a quick word about faith

just a quick word

so far, i've been making pretty long posts. well, here's just a little taster. i came across a comment on youtube which i've seen SO many times in one form or another, i figured i would just respond to this one dude and paste my response here as well for all to enjoy. ;)

-------------

HigH!

you seem to be confused as to the proper usage of the word "faith".
(either that, or you're being intentionally deceptive)
either way, here's a little refresher:

1) "faith", as used in a religious context, refers to faith without evidence, without proof, without any reinforcement(consistency, reliability, etc.). like flipping a coin and having "faith" that it landed as you called it(without checking it).

2) "faith", as used in a scientific context(yes, the "faith" that you so vehemently declare all evolutionists to have) is something more reliable. for example, the faith i have in my family to be honest with me, because i am familiar with their characters, and have never known them to be dishonest. and even THAT isn't as solid as the faith i can safely have in the scientific method, because the method itself is internally consistent, and if properly applied, leads to consistent results. in short, the scientific method is a great roadmap to use in order to be honest with YOURSELF.

you appear to be obsessed with the history of individual scientists(or hoaxers who aren't even scientists) producing inconsistent results because of a misapplication of the scientific method. but you seem to forget that it is OTHER scientists, properly applying the self-critical properties of the scientific method, who successfully exposed those frauds/mistakes, etc.

now, i don't even know what your religious beliefs are, or what you have faith in, but if you are indeed religious(as i suspect), then you may argue that your religious faith has produced reliable and consistent results for you, so you feel justified in classifying it under category 2. well, i'm sorry to say, it just doesn't work that way. for while your OWN religious faith may have produced consistent results for YOU, it also consistently produces wildly different results for OTHER people. true category 2 faith, as shown above, is consistent for ALL people at ALL times. true faith of that sort transcends all barriers of language and culture, unlike religion.

if you have FAITH in something besides methodological naturalism, that's fine.
just remember what kind of "faith" it is. and learn the difference.

peace,
-b

QUINING QUINTESSENCE.

i'm back!

well, as i indicated might be the case, i haven't had much time or inclination to update my blog in quite a while. still, sometimes i've thought about my neglected blog, and have even had a couple of topic ideas surface in my mind like bloated corpses in the "lake of stew and of whiskey too". :D

on the backburner

i do remember that i wanted to discuss the subject of authority a little: specifically, various criteria people might use in deciding whether to accept/adhere to authority, and instances in which, for a variety of reasons, some people fail to apply their own criteria when dealing with certain claims of authority...by the way, i just googled the phrase "apply the criteria", and out of 19,000,000 results, the 2ND one had this to say:

"any time is the right time to start considering the information system trustworthiness. so, let's jump into the criteria set."

now, THAT'S a sentiment i can get behind! 8-|

-------------

moving on...

anyway, i'd love to get around to that subject, but i'd like to treat it with the thoroughness it deserves, or at least some level of depth, so i gotta get my ducks in a row first. in the meantime however, i do have a little nugget: so, without further ado, let's get back to business. it just so happens that this morning i was inspired by a muslim fellow whom i occasionally correspond with on skype to write a detailed response to a rebuttal he gave me involving the good ol' "free will" catch phrase. i would call it a theodicy, but it really wasn't even an attempt to defend the nature of god itself, nor even any of the supposed attributes of his particular god. as far as i could tell, it was just another dodge to get away from the ugly truth that the mandates barked by "holy" texts sometimes(and sometimes quite often) lead directly to irresponsible or flat-out immoral behavior - and in many cases(particularly in the abrahamic religions), they explicitly command it!

