
    I doubt that any Christian who says the former means the latter. Unfortunately, atheists like to interpret it as the latter to make it sound like Christians are psychotic scumbags, only being held back from a bloodfest by divine commands.

    I don't think any of us are seriously making such an assertion. It's a rather wry swipe at the simplistic assertion that the world without that authority will be amoral. That sort of suggestion has been rather hysterically by people such as Donna Garner in writing to the Texas State Board, Mary Kenny in her column in the Irish Times and Melanie Phillips in hers in The Spectator.
    Húrin wrote: »
    What they actually mean is that there is no basis for a universal morality without the divine command, because without God, universal morality does not exist. The best most atheists can come up with is that their conscience tells them things are wrong. Which is fine, but it's also subjective.

    Yes, but we'd also hold that this exactly what we have anyway. We're just using the fairy tale to keep everyone in line with what is a majority morality anyway.
    Húrin wrote: »
    Some claim that our morality comes from evolution. The problem with this is that it's descriptive, rather than prescriptive. You're still no closer to knowing what is universally right and what is wrong.

    How could that knowledge possibly bring us closer to that even if we considered it be real? Evolution explains the origins of values and morality quite neatly, just as it explains the origins of species. But it certainly tells us nothing about where we go from here. We're still left with our values and moral framework and the choices as to what we do with them.


  • #163
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    AtomicHorror, you question Hurin for invoking God, yet you are invoking evolution in the formation of morals. Surely biology should be left to biology and sociology to sociology unless there is a clear and explicit reasoning behind why evolution should be included as you are suggesting we should leave God out of it?


  • #164
    youcrazyjesus!
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,146 ✭✭✭youcrazyjesus!


    ChocolateSauce wrote: »
    We have to, because so many people subscribe to it. We can't bury our heads in the sand and pretend it will go away if we ignore it. We have to confront it.

    I think you're missing the point completely. People class a certain value system as "Christian", we KNOW it's merely another set of human values. My point is more philosophical than literal. I'm not claiming Christians don't exist.


  • #165
    Flamed Diving
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,609 ✭✭✭Flamed Diving


    Jakkass wrote: »
    AtomicHorror, you question Hurin for invoking God, yet you are invoking evolution in the formation of morals. Surely biology should be left to biology and sociology to sociology unless there is a clear and explicit reasoning behind why evolution should be included as you are suggesting we should leave God out of it?

    How morals may have arisen through evolution has been explained about a BILLION times, by now. Your wilful ignorance does not fool me.


  • #166
    AtomicHorror
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭AtomicHorror


    Jakkass wrote: »
    AtomicHorror, you question Hurin for invoking God, yet you are invoking evolution in the formation of morals. Surely biology should be left to biology and sociology to sociology

    Have you and I had this conversation before? By your logic, I cannot invoke chemisty in biology nor physics in chemistry. Awkward. Morals are as much psychology as sociology. And the parameters of our psychology are defined by evolution. Our value of human life is an exaptation of our value of our kin, itself an exaptation of our survival instinct. Nothing particularly controversial in there.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    unless there is a clear and explicit reasoning behind why evolution should be included as you are suggesting we should leave God out of it?

    Because God doesn't exist. Evolution does.

    Or you want the kid gloves version, because I can test the role of evolution in the emergence of values and morality. If God exists, he leaves no marks on the natural world.


  • #167
    Overblood
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,359 ✭✭✭Overblood


    AtomicHorror wrote: »
    If God exists, he leaves no marks on the natural world.

    Oh yeah well how do you explain the face of jesus in my toast?


  • #168
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    AtomicHorror wrote: »
    Have you and I had this conversation before? By your logic, I cannot invoke chemisty in biology nor physics in chemistry. Awkward. Morals are as much psychology as sociology. And the parameters of our psychology are defined by evolution. Our value of human life is an exaptation of our value of our kin, itself an exaptation of our survival instinct. Nothing particularly controversial in there.

    Surely if there is no reason to invoke evolution it should not be invoked. I could claim right now that Morals are as much divinely ordained than humanly ordained, but one would expect a reason for such a statement. Likewise if I am to use the logic you are now using I should expect good reason for why one invokes evolution into morality.

    AtomicHorror wrote: »
    Because God doesn't exist. Evolution does.

