Jump to content

Moral Parasites


MathGeek
 Share

Recommended Posts

I figured this topic deserved its own thread.

 

End3, LNC, YoYo and every other apologist who shouldn't be at this site...I am calling all of you out.

 

Atheists are moral and capable of be as moral if not more moral than your religious counterparts.

 

Here is the short of it...morality and ethics are philosophical areas that can be axiomatically derived for observing the world around you.

 

For example, humans of any stripe are capable of monogamy, as are other primates. Adultery is looked down upon by both species.

Axiom: relationships between counterparts must be based on trust

 

Humans foster positive emotions and favorable returns if they share. Same with primates.

Axiom: reciprocation and sharing build trust between counterparts

 

Humans foster negative emotions and unfavorable returns if they steal. Same with primates.

Axiom: theft destroys trust between counterparts

 

A human fosters ostracism if said humans eats another human. Same with other animal species.

Axiom: cannibalism is not a favored way to interact with counterparts

 

I have derived four ethical axioms based on material reality and I didn't consult the dominant god of Western Civilization, Yahweh.

 

Much observation was done to ensure these truths and philosophers from other societies laid much of the groundwork as well. Like Giuseppe Peano did to ensure that there was a solid axiomatic basis to ensure the basic mathematical operations were utterly sound, so have philosophers and ethicists have done without having to consult any religious text.

 

So I ask you plainly, how am I inconsistent in my worldview? Because I believe "do no harm" and "do unto others as done unto me" are my two core ethical principles, how am I being parasitic?

 

Christianity held Plato in high regard but he was a Greek that knew nothing of the Christian God, therefore aren't you borrowing from one theistic worldview to feed your own?

 

What say you, squiddies? What say you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 74
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

End3, LNC, YoYo and every other apologist who shouldn't be at this site...I am calling all of you out......

 

 

....... "do unto others as done unto me" are my two core ethical principles, how am I being parasitic?

 

 

What say you, squiddies? What say you?

 

 

I say :lmao::lmao::lmao:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

End3, LNC, YoYo and every other apologist who shouldn't be at this site...I am calling all of you out......

 

 

....... "do unto others as done unto me" are my two core ethical principles, how am I being parasitic?

 

 

What say you, squiddies? What say you?

 

 

I say :lmao::lmao::lmao:

 

Thanks for point out the inconsistency there. I am :lmao: myself.

 

Still, how is my general argument wrong?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I figured this topic deserved its own thread.

 

End3, LNC, YoYo and every other apologist who shouldn't be at this site...I am calling all of you out.

 

Why shouldn't I, the site has made a place for Christian apologetics, has it not?

 

Atheists are moral and capable of be as moral if not more moral than your religious counterparts.

 

Agreed

 

Here is the short of it...morality and ethics are philosophical areas that can be axiomatically derived for observing the world around you.

 

For example, humans of any stripe are capable of monogamy, as are other primates. Adultery is looked down upon by both species.

Axiom: relationships between counterparts must be based on trust

 

Humans foster positive emotions and favorable returns if they share. Same with primates.

Axiom: reciprocation and sharing build trust between counterparts

 

Humans foster negative emotions and unfavorable returns if they steal. Same with primates.

Axiom: theft destroys trust between counterparts

 

A human fosters ostracism if said humans eats another human. Same with other animal species.

Axiom: cannibalism is not a favored way to interact with counterparts

 

I have derived four ethical axioms based on material reality and I didn't consult the dominant god of Western Civilization, Yahweh.

 

Much observation was done to ensure these truths and philosophers from other societies laid much of the groundwork as well. Like Giuseppe Peano did to ensure that there was a solid axiomatic basis to ensure the basic mathematical operations were utterly sound, so have philosophers and ethicists have done without having to consult any religious text.

 

So I ask you plainly, how am I inconsistent in my worldview? Because I believe "do no harm" and "do unto others as done unto me" are my two core ethical principles, how am I being parasitic?

 

Christianity held Plato in high regard but he was a Greek that knew nothing of the Christian God, therefore aren't you borrowing from one theistic worldview to feed your own?

 

What say you, squiddies? What say you?

 

Best I can tell MG, you are struggling with the deconverstion. The last time I read some of your stuff, I thought you had gone back to church. I think I was and am confused to your position/belief.

 

I appreciate your axioms as I have things I consider axiomatic.

