daily devotional to set up atheists for the day

The beauty of science is that it does not claim to know the answers before it asks the questions. There is nothing wrong with not knowing. It means there is more to learn, and as I have said before, ignorance bothers me far less than the illusion of knowledge. –

Lawrence Krauss

“Owners of dogs will have noticed that, if you provide them with food and water and shelter and affection, they will think you are god. Whereas owners of cats are compelled to realize that, if you provide them with food and water and shelter and affection, they draw the conclusion that they are gods.”

“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens

for ben and les

For KD


and for fun

Fun thread, and great quote from Krauss. Open mindedness is seeing and learning, not believing whatever then fitting things that happen to suit.

veya_victaous wrote:for ben and les

hilarious

One would go mad if one took the Bible seriously; but to take it seriously one must be already mad.”
― Aleister Crowley,

Okay, here's a really inspiring short film. If life lasted forever, it would be worthless. But because it ends, it's priceless.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=152&v=X7hjTszI3F8

Ben_Reilly wrote:Okay, here's a really inspiring short film. If life lasted forever, it would be worthless. But because it ends, it's priceless.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=152&v=X7hjTszI3F8

that was very sweet
but to be honest i would be quite happy to live forever ....and intend to

(... because God can't fix these things when he doesn't really exist ... )

Thatvus the sweetest story ever!

Morning folks. I've lost the topic where I mentioned Gods and Goddesses of fantasy and myth. There are many tales worldwide of the Gods being angry and causing chaos, and or strange anomalies. The Kinabalu earthquake was caused by the Gods being angry because a girl stripped off...lol...here's another weird belief, set in Namibia, SW Africa.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

what, exactly...is "right" ?

darknessss wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

what, exactly...is "right" ?

The opposite of "wrong"

funny.....


surely, like concepts of good and evil ...it depends on your cultural environment?

darknessss wrote:

funny.....


surely, like concepts of good and evil ...it depends on your cultural environment?

I thought it was funny too.. 

It will always be a subjective matter which gets better over time as it has done through the centuries through cognitive thinking on the moral ethics of defining right from wrong.
We base laws on what is fair where for example would it be wrong for someone to steal personal items of yours that do not belong to them?
The answer would be yes, that this would be wrong, because they are personally affecting you without due course or care. Even if they did this from a point of starving, you would not be the cause of them facing such a dilemma and it would by the system letting them down. You are then an added victim to a system that lets down some in society who then go on to effect others.
Again much will be based around our well being and our well being to others.
Hope that makes sense

darknessss wrote:

funny.....


surely, like concepts of good and evil ...it depends on your cultural environment?

Perhaps, but there are some basic concepts I think most people find reasonable. If I were to try to define morality objectively, I would say that it is wrong to do personal or material harm to another person, unless that's required to stop them from doing the same.

Right is the opposite -- it is right to help people personally or materially, unless that help enables a harmful endeavor.

Both of you again make the mistake of considering this from where you are NOW.
I.e. from INSIDE your present cultural environment....

darknessss wrote:Both of you again make the mistake of considering this from where you are NOW.
I.e. from INSIDE your present cultural environment....

I disagree That it has a bearing on cultural environment, as your well being and the well being on others does not require a cultural environment. Its defining how your well being can be effected as long as it does not effect the well being of others. It has everything to do with how we treat each other and how we would want to be treated ourselves. Whether you are living in Iraq or the UK two different cultural environments, the same view on well being can be applied.

Anyway night Ben and Victor, catch you gents tomorrow.

Night

i don't like the idea of good and bad i prefer the idea of kind or cruel as they apply to a singular action of/toward an individual

good and bad are too all encompassing.

that it is wrong to do personal or material harm to another person, unless that's required to stop them from doing the same.

what if both are going to do material harm? finite resources means that 2 can have equal claim but only one can have it

Plus a theoretical question for you consideration...
what if you save a baby Hitler? it was good at the time cause he was just a baby... but he does grow up to kill millions so on a longer scale was bad

veya_victaous wrote:i don't like the idea of good and bad i prefer the idea of kind or cruel as they apply to a singular action of/toward an individual

good and bad are too all encompassing.

that it is wrong to do personal or material harm to another person, unless that's required to stop them from doing the same.

what if both are going to do material harm? finite resources means that 2 can have equal claim but only one can have it  

Plus a theoretical question for you consideration...  
what if you save a baby Hitler? it was good at the time cause he was just a baby... but he does grow up to kill millions so on a longer scale was bad    

Well, that's why we have societies that can intervene in cases like that and judge what to do.

As far as the baby Hitler scenario goes, you save a baby because you don't know what he/she will grow up to do, and thus his/her future is open to do good or bad things. If you somehow know the baby's going to grow up to be Hitler, you don't save it, of course.

Hi folks. When I became involved with philosophy one of the first uestions I asked myself was, 'who is right, who is wrong?'  One answer is that rightness is that which is carried out by the majority of people in a given society for the benefit of that society. But there are exceptions of course. Many societies believe emphatically that their way is right, such as ISIS. Thousands of them believe that what they are doing is rght with a divine reward. Their actions are abhorant to us but to them it is right. Christianity and other faiths are the same, their ways and beliefs are right, and others are wrong.

And so, after many years I still ask the same question: Who is right, who is wrong? Is rightness that which is beneficial for the majority? Or are a minority right despite their actions being anti-social from the majority's point of view?

stardesk wrote:Hi folks. When I became involved with philosophy one of the first uestions I asked myself was, 'who is right, who is wrong?'  One answer is that rightness is that which is carried out by the majority of people in a given society for the benefit of that society. But there are exceptions of course. Many societies believe emphatically that their way is right, such as ISIS. Thousands of them believe that what they are doing is rght with a divine reward. Their actions are abhorant to us but to them it is right. Christianity and other faiths are the same, their ways and beliefs are right, and others are wrong.

And so, after many years I still ask the same question: Who is right, who is wrong? Is rightness that which is beneficial for the majority? Or are a minority right despite their actions being anti-social from the majority's point of view?

I agree with the proposal that whatever benefits society, humanity, life the most is "right." I know there's no way to be sure, of course, but I can't think of anything better and plenty that would be worse for most people -- like the ISIS mentality.

Interestingly (at least to me), I've read essays that say this is the real fundamental difference between the left and right. The left believe in societies set up to allow the greatest happiness to the greatest number, while the "true" right believes in a fairly rigid social order of leaders and followers, and that happiness comes from accepting your "place."

What this implies is that even if you hold views that are considered line-item conservative platform ideas, if you support them because you believe it will lead to more happiness for more people, you're actually a liberal.

Morning Ben. Quoting your paragraph from above: 'The left believe in societies set up to allow the greatest happiness to the greatest number, while the "true" right believes in a fairly rigid social order of leaders and followers, and that happiness comes from accepting your "place."

I cannot help but believe the 'Right' their strictness and (dare I say) self importance, is not condusive to a free, democratic and liberal society. Liberal as in free actions, not political. Providing people live within the law then that surely should help society forward to a happy and fulfilled life and society, providing of course they have the means to live a fulfilled life, but then, is money the answer to a fulfilled life? Yes it goes a long way to providing life's comforts and a well stocked cupboard and freezer, but self-fulfilment comes from within the individual. He/she must at times sit back and contemplate who and what they are, what interests them, how best to bring out those interests into their daily lives. Self-fulfilment leads to a happier person, which leads to a more sociable, amenable person, which is good for the community and society.

Enough for a while. Catch you soon.