    Is that seriously the best you can come up with? You know that there is no definitive absolute answer to the God question as much as I do. Therefore I can discount the former. The latter is correct, however that is still no reason to invoke evolution into the midst of morality. The existence of something doesn't mean it should be invoked into a possibly unrelated subject.
    AtomicHorror wrote: »
    Or you want the kid gloves version, because I can test the role of evolution in the emergence of values and morality. If God exists, he leaves no marks on the natural world.

    Please elaborate on how you can test the role of evolution in morality?


  • #169
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Surely if there is no reason to invoke evolution it should not be invoked.

    The reason to "invoke" evolution is that evolution can help explain our moral systems, how they develop, why they develop, and how they function, to a quite satisfactory degree of accuracy.

    "God did it" is an explanation, but you lose the ability to test and examine that (none of you can tell us what God actually did beyond the abstract notion that he gave us certain morals), where as one can quite easily examine the role evolution has possibly played in our emotional development.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    Likewise if I am to use the logic you are now using I should expect good reason for why one invokes evolution into morality.
    Because evolution explains morality in a way that can be examined and tested
    Jakkass wrote: »
    Is that seriously the best you can come up with? You know that there is no definitive absolute answer to the God question as much as I do.
    There is no definitive absolute answer to anything. That is just something theists hide behind to try and make it sound like believing in God is as reasonable and supported as not believing in God.


  • #170
    condra
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,849 ✭✭✭condra


    God is a theory without a shred of evidence to support it.
    Evolution is a theory with overwhelming evidence to support it.

    I choose logic over going along with my ancestors antiquated superstition.

    There is nothing to fear but wasting ones time- in fear.

    Kieran, congratulations.

    This may sound odd but I found the process of becomming atheist very "spiritually" liberating.
    I have really learned to appreciate the immense wonders of nature, infinity, physics, and the cosmos - and indeed existence itself. It's a freakin head trip dude. :D

    By the way, I dont know how badly indoctrinated/infected you were, but even weeks and months after becomming an atheist I still occassionally had my doubts, usually irrational fear that was deeply engrained in my brain. I hope you can get through that phase without pulling a Pascal.

    Best of luck.
    _

    By the way mods, FWIW, I consider sukikettles behaviour to be bordering on trolling.


  • #171
    achtungbarry
    Closed Accounts Posts: 831 ✭✭✭achtungbarry


    Húrin wrote: »
    and I think that God put it there.

    Intellectual laziness at its best........ or worst.

    How about doing some real research on the reasons for (or lack of) human morality.

    http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-psych-emp/

    http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~culture/Sunar.htm

    http://bookstore.ellibs.com/book/9780191536991

    These are only tiny samples of research available.

    Religion narrows our mind down to only accept explanations that fit within certain parameters. If we only dare to look outside those parameters we find a wealth of research and knowlodge often on subjects we take for granted.

    OP, congratualtions on your decision. Apart from anything else, you have just opened your mind to these wider parameters of knowledge. If there is any advice I would give you it is learn, learn as much as you can about the world around you : science, the arts,history or whatever interests you. The wonder and beauty of the real world is so much more satisfying than the imagined beauty of an imagined world.

    The search for REAL answers to life's mysteries is a million times more gratifying than simply blindly accepting ancient dogma.

    Enjoy the search.


  • Advertisement
  • #172
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Húrin wrote: »
    What they actually mean is that there is no basis for a universal morality without the divine command, because without God, universal morality does not exist. The best most atheists can come up with is that their conscience tells them things are wrong. Which is fine, but it's also subjective.

    Yes but it is never really been explained why we actually need a universal morality. As has been pointed out so many times already, we don't need a universal morality in order to stop us raping and killing each other. The "best" atheists can come up with seems to work very well.

    Also the idea of a universal morality is some what illusionary. Even if there is a universal morality so far humans have claimed thousands of moral systems to be the universal morality. A universal morality becomes rather pointless when one has to subjectively pick which moral system to consider the universal one. You can claim that the Judeo/Christian system is the universal one but someone else could just say you are wrong. With no way to determine this independently of the one each of you subjectively pick, it sort of loses any advantages I can see.
    Húrin wrote: »
    Some claim that our morality comes from evolution. The problem with this is that it's descriptive, rather than prescriptive. You're still no closer to knowing what is universally right and what is wrong.
    I'm not sure that is a "problem"

    Believing that there is in fact a universal moral system that we should know seems to do more harm than good. It leads to a stituation where people think their subjective choices are backed up by an all powerful (and never wrong) authority


  • #173
    Galvasean
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    womoma wrote: »
    God is a theory hypotheis without a shred of evidence to support it.