 

With regard to borrowing other beliefs, I don't know if I have ever heard of the water triple point discussed in a sermon nor celluose related to Christ's purifying aspect. But, with that, I have never read Plato et al.

 

I don't ever remember calling you parasitic. I think the last thing I said to you was I appreciated your math gift/skills.

 

What say you brother?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Still, how is my general argument wrong?

 

I think of ethical and moral in two different ways. Ethical as you mentioned in your OP; then you have morality, ethics to God. Your belief does not make you a unmoral, unethical, person. I think many get the words confused.

 

Polygamy and adultery are good examples. Here, both are illegal. Observations may have been an influence to the continuing effect of morality, but the world as a whole isn't uniform. To say that people are capable of monogamy, and adultery is looked down upon; is vague. There are some countries that adultery isn't recognized as a crime, and polygamy is still moral, or ethical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is the short of it...morality and ethics are philosophical areas that can be axiomatically derived for observing the world around you.

 

For example, humans of any stripe are capable of monogamy, as are other primates. Adultery is looked down upon by both species.

Axiom: relationships between counterparts must be based on trust

 

Since this is not the case, then the axiom is incorrect. Right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ethics is more about the science of morals, while morality is kind of more about the persons intentions to act "right". Or put it in another way, ethics is the principles of moral act, and a person could be ethical by just acting accordingly without actually being moral. He would be considered an "ethical person." While a moral person is someone who acts in accordance to conformity and set standards. In other words, he's not just acting it, but wanting it. And morals are more like rules agreed upon--bottom-up--while ethical rules are top-down, explained and developed through reasons. But most times the words are interchangeable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Observation is a key principle in ethics, yet I think religion has played a bigger part.

 

Much observation was done to ensure these truths and philosophers from other societies laid much of the groundwork as well. Like Giuseppe Peano did to ensure that there was a solid axiomatic basis to ensure the basic mathematical operations were utterly sound, so have philosophers and ethicists have done without having to consult any religious text.

 

But, I disagree here. History says otherwise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Observation is a key principle in ethics, yet I think religion has played a bigger part.

The three major ethical schools are:

 

1) Virtue ethics, based on Aristotle's work, and I think is one of the better ones

2) Utilitarianism, which is also called consequentialism, originated in J.S. Mills work.

3) Deontological ethics, or rule ethics, or duty ethics, based on Kant.

 

The Divine Command (Law) theory (or Natural Law), isn't that big in the philosophical community. It's around, but not that huge.

 

Our law is mainly constructed on consequentialism and somewhat on duty, not religious dogma or divinely revealed "truths." It was removed with the constitution and the bill of rights. The only "divine" law is the personal right of pursuit of their own happiness and improvement.

 

But, I disagree here. History says otherwise.

Actually history supports a non-Christian base. The Christian ethics are to large extent founded on Aristotle and Epicureans. Greek philosophy was a strong guide for many of the Catholic philosophers who came up with moral principles and rules. Which then later led to protestantism, and later enlightenment, and then the modern philosophers. It all ties together, but it's not the Bible which guides the reasoning behind morality, but the ol' style philosophical thoughts from Aristotle and Epicurus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But, I disagree here. History says otherwise.

Actually history supports a non-Christian base. The Christian ethics are to large extent founded on Aristotle and Epicureans. Greek philosophy was a strong guide for many of the Catholic philosophers who came up with moral principles and rules. Which then later led to protestantism, and later enlightenment, and then the modern philosophers. It all ties together but it's not the Bible which guides the reasoning behind morality, but the ol' style philosophical thoughts from Aristotle and Epicurus.

 

Did they not have Gods; Did their Gods influence their works?

 

I feel as though your saying that Jesus's ministry was influenced by Greek ethics?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Observation is a key principle in ethics, yet I think religion has played a bigger part.

The three major ethical schools are:

 

1) Virtue ethics, based on Aristotle's work, and I think is one of the better ones

2) Utilitarianism, which is also called consequentialism, originated in J.S. Mills work.

3) Deontological ethics, or rule ethics, or duty ethics, based on Kant.

 

The Divine Command (Law) theory (or Natural Law), isn't that big in the philosophical community. It's around, but not that huge.

 

Our law is mainly constructed on consequentialism and somewhat on duty, not religious dogma or divinely revealed "truths." It was removed with the constitution and the bill of rights. The only "divine" law is the personal right of pursuit of their own happiness and improvement.

 

But, I disagree here. History says otherwise.