dodging and dealing

i hope you can see from the ensuing chatlog that i'm not just trying to give this guy a hard time by insulting his beliefs or insinuating that he's "dodging" the issue. the simple fact is that these issues really ARE hard to grapple with, and doubly so when you're on logical lockdown, squinting through the keyhole of a restrictive religion, particularly one as blatantly barbaric as any of the abrahamic religions(whose namesake, of course, is celebrated by adherents of all three of these monotheistic religions which can't seem to agree on pretty much anything else under the sun, besides monotheism - and even THAT is being stretched by the christians' "trinity" - but, speaking of sons, they DO all seem to be on the same page regarding the nobility of being instantly willing to brutally slay one's OWN son. the only point of contention in this case is WHICH son it was, isaac or ishmael - obviously a distinction FAR more important than any mere moral qualms anyone might feel at the whole IDEA of the thing). actually, it's an ironic coincidence that i chose the phrase "on the same page", because that's EXACTLY where they are, in a literal sense. now, some theists love to ask people(especially anyone of a secular persuasion) the source from which they derive their "morals"...well, ladies and gentlemen, here you have it: abrahamic "morality", straight from the "source"!

clearing the air

as is clearly evident from my reactions in the chatlog, this is NOT the first time he and i have had a dead-end "discussion" of this nature; in fact, this one was much briefer than previous ones, since he had to go. but still, for some reason i was left with a firm conviction that
i should try and clear the air once and for all, tell him my honest perceptions of the situation, and ask if he even wanted to have a serious discussion. if not, then it would save us both a lot of time and toil if he just told me straight up. :D hey, wow, maybe it was a subconscious recollection of the insights i gained from some great youtube vids about transactional analysis by the user theramintrees(highly recommended)!

the "source" of yet another post about the "source" of morals?

it's interesting that this post has the same source of inspiration as my first one: a response to a theist's accusations about atheists' lack of morals! i think morality is an important issue to discuss, first and foremost in and of itself; but also because we shouldn't allow such accusations and assumptions to continue and spread misinformation that might lead to people being treated as second-class citizens because of their beliefs(don't worry, i'm not going all "anti-atheist persecution complex" on ya) ;) i also think it's important that everyone should be able to identify his or her ethical standards, not for other people's benefit, but for their own. the main thing is that people talk about ethical concepts in general, and that they know it's ok to talk about them outside of a church or a courthouse.

sometimes, the best defense is not to offend. sometimes...

in that first post it was easy to be diplomatic, because i was trying to discuss an issue that can be dealt with scientifically, without any overtly offensive stuff(though apparently science does offend some theists). however, in this post, i'm aiming at the other team. i hesitate to go this route, because i've noticed that a great number of theists(and atheists, or any people, for that matter) who have a weak or indefensible position resort to the only option available: offense. perfect example: creationists(might as well just call them "anti-evolutionists", see how THEY like being labeled as a "non-something", like atheists :P). but the plain and simple fact is that some theists(some people in general), for whatever reason, just don't like it when you talk science stuff to them. so it's time for a slightly different approach.
the title of this section is a good example of the whole point i'm trying to make: it's never a good idea to assign universal strategies to life, unless they have been rigorously tested and inspected for possible flaws, loopholes, etc. until then, it should be understood that they are qualified statements, to be used "sometimes" or "depending on the circumstances", etc. even the oft-touted "golden rule"(which confucius said long before the bible) only really works on the level of individuals. on the level of societies, you need to grow SOME balls, or you just won't survive. and now, as i was saying about the title of this section: "the best defense is not to offend" is a brilliant phrase, a wise strategy, and rife with interesting ethical permutations. but is it ALWAYS true? in the right hands, a powerful piece of advice like that can be used as a great force for good in the world. but in the wrong hands, it can be a used as a warning for people not to fight injustice or oppression. i wonder what pope pius xii was thinking during WWII...but i won't get too deep into that issue right now; it's actually somewhat shrouded in mystery(a vatican shroud of secrecy, of course), but i suggest you do some research. one pertinent fact is that he never excommunicated any nazi; he did excommunicate some german catholics, but only because they supported cremation as an alternative to burial. once again, that goes to show you where religious morality lies. this isn't an isolated instance: there's a trend, particularly in the catholic church, to (apparently)place a high importance on the treatment of anyone or anything that is the remants of a person, or a precursor to a person, but NOT a living person. i'm sure they'll tell you they assign "equal" importance, but surely they notice the negative effect their doctrines have on living, breathing people who are capable of experiencing pain, fear, love...ok, so whadda we got here...no compunctions about excommunicating people because of having a different funeral practice; that's small potatoes. how about abortion? ok, this is a tough issue, but it boils down to suffering: we want to reduce suffering in the world, so we can't force women to have babies. imagine if abortion were illegal everywhere in the world...how many more hungry mouths would be born every day in squalor and misery? how many more babies would be left in dumpsters at high school proms? how many children of rape and incest would be born to terrified mothers who would be damaged for the rest of their lives? yes, when an abortion is performed, it is the taking of a human life; i'm not disputing that. but what matters here is the capacity for suffering: fetuses without a brain can't suffer. their mothers can. and, when those fetuses DO grow a brain, many of them WILL suffer the results of being "forced" to be born into a family that wasn't prepared for them, IF a family even exists! now, maybe if the church paid a little more attention to making life better for people AFTER they were born, i would be more open to arguments in favor of forcing EVERYBODY to live, but the principle of the mother's suffering and her reproductive rights would always be a last bastion of morality for me in this issue. like i said in my first post, "suffering sucks", and suffering is what matters here. i do recall now that i mentioned semen in a dish or something like that :D which brings us to the NEXT bold step into the metaphysical world! stem cell research! forbidden by the church, because the rights of some cells in a dish supercede those of people who are alive and suffering. and here, once again, they might say "not superceding, but equal". this is a cop-out. what they are doing is tantamount to saying "sorry everybody, but we have to allow these diseases to run rampant and continue to let you all suffer, because we are the valiant defenders of...cells." but wait, it gets even MORE ridiculous! they don't even care if you're a bonafide blastocyst! you can just be a SPERM cell, and they still place a GREAT importance on your...uh...life.