    FYP. Theories stand up to rigorous scrutiny.


  • #174
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Galvasean wrote: »
    FYP. Theories stand up to rigorous scrutiny.

    good theories stand up to scrutiny. bad ones don't, which is the point of the scrutiny. more importantly theories are models

    "God did it" is a hypothesis. A testable model of what someone thinks God did, when he did it and how he did it, is a theory. Doesn't matter if it is completely wrong, a model is a model. Something no religious person has. They just have "God did it", normally followed by "That makes sense to me"


  • #175
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,357 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    Have to say well done to the OP and that I envy you. I have no such story about realising the god theory holds no water. I was always this way. I never became that way, I never edges towards it, I never leapt towards it.

    From age 6 my first teacher in primary school read one passage from the bible every day. I was a very early starter with reading and had been reading for years before this. Roald Dahl, Enid Blyton, Willard Price and even Oscar Wilds Children’s stories…. It was all just stories to me some of them containing messages that stuck with me.

    So when the bible was picked up in school this was just story time to me. Some of the stories contained messages that still stay with me today. However, never in my life did it ever occur to me to consider any of the stories in or out of the bible to be true. Not once. Even in church.

    It was quite jaw dropping to me around age 11 I think when it first occurred to me that “hey…. Some people actually _believe_ this stuff?” Even now 19 years later I find myself still in a daze from that initial shock and I ask every believer I ever meet, and using the internet 1000s of people I will never meet…. “Why”.

    Of the 10% (estimate) that actually bother to answer me (the other 90% always get in a rage that you even had the gall to ask, no matter how politely or respectfully you do it) none of them have given me any sensible answers as yet and most of them usually end up listing the reasons why they feel they are exempt from having to explain it.

    So I guess I will never experience the sudden epiphany described here. Hell, I have find myself wishing I COULD become a believer, just to see what a sudden life changing epiphany feels like. I kind of feel like I am missing out. Imagine if someone told you all about orgasms in excruciating detail but then revealed you, for some medical reason you can think up yourself, will never have one. It is like the intellectual equivalent of that.

    Not that my life has been devoid of epiphanies, transcendent emotions or thoughts, or the numinous. Far from it. But this conversion experience in either direction is always described as being the BIG one.

    Not likely I guess when having trawled across 1000s of people asking every since one of them for even one piece of evidence to support their position, not one person has offered me anything. Literally nothing. Squat. Zilch. Nadda. Nothing. Nichts. Feck All. <Insert more here>


  • #176
    Flamed Diving
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,609 ✭✭✭Flamed Diving


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyd6om8IC4M


    Naturalistic Morality.


  • #177
    AtomicHorror
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭AtomicHorror


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Surely if there is no reason to invoke evolution it should not be invoked.

    But there is a reason. Without some cause, there's no particular reason why organisms would adopt certain behavioural patters, and that includes value systems enforced by emotions. We would expect them to be arbitrary. They are not, which begs the question of why this is so. We know that human emotions are based on the basic biology of the brain as well as the phenotypic structure it forms in life. Thus the emotions, the enforcing element of the value system and probably the acquisition of the value system itself are biological and at least partially genetic traits. We need no further pieces in the equation to explain the function of those traits, but the distribution in living things remains a puzzle. Evolution is the most immediate and obvious explanation for why the traits seen in living things are not arbitrary but distributed in patterns.

    I invoke it because it is a process that possess the capacity perform the function under scrutiny. Am I missing something here or is that quite reasonable? I'd see your point if I was invoking molecular orbital theory.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    I could claim right now that Morals are as much divinely ordained than humanly ordained, but one would expect a reason for such a statement.

    Invoking God here is not the same as invoking evolution. If I observe a chemical reaction involving an unexpected colour change in a solution, it makes more sense for me to attempt to explain it in terms of established theories with the power to perform that function- a chemical reaction- than it does for me to invoke God. Instead I look first to chemistry, and if that is insufficient, I look to physics.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    Likewise if I am to use the logic you are now using I should expect good reason for why one invokes evolution into morality.

    I think the above is a good reason.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    Is that seriously the best you can come up with?