Actually history supports a non-Christian base. The Christian ethics are to large extent founded on Aristotle and Epicureans. Greek philosophy was a strong guide for many of the Catholic philosophers who came up with moral principles and rules. Which then later led to protestantism, and later enlightenment, and then the modern philosophers. It all ties together, but it's not the Bible which guides the reasoning behind morality, but the ol' style philosophical thoughts from Aristotle and Epicurus.

 

I am going to pray for you Hans, that this OCD knowledge quest lifts from your shoulders.....................a joke son, that's a joke

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But, I disagree here. History says otherwise.

Actually history supports a non-Christian base. The Christian ethics are to large extent founded on Aristotle and Epicureans. Greek philosophy was a strong guide for many of the Catholic philosophers who came up with moral principles and rules. Which then later led to protestantism, and later enlightenment, and then the modern philosophers. It all ties together but it's not the Bible which guides the reasoning behind morality, but the ol' style philosophical thoughts from Aristotle and Epicurus.

 

Did they not have Gods; Did their Gods influence their works?

 

I feel as though your saying that Jesus's ministry was influenced by Greek ethics?

 

Wow, a knock-out blow... :woohoo:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did they not have Gods; Did their Gods influence their works?

So you're saying "belief in any gods" is what drives the reasoning behind morals? Well, the interesting part is that Socrates was tried for heresy and trying to disrupt and destroy the belief in the old gods. And Plato and Aristotle brought on new views of what "god" really meant. Good as a form, rather than a becoming being. And Socrates gave the first accounts of the arguments against the gods being responsible for morality: Euthypro's Dilemma.

 

I feel as though your saying that Jesus's ministry was influenced by Greek ethics?

To some degree I think what is written in the Gospel as being "Jesus's words" are in fact influenced by the Greek philosophy, and even more so when Paul took over. Paul had a scholar education, where Greek philosophy was part, and he came from a town where he grew up with a multitude of religious beliefs, and some heavily influenced by Greek mythology. At least that is my understanding, and he proves it by actually making some references to the knowledge of the old Greek philosophers. (The liars paradox for instance)

 

Greek culture was a big influence in the Ancient Rome. The word "Hellenistic Jew" is referred to the Jews (like Paul/Saul) who lived outside Israel, and were influenced by "Hellas." You know what Hellas means? It's the Greek name for "Greece."

 

The Bible was written or translated to Koine Greek. Do you seriously think Greek influence was none what-so-ever when they lived, ate, and wrote in that language? Everything points to strong influence from Greek.

 

But to go further, in the next two, three hundred years after, the Epicurean views on innate belief or knowledge was flourishing in Christianity. This part is what I heard in one lecture about the history oh philosophy, so I have no references to any good documents to show this, but that's what I've learned.

 

Then when you go even further in the Catholic church history, Anselm, Decartes, Aquinas, and so on, all of them had education and interest in Plato, Aristotle and the rest of the Greek philosophers. At least to their own admissions. Maybe they lied and studied Moses and thought it was spelled "Plato?" I don't know, but from the things I've read, they were influenced by the Greek books which were saved by the Muslims at that time. Yes, the Muslims saved the Greek literature, and thanks to them the Catholic philosophers got hold of it which influenced the view of justice, morals, belief, and logic.

 

This is at least as far as I can remember. I could be wrong, but look into some of the "proofs" of God's existence and who actually wrote them first, and you'll discover that most of these ideas are much older than the Church.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, a knock-out blow... :woohoo:

Hardly, since it's evident.

 

The Bible wasn't written and/or translated to Christianese, but to Greek. Go figure. Maybe they totally killed every Greek, but somehow magically knew the Greek language, just for the heck of it?

 

Some of the mistakes in the Gospels (if I recall correctly, MWC you can get me straight) were made based on mistranslations of the Torah to Greek. Like the "virgin" thing for instance. Which shows that the writers were familiar with the Greek translation of the Torah, and not Arameic or Hebrew. I also think (but this one I'm very unsure of) that during the time of Jesus himself, the Torah was used in Greek and not Hebrew. MWC, do you know anything about this part and can fill in on the different aspects?

 

 

---

 

Also remember, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, et al, were 300 years or so, before Jesus. A long time for the cultural and social influence to take root in the whole region.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But, I disagree here. History says otherwise.