and what is this all based on? the doctrine of the "soul", which is based on...

surprise!

more doctrine.

the point of the pike

anyway, even though i'm using a little offense in this post, i still think i have some good points: in this post, i mainly deal with what i see as the deleterious effects of "morality via belief", as opposed to morality via direct conscious understanding. i'm not suggesting that people who derive morality from belief lack a conscious understanding of it, but in my opinion it's quite easy for someone in such a position to become intellectually lazy and stop searching for answers, and quite often even DENY the evidence of their conciousness, sacrificing their conscience on the bloody altar of their faith. in fact, i guess when you come right down to it, in a psychological sense all morality must be at least partially rooted in belief(but also in innate personality traits). for example, i actually fundamentally believe rape and murder are wrong; i don't just judge it to be the most prudent ethical analysis. and in the case of rape, in particular, it's simply an innate part of my personality that particularly loathes the idea of it(though i feel strongly about murder, etc. too). so beliefs do play a strong role in enforcing and guiding our morality. the problem with most organized theistic belief, however, is that it has the dubious distinction of being the type of belief that is considered not to be open to question; and this consideration comes not only from within, where criticism is overtly threatened with eternal punishment(is that "moral"?), but also from without, where sometimes people give you a "tut tut" or a "tsk tsk" for not "respecting others' beliefs". if you ask any die-hard sports fan(who also might happen to be religious) if he thinks he should "respect the beliefs" of the rival fans, you'd probably get a very interesting(and descriptive) answer. now, i certainly realize that sportsfandom is not on the same level as devotional/spiritual beliefs(though i know some sports fans who might beg to differ). indeed, i do think beliefs should be classified, and certain ones shouldn't be crassly insulted(such as a man's belief that his wife is beautiful). actually, i think crass insults never accomplish anything. but legitimate criticism(yes, and even lampoonery) should always be allowed, and even welcomed! for shouldn't we welcome any opportunity to improve ourselves, even if it comes in the form of a rebuke or insult?

a quintessential quandary?

