h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

- "What is hateful to you, don't do unto others - that's the whole Torah.
The rest is commentary. Go and learn." -



Thanks for that, warner. This and other variations of the Golden Rule show up in many religious writings.

It's so wise that it's even greater than god himself since it works perfectly in the absence of god. This fact counters the common religious slander that we atheists have no motivation to behave morally.

Tumsup,
You're welcome.

World peace?

Well what about Norwegian peace? http://russellsteapot.com/comics/2007/Dra-Til-Helvete.html

Dude, I'm moving to Norway.

Can a state religion be seen as cause of as well correlated with a decline in belief in a God?

Any takers? Article 2 of the Norwegian establishes the Evangelical-Lutheran church, has this made the meme less competitive and lead to it's decline?

*sigh* The religious argument is not that atheist are immoral, nor that they have no motivation to be moral. With a few disproportionately vocal exceptions, most people are quite prepared to accept that atheists have functioning consciences and are not bad people.
The argument is that atheists lack a logical basis for their morality.
Since atheists are people, they are quite capable of acting morally in the absence of a logical basis. Logic is satisfying, but people don't actually need it to function.

Right, having got that little bugbear out of the way, I will return you to your conversation.

Err, yes, but only that is utter bollocks. My moral, or immoral actions are entirely determined by logical throught processes, which can in the main be sufficiently explained by the science to satisify me that as an explination it is valad. As an atheist who's actions are in the majority 'moral' the choice to act in this way is largely determined by the underlaying fators which control social actions, which by necessity must ultimately be driven by genetic factors, where as an individual I have choices not restricted by a dogma-driven warped perspective of teh world, I make these in certain ways often derived and determined by my upbringing, my peers, my culture and environment, all of which are ultimately creations of humanity and therefore arrisen and developed the way they have as an ultimate result of the genetics which exist in whatever 'society' it is I happen to live in.
All without draw to fairys at the end of the garden.

But why is survival, or the perpetuation of one's genes, or the wellbeing of the group, good? You can argue that an action produces good consequences and is therefore good, but the definition of good consequences is arbitrary.

You tell us, you're theist. It was the god of the bible that set down 'go forth and multiply', and labled masterbation and homoseuality a sin.

The perpetuation of one's genes is 'good' for ones genes... Kinda self-referenterial I know but it only looks particularly weird if we choose to use the word 'good' there.... It kinda hints at their being a 'bad', as well as 'good' and they're pretty relative terms really ...
Perhaps 'optamum' or err some other term would be better.... Good and bad are for the most part such imotive terms, and there isn't any real emotional aspect to it as far as the genes are concerened.
It all gets a bit rubbish anyhow once terms like 'moral' ond 'conscious' get used and bandered about in ways that don't really help...
I'm not acting 'morally', when I find someones wallet and hand it in, given differnt circumstances (like being absolutely skint and not having eaten for days), I'd not hand it in... But my socialisation has worked kinda well I guess so I'd tend moreoften than not to hand it in...
and moral and immoral are by their nature pretty rough defianted things, I imagine a lot of people or a certain persuation woudl see the kind of sexual antics I get up to with people both of my own sex and of the 'fairer' sex as immoral... or at least morally questionable... But as its not any direct bisuness to these people to have anythign to do with the sado-masachistic and filthy and kinky and ... other fettish thigns I get up to, its not relaly an issue

I think we're on pretty much the same page, 2legs. Well, we fundamentally disagree about the nature of the universe, but what's a little philosophy between friends?

It's a pet hate of mine, the conflation of 'no logical basis for morality' with 'no morals'. It's not very important, in the grand scheme of things.

Ridiculous

I'm a ridiculous pony?

There is nothing rediculus about my I handcuffed it to the bed and chained it to a tree to protect it from the Bovarian Robot Chipmunks, the evidence is here:
http://www.zshare.net/audio/18431115d08a029b/

There's some interesting points raised in recent posts, about morality.
>>terms like 'moral' ond 'conscious' get used and bandered about in ways that don't really help..<<

I'm not quite sure what's meant by that. I would agree that 'we' get our ideas of 'right and wrong'
from factors such as our upbringing, peers, culture and environment. But it's more than that,
imo, there is a sense of conscience like "would I like someone to do such and such to me?".
The main things that destroy mankind are twofold:

1) The test of wealth, how we earn and spend it; or the lack of it.
2) Our sexual desires, how we control and 'channel' them

They can certainly 'make or break' us, in my experience ..

Sexual desires... as long as its consentual is there relaly any morality to do with sex, other than what certain religious texts tell us: Which is from what I remember a fairly sensible in the main view on sexual morality, (though IMO morality doens't need to be used in this sense to describe it); Mainly as in the times of which such religious texts date back too, contraception wasn't really widely avilible as it is now, and 'control' over sex helped in knowing who's kid was who's, and was quite important for things like inheratance and particularly land ownership..

What I ment with the comment on the terms 'morality' and such like is... Do these terms really hae a clear definition in the way in which they're being used in convos like this? To be honnest 'morality' is a term I kinda understnad but would be ill at ease to attempt to actually define in words, it is as you say more a human emotion that is just hardwired pretty much into our heads...

I think 'consensual' is too low a bar for sexual morality. Safe and sane are good additions, but I'd include something along the lines of 'do no harm' as well. If you know perfectly well that someone is going to regret what they're consenting to, you shouldn't do it.

>but I'd include something along the lines of 'do no harm' as well.<

>If you know perfectly well that someone is going to regret what they're consenting to, you shouldn't do it.<

Yes that's why we have Laws to cover these things. That's taken as a given. Outside of that what one person considers harmful another may not. That's just subjective. And in love, 'regret' is an inevitable aspect. I don't know a single person who has gone through a bit of broken hearted regret in their life. That's life.

And if people disagree with law they should campaign to have it changed. That's why we have democracy, which is the foundation of the system that covers the whole community, whatever their beliefs.

No, I don't mean the kind of things the law condemns. I don't mean bodily harm, for the most part. I mean that agreeing to do something is not necessarily justification for doing it.

Say I came to my boyfriend in a fit of angry rebelliousness and asked him to have sex with me, when he knows that I really do believe in abstinence until marriage and when I'm thinking straight, not running on an emotional storm, I'll remember that.
In that case, he shouldn't have sex with me.
I'd be consenting, but he'd know that I'd wish I hadn't done it afterwards. Legally, he's be free to have sex with me, and that's as it should be. Morally, he shouldn't do it. Just as legally, I may be as hurtful and cruel in conversation as I wish, but morally, I shouldn't.

If you're going to have sex with someone you should do it in a loving way. You should be caring for their wellbeing as much as your own. The law can't be the judge of that and it shouldn't try.

>Say I came to my boyfriend in a fit of angry rebelliousness and asked him to have sex with me, when he knows that I really do believe in abstinence until marriage and when I'm thinking straight, not running on an emotional storm, I'll remember that.
In that case, he shouldn't have sex with me.<

I don't think your boyfriend can be expected to be a mind reader, and second guess what you are telling him.

You seem to be referring to 'real life' where nothing is perfect and we all make mistakes...its called grown up living.

Your argument doesn't make any sense to me when talking about consenting adults.