Actually history supports a non-Christian base. The Christian ethics are to large extent founded on Aristotle and Epicureans. Greek philosophy was a strong guide for many of the Catholic philosophers who came up with moral principles and rules. Which then later led to protestantism, and later enlightenment, and then the modern philosophers. It all ties together but it's not the Bible which guides the reasoning behind morality, but the ol' style philosophical thoughts from Aristotle and Epicurus.

 

Did they not have Gods; Did their Gods influence their works?

 

I feel as though your saying that Jesus's ministry was influenced by Greek ethics?

 

Yes, Gods likely influenced their works but one of my main problems with Christian philosophy is that it borrows from Greek philosophy. Don't tell me to name a specifice example right now because I can't remember one off-hand. Christians accuse atheists of being hypocrites and parasites because we can't justify the existence of an overarching, objective moral standard and yet Christians take ideas from other forms of philosophy and they get away by saying that God gives them their moral foundation. I think when Christians answer with God, it makes them forego explanations that could be derived without a citing a supernatural presence.

 

Random person: Why are we moral?

Christian: Because God gave us that sense.

Random person: How?

Christian: He made us that way.

Random person: Okay, I accept that.

 

Sorry, does not compute.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To some degree I think what is written in the Gospel as being "Jesus's words" are in fact influenced by the Greek philosophy, and even more so when Paul took over. Paul had a scholar education, where Greek philosophy was part, and he came from a town where he grew up with a multitude of religious beliefs, and some heavily influenced by Greek mythology. At least that is my understanding, and he proves it by actually making some references to the knowledge of the old Greek philosophers. (The liars paradox for instance)

 

Greek culture was a big influence in the Ancient Rome. The word "Hellenistic Jew" is referred to the Jews (like Paul/Saul) who lived outside Israel, and were influenced by "Hellas." You know what Hellas means? It's the Greek name for "Greece."

 

The Bible was written or translated to Koine Greek. Do you seriously think Greek influence was none what-so-ever when they lived, ate, and wrote in that language? Everything points to strong influence from Greek.

 

Maybe to Paul, but not to Jesus. Jesus would have had to been trained in Greek philosophy to have embedded Greek ethics in His ministry. Besides that, Rome was no longer a republic then. These 'thinkers' weren't embraced during the time of Christ.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe to Paul, but not to Jesus. Jesus would have had to been trained in Greek philosophy to have embedded Greek ethics in His ministry. Besides that, Rome was no longer a republic then. These 'thinkers' weren't embraced during the time of Christ.

So Philo from Alexandria, Hellenistic Jew, who lived at the same time as Jesus, and who is considered to be influenced by Greek philosophy, wasn't? Well, Jesus personally maybe was not, but Alexander the Great was, and had control over Israel long time before Jesus. So the culture was already infected when Jesus was born. He got the plurality of thought from the setting of the world he lived in. He had no choice, even if he didn't know he was influenced. Maybe he listened and read Philo or any other Hellenistic Jew's writings for that time. Books and writings which now are gone and we'll never know for sure. But his ideas, to some extent, not completely though, do rhyme with Greek philosophy. It's worth looking into. I will do that as time allows.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, Gods likely influenced their works but one of my main problems with Christian philosophy is that it borrows from Greek philosophy. Don't tell me to name a specific example right now because I can't remember one off-hand. Christians accuse atheists of being hypocrites and parasites because we can't justify the existence of an overarching, objective moral standard and yet Christians take ideas from other forms of philosophy and they get away by saying that God gives them their moral foundation. I think when Christians answer with God, it makes them forgo explanations that could be derived without a citing a supernatural presence.

 

Random person: Why are we moral?

Christian: Because God gave us that sense.

Random person: How?

Christian: He made us that way.

Random person: Okay, I accept that.

 

Sorry, does not compute.

 

Maybe they do. What makes it stick then? The Greeks failed time and time again, becoming dictated. Greek philosophy was great, until it was done. Maybe the Greeks of ole' failed to establish peace in Rome because the One True God knew they were seeking other Gods. Maybe thats why He sent Jesus to stir the pot up a bit? :grin:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obviously humans are capable of moral action and immoral action quite apart from any commitment to the existence of a diety. When an atheist does right, she does right. When a theist does right she does right. Christian ethics are good ethics generally. If they are followed in the right spirit, they usually lead to results that most people would think of as ethical. Same is true of Buddhist ethics, Islamic ethics, and Hindu ethics.