above, i mentioned that charming tale from a simpler time...the inspiring account of abraham's "devotion to god" (oh, yeah, and his, uh, staunch - or should i say RAUNCH? - "family values"). even a cursory examination of that, or any other of a myriad horror stories from the bible and other religious texts suggests that there just might be a major disconnect between what is generally considered to be ethical and what is "divinely decreed" to be ethical. with this in mind, it's not hard to imagine that a serious analytical treatment of ethics might well pose a bit of a quandary for a person who is accustomed to having his morality spoon-fed to him like so much baby food(but in a much more condescending yet ominous manner). at this point, you might ask why i would say "quintessential quandary"(besides the fact that i love alliteration) :P well, it's definitely a bit of a doozy, but perhaps not quintessential(though i would argue that any quandary producing confusion about morality is very serious - a disastrous result of it is referenced at the very beginning of the chatlog below)...rather, it seems the main culprit responsible for this quandary is an obsession with the IDEA of quintessence: specifically, the notion that some "perfect, quintessential morality" exists out there somewhere(yikes!) and that it was authored by a "perfect, quintessential entity" (double yikes! - google "euthyphro dilemma"), AND that this entity gave us some vague, contradictory(and often quite shocking and gruesome) clues about the nature of this morality in a "perfect, quintessential book" that was "revealed" to a tiny group of people, long ago, far away, in a different language, with no archaeological evidence supporting any of the claims, and no internally consistent evidence supporting divine authorship (triple yikes! plese tell me you're joking!) AAAND, that if you don't find this book(like, say, if you don't live in a country where people believe in it), AND believe every word it says(even though it contradicts itself in many places), AND agree to forfeit your personal responsibility and joyously take part in vicarious redemption through human blood sacrifice...ETC. ETC. ETC. then you will suffer the most unimaginable torture and pain and suffering for ETERNITY. (quadruple yikes! now i KNOW you're joking!) :P obviously, that part about redemption was specific to christianity, but that's just one example among many...indeed, it appears quite clear that many theists don't really examine the internal consistency of their OWN belief system, let alone consider the nature of ethical systems as a whole! in fact, it seems like a good number of the theists who actually DO critically examine moral dilemmas are not just theists, but theoLOGIANS! and yet, as the somewhat oxymoronic title suggests, theologians(at least those with some personal investment in a particular belief system) are forced to waste much of their time spinning their intellectual wheels, concocting hypothetical theodicies for hypothetical gods to solve a hypothetical contradiction which the unsupported belief in such hypothetical gods produced in the first place! (and yes, i say the "problem of evil" is merely a hypothetical contradiction, because it's predicated on the supposition that there actually IS an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent entity somewhere out there - however, if such a being did exist, the problem of evil would be a bonafide contradiction)

a devil of a dilemma

so, here we have a devil of a dilemma: 1) subscribe to an authoritarian doctrine which is full of bald assertions, and has little to no basis in logic and no inherent demonstrable benefit(besides a "warm fuzzy feeling" many people can just as easily get from eating a big, hot, juicy cheezboiguh), OR 2) admit that your personal beliefs may not be the ULTIMATE answer, and after all, they are simply YOUR personal beliefs which you conveniently assign to an all-powerful being, but which are really just an amalgam of stuff you've been indoctrinated with by people who assign THEIR beliefs to an all-powerful being, as well as some of your own personality mixed in. so yes, take hope! there is still some of your personality left! in fact, there is PLENTY! that precious morality you speak of as if it were given to us has been inside you all along, waiting to be discovered! but that's all it CAN do. it can only wait. YOU have to be the one to make the first move.