    I was just making fun. I like how you crossed it out though.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    You know that there is no definitive absolute answer to the God question as much as I do.

    I know that lots of things that are possible, but that almost all of them don't exist.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    The latter is correct, however that is still no reason to invoke evolution into the midst of morality. The existence of something doesn't mean it should be invoked into a possibly unrelated subject.

    It's not unrelated, it has relevant explanatory power.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    Please elaborate on how you can test the role of evolution in morality?

    If a given value can be shown to confer a survival or reproductive advantage or disadvantage, and we can demonstrate a change in the frequencies of certain values over time in response to selection, that would test the hypothesis.


  • #178
    Húrin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,045 ✭✭✭Húrin


    Flamed Diving wrote: »
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyd6om8IC4M


    Naturalistic Morality.

    I think his three fatal assumptions are

    1. That Pirhanas refrain from killing each other through choice (morality) rather than involuntary programming (instinct)

    2. That because each family on the fictional island would be inclined to eliminate the other, by strong instinct, that their actions would be moral.

    3. That most Christians, Jews and others in history who believed in absolute morality, lived in comfortable, opulent circumstances.


  • #179
    ChocolateSauce
    Registered Users Posts: 2,892 ✭✭✭ChocolateSauce


    Overblood wrote: »
    Oh yeah well how do you explain the face of jesus in my toast?

    Don't be silly, Jesus is not in your toast. God just designed your brain to see patterns in chaos!


  • #180
    Mickeroo
    Administrators, Computer Games Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 32,478 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Mickeroo


    Húrin wrote: »
    1. That Pirhanas refrain from killing each other through choice (morality) rather than involuntary programming (instinct)

    Did god not give them these instincts?? Would they not be the equivalent to human morals? Morals is just another word for instincts. Some animals are manogamous some aren't, some will eat their young if food is scarce.....people have been known to eat other people too. Theres nothing in our social habits that cant be found in animal behaviour,yet you just pretty much said animals dont have morals given by god.


  • Advertisement
  • #181
    5uspect
    Moderators, Arts Moderators Posts: 10,518 Mod ✭✭✭✭5uspect


    iirc the Piranhas in the Bray Aquarium ate each other. Must have been Atheist fish.


  • #182
    Flamed Diving
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,609 ✭✭✭Flamed Diving


    Húrin wrote: »
    I think his three fatal assumptions are
    Húrin wrote: »
    1. That Pirhanas refrain from killing each other through choice (morality) rather than involuntary programming (instinct)

    Really? I thought his point was that all animals (especially social ones) have an instinct to cooperate. That's how the population survives. We carry the same instinct. We are social creatures. We would not survive unless we helped each other, within defined communities at least.
    Húrin wrote: »
    2. That because each family on the fictional island would be inclined to eliminate the other, by strong instinct, that their actions would be moral.

    His point was how there is no moral law, only what suits the defined group. Just like in the old testament, remember?
    Húrin wrote: »
    3. That most Christians, Jews and others in history who believed in absolute morality, lived in comfortable, opulent circumstances.

    What part of the film is this?


  • #183
    DeVore
    Business & Finance Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 32,387 Mod ✭✭✭✭DeVore


    For me a big revelation was thinking this: If nothing I do matters, then the only thing that matters is what I do.

    After that, everything kinda feel into place for me.

    DeV.


  • #184
    jill_valentine
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,090 ✭✭✭jill_valentine


    DeVore wrote: »
    For me a big revelation was thinking this: If nothing I do matters, then the only thing that matters is what I do.

    After that, everything kinda feel into place for me.

    DeV.

    God bless Joss Whedon. :D


  • #185
    DeVore
    Business & Finance Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 32,387 Mod ✭✭✭✭DeVore


    Eh?

    Who is Joss Whedon?

    DeV.


  • #186
    DeVore
    Business & Finance Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 32,387 Mod ✭✭✭✭DeVore


    Ok, thats very very strange. I googled him and that phrase and its practically exactly the same but... I'd never heard of the guy! (though I will admit to having watched Angel late at night). Spooky. Maybe it was God :)

    DeV.


  • Advertisement
  • #187
    inordertobeable
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27 ✭inordertobeable


    We are all just here, existing.

    Enjoy it. Regardless of what happens after because no one knows.

    Enjoy.