 

There are good atheists, like Bertrand Russell and Jean Paul Sartre who opposed war and worked for peace. There are bad atheists like Stalin who started wars and committed atrocities. There are good Christians like Dietrich Boehoeffer who opposed the Nazis. There are bad Christians who supported the Nazis or did nothing to oppose them.

 

The question is not whether Christianity is the only source of morals but rather how atheists and Christians can find common ground to make the world a better place to live. The time spent debating these issues is much better spent thinking of ways to improve the condition of suffering people in our country and throughout the world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe to Paul, but not to Jesus. Jesus would have had to been trained in Greek philosophy to have embedded Greek ethics in His ministry. Besides that, Rome was no longer a republic then. These 'thinkers' weren't embraced during the time of Christ.

So Philo from Alexandria, Hellenistic Jew, who lived at the same time as Jesus, and who is considered to be influenced by Greek philosophy, wasn't? Well, Jesus personally maybe was not, but Alexander the Great was, and had control over Israel long time before Jesus. So the culture was already infected when Jesus was born. He got the plurality of thought from the setting of the world he lived in. He had no choice, even if he didn't know he was influenced. Maybe he listened and read Philo or any other Hellenistic Jew's writings for that time. Books and writings which now are gone and we'll never know for sure. But his ideas, to some extent, not completely though, do rhyme with Greek philosophy. It's worth looking into. I will do that as time allows.

 

Near the time of Christ, Rome became an Empire again. If Jesus's supposed ministry was timed around 300bc then I would be more apt to agree. But it wasn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This discussion is at a low enough intellectual and knowledge level to which I can attain. So here’s my two cents.

 

First, the existence of Jesus has not been established by independent sources. Have you read The Jesus Puzzle by Earl Doherty?

 

Second the Bible books written under the pseudonyms of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were all written later than the letters of Paul. If Paul was a Hellenized Jew, isn’t it likely that the other later writers (whose earliest extant manuscripts are in Greek) were Hellenized as well? If that be the case, then the philosophy underlying the words they put into Jesus’ mouth would very likely be Hellenistic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe they do. What makes it stick then? The Greeks failed time and time again, becoming dictated. Greek philosophy was great, until it was done. Maybe the Greeks of ole' failed to establish peace in Rome because the One True God knew they were seeking other Gods. Maybe thats why He sent Jesus to stir the pot up a bit? :grin:

 

Yet, could very well be but the establishment of Christianity in Rome only lasted a century because Rome inevitably fell in 476 A.D. Rome went east and last 1000 years, but not even in peace. Christian soldiers constanly warred with pagan nations and the Byzantines inevitably fell. It seems to me that Christianity failed in that regard. So much for being the religion that brings peace.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This discussion is at a low enough intellectual and knowledge level to which I can attain. So here’s my two cents.

 

First, the existence of Jesus has not been established by independent sources. Have you read The Jesus Puzzle by Earl Doherty?

 

Second the Bible books written under the pseudonyms of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were all written later than the letters of Paul. If Paul was a Hellenized Jew, isn’t it likely that the other later writers (whose earliest extant manuscripts are in Greek) were Hellenized as well? If that be the case, then the philosophy underlying the words they put into Jesus’ mouth would very likely be Hellenistic.

 

Maybe that lies the confusion between Paul and Jesus; and the thousands of sects of Christianity. Different veiws.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This discussion is at a low enough intellectual and knowledge level to which I can attain. So here’s my two cents.

 

First, the existence of Jesus has not been established by independent sources. Have you read The Jesus Puzzle by Earl Doherty?

 

Second the Bible books written under the pseudonyms of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were all written later than the letters of Paul. If Paul was a Hellenized Jew, isn’t it likely that the other later writers (whose earliest extant manuscripts are in Greek) were Hellenized as well? If that be the case, then the philosophy underlying the words they put into Jesus’ mouth would very likely be Hellenistic.

 

Maybe that lies the confusion between Paul and Jesus; and the thousands of sects of Christianity. Different veiws.

 

What exactly is your position regarding different sects? They are all quite different. Catholics pray to Mary. In some forms of Catholicism, Mary is considered a "co-redemer," along with Christ. I believe that some Eastern Orthodox sects do not consider Revelations to be cannonical. There are other differences in the cannon of different groups. Protestants don't consider the "Apocrypha" cannonical, but Catholics do.

 

It seems there are many avenues to the truth. I can't understand how anyone believe that they are on the only avenue to truth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.