totalitarian tenacity

as i'm sure you know, fighting the good fight for the rights of sperm cells and disputing things like biblical genealogy and who-did-what, who-said-what-to-whom, and other equally insipid pursuits isn't the only thing these abrahamic hams get all pig-headed about...they just love to lay it on thick when they're hammin' it up about morals, and many of them go out of their way to claim that they have exclusive rights to the origins, intellectual property, manufacture, marketing, distribution, consumption, disposal, and subsequent "sanitation engineering" of morality! hey, speaking of exclusive rights to morality(and pig-headed abraHAMic hams), who's bright idea was it to declare pork immoral??? don't you be tryin' to deny me my bacon cheezboiguh! :@ as the previous example clearly shows, this is what happens when your beliefs(or the scriptures you believe IN) are not based in logic and reason, and are full of arbitrary commands and rituals(making it seem like going to church is a more complicated procedure than working on a space station). it gets to the point where trying to keep the moral high ground on a level playing field is an uphill battle(pun intended, no apology submitted) :P so many theists have resorted to sneaky, devious, underhanded methods even outright totalitarian methods. i mean hey, why not? totalitarianism is what most religions are ALL about! it's just like in that book; you know, the one about the bleak, depressing society where nobody had a reason to live, and they were always being watched every minute of every day by a stern, unrelenting dictator who demanded their adoration and supplication, and they weren't even allowed to THINK something that was forbidden by the leader...oh, yeah, must be the bible! oh wait, it was 1984 - of course, how silly of me! the writers of the bible could never hope to be as imaginative as george orwell! anyway, check it out: sure, big brother COULD have taken the time to clearly explain to the populace exactly why it was necessary to go to war with eastasia instead of eurasia, and then put it to a democratic vote, but propaganda and brainwashing is SO much easier! and it saves valuable tax dollars! nobody likes paying TAXES, right? and people want to feel SECURE! they want to know EXACTLY who the enemy is, and it has to be simple! they don't want to have to understand complicated politics and stuff like that! see a parallel here? well, i hope not.

the "ultimate" upshot

anyway, i really should wrap this up...basically, all i'm saying is that while the temptation to succumb to a belief in quintessences and "ULTIMATE" things may be great, such beliefs have a strong capacity to do great harm...it may be nice for YOU to imagine a world where everything good comes from some thing called "god" and everything evil comes from some thing called "satan"...it's the kind of drama that can be played out in the fantasies of a child, and as children, we all had great fun imagining and enacting those epic struggles between good and evil. and even as adults, it might still be tempting to believe in quintessences which, if only we could discover, would be our oracles, our magic 8-balls, our psychics, our answer-machines, our ultimate guideposts which we could simply follow and never have to think at all...but hey, people...this is the real world. things aren't black and white. grow up. use your OWN mind, discover your OWN capacity for profound ethical reasoning, and REVEL in it. feel pride, and don't you DARE feel shame at being proud of who you are: you're not a "fallen creation" that has to grovel at the feet of some whacko who is angry at having created you(poorly, in his opinion). you are a rational, reasonable, thinking human being. with MORALS!

and now, before i forget, here's that chat for your amusement.
in fact, i'll post that first, and then i'll post this.

peace,
-b

clearing the air? i dunno...talking to thin air, maybe...

as i promised, here's that chatlog of the exchange between me and a muslim dude.

UPDATE: it's the next day/night, and earlier i had another conversation with this guy that should shed a little more light on my position, especially since i tried to be VERY clear with him. as for his actual position, however, it's still difficult for me to determine, because i haven't seen any overriding concepts emerging from his discourse, except perhaps broad impressions: for instance, judging by his continued attempts to get me to admit i would kill in increasingly bizarre hypothetical situations, he seems to believe that it's ok to teach, even to COMMAND people to kill under certain circumstances. but of course, this is a fundamental part of islamic doctrine, so i guess he's gotta swallow it whether he likes it or not. so, yet again, i'm left at square 1, basically not knowing where this guy REALLY stands on anything.

i'll paste the new chatlog here at the bottom, below my comments from the previous one.