  • #188
    5uspect
    Moderators, Arts Moderators Posts: 10,518 Mod ✭✭✭✭5uspect


    DeVore wrote: »
    Eh?

    Who is Joss Whedon?

    DeV.

    Firefly ftw!


  • #189
    jill_valentine
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,090 ✭✭✭jill_valentine


    And on that note...

    Skip until 2:19:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JySE_zTG9yM


  • #190
    Húrin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,045 ✭✭✭Húrin


    Mickeroo wrote: »
    Did god not give them these instincts?? Would they not be the equivalent to human morals? Morals is just another word for instincts.
    No, morals are not synonymous with instincts. We have instincts. Sometimes our instincts encourage us to do right, and sometimes they encourage us to do wrong. Morals mean we have a choice. Pirhanas probably don't have a choice. Instincts would seem to be probably evolved, and thus not especially God given outside of the sense that evolution itself is God-given.
    Flamed Diving wrote: »
    Really? I thought his point was that all animals (especially social ones) have an instinct to cooperate. That's how the population survives. We carry the same instinct. We are social creatures. We would not survive unless we helped each other, within defined communities at least.
    Yes, I agree that we have such an instinct. But the pirhana remark demonstrates a lack of understanding of the difference between morals and instincts. The narrator seemed to think that Pirhanas have a choice about whether to kill each other or not, and that they are so moral that they always choose not to.
    His point was how there is no moral law, only what suits the defined group.
    I know that he meant that; however I am disagreeing with him. He thinks that it would be right for one family to kill the other, simply because that's what their instincts would suggest/demand that they do. The moral choice would be for each family to divide the food equally between them. Now that's definintely easier said than done, but it would be the right thing to do. If both are on an island, they're all going to die of starvation eventually.
    What part of the film is this?
    Near the end. It is coupled with a shot of skyscrapers at night.
    It's clearly nonsense. If anything, the material advancement of western society seems to have bred more moral relativism, not less of it.


  • #191
    Mickeroo
    Administrators, Computer Games Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 32,478 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Mickeroo


    Húrin wrote: »

    I know that he meant that; however I am disagreeing with him. He thinks that it would be right for one family to kill the other, simply because that's what their instincts would suggest/demand that they do. The moral choice would be for each family to divide the food equally between them. Now that's definintely easier said than done, but it would be the right thing to do. If both are on an island, they're all going to die of starvation eventually.


    He didnt say it would be right,he said it is what would happen. It's our nature to protect our families and ourselves. It's easy for us to say the moral thing
    is to divide the food evenly because we're not the ones fighting for survival, but in situations like this morals go out the window, its the same with war or any disaster. People loot,steal,do whatever is necessary to keep themselves alive.


  • Advertisement
  • #192
    DeVore
    Business & Finance Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 32,387 Mod ✭✭✭✭DeVore


    jill_valentine wrote: »
    And on that note...

    Skip until 2:19:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JySE_zTG9yM
    Ah sweet.... I must have heard it there or absorbed it from the background. Weird, but ok. Its still very much my take on how I conduct myself.

    DeV.


  • #193
    jill_valentine
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,090 ✭✭✭jill_valentine


    DeVore wrote: »
    Never seen him involved in atheism before though. Strange feeling to think we thought of the same thing but then I guess probably 100k people across the globe have thought it independently too.

    DeV.

    Great minds think alike, and all that... :D

    A lot of his stuff makes a lot more sense when you bear in mind that he is an atheist, and a vocal one. Firefly/ Serenity in particular, dwelling a lot on coping with a loss of faith, but Buffy and Angel weren't above taking the odd wry potshot at God now and then...


  • #194
    Galvasean
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    Firefly being cancelled after its first season is surely proof there is no God..


  • #195
    Mickeroo
    Administrators, Computer Games Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 32,478 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Mickeroo


    Galvasean wrote: »
    Firefly being cancelled after its first season is surely proof there is no God..


    nay halfway through it's first season :(


  • #196
    Galvasean
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    Mickeroo wrote: »
    nay halfway through it's first season :(

    I guess that means theree's no karma either.


  • #197
    Doctor DooM
    Moderators, Music Moderators Posts: 25,872 Mod ✭✭✭✭Doctor DooM


    Galvasean wrote: »
    Firefly being cancelled after its first season is surely proof there is no God..

    Next time PDN creates a well constructed, provocative and well researched post, I am going to stymie him with that. :D


Advertisement