-------------

[11/24/2009 8:55:25 AM] ♥๑۩۞۩★ Happy-Omar ★۩۞۩๑♥ says: The Zionist Story - part 1 0f 8 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eK7JJea3Sz8&feature=related
[11/24/2009 1:58:43 PM] brian says: yes, zionism is a very destructive doctrine... |-(
[11/24/2009 1:59:29 PM] brian says: but you've gotta ask yourself why they feel so justified in committing so many atrocities...could it be that they think the creator of the universe says it's ok to kill people under certain circumstances?
[11/25/2009 8:57:45 AM] ♥๑۩۞۩★ Happy-Omar ★۩۞۩๑♥ says: well God give us free will to do what we want this is our fredom and the best of us who do good things
[7:07:29 AM] brian says: ok, but free will can exist without someone to give it to you...in fact, that's my whole objection: this assumption that you NEED someone to "give" you free will, morality, wisdom, etc. - free WILL is available for all, but freeDOM can be taken away...and it's important that people know how to make wise choices, because very BAD things can be done for "good" reasons. morality is not static, as many people would like to think; it's dynamic, requiring constant vigilance and examination of principles, and sensible application of those principles. it is virtually impossible to come up with any universal system of behavior that will work in EVERY case - not to mention, it smacks of intellectual laziness to assume that one can know ALL the right answers to ANY problem that might arise, and then just rest on his laurels; especially when no laurels have been earned by using rational thought! (namely, when someone takes information from an external source and accepts it uncritically, without any independent verification)...
anyway, to sum it up, it is for ALL those reasons(and more) that i think divine mandates are a bad way to go about learning, teaching, or even THINKING about morality, because once you think you have answers set in stone that MUST be believed(on pain of everlasting torture) , then you are sacrificing your ability to think like a human being, and to always treat others like human beings. if "perfect answers" are assumed to have already been found, then for the people who trust those answers, the search for truth is over. it can be a very painful thing to try to reconcile this state of mind with life in the real world. attempting to adhere to a set of doctrines that are assumed to be monolithic will always pose a problem, especially in an ever-changing world, and especially when those doctrines are FAR from monolithic, but indeed are subjects of deep contention between those who THINK they know all the answers. and it is such vitriolic contention that can easily lead to violence. i believe most people in the world are decent(particularly because of a concept called the biological leash), and they won't easily find a reason to be hateful, destructive or intolerant of their fellow human beings. indeed, arguably all humans at least have the capacity for these antisocial behaviors, but they never become a real problem until people think they have a GOOD REASON for them.
anyway, i could go on and on and on about this stuff, but i feel like maybe i really shouldn't waste your time...based on our previous interchanges, i've kinda gotten the feeling that you really just aren't interested in any other theories besides the ones you're accustomed to - and you know what, i do understand that...i just hope that someday more people will have the courage to face their beliefs, and analyze the reasons they have for justifying certain courses of action. that's all i really want in this world...i don't need everybody to agree with me(in fact, that would suck!) all i want is for people to be more careful about the things they DO agree with. that's all.
peace.
[7:15:15 AM] ♥๑۩۞۩★ Happy-Omar ★۩۞۩๑♥ says: will my friend tell me what morality do athiest people have cos i can give u 1000s from islam islam is a way of life and all what the muslims do is not for money or anything elss we do good things only for the love of God but for you as an athist waht wil make u do good things nothing so what wil u give to humanty 0000000000000
[7:27:34 AM] brian says: hm, this is exactly what i was talking about: i really don't know what the deal is here! i dunno if you're just avoiding the subject, because you're uncomfortable with accepting my ideas, or maybe that you truly just don't understand... (think)
[7:28:39 AM] ♥๑۩۞۩★ Happy-Omar ★۩۞۩๑♥ says: my friend i want to have somthing and all athiest agree with it
[7:29:14 AM] ♥๑۩۞۩★ Happy-Omar ★۩۞۩๑♥ says: how can u know if any athiest did a bad act how can u know its not an act of al athiest ?
[7:29:59 AM] ♥๑۩۞۩★ Happy-Omar ★۩۞۩๑♥ says: we have a way of life athiest people dont have nothing so how can we be sure that they have morality ????????????
[7:30:05 AM] brian says: at the VERY least, you seem not to notice certain important points i make, perhaps simply because you don't care, or you don't understand, or maybe you just don't notice (think)
[7:32:43 AM] ♥๑۩۞۩★ Happy-Omar ★۩۞۩๑♥ says: masons and communism and others its all comes from atheist people every people who dont believe in God they are atheist people and evry evil they do its an act of athiesm
[7:33:55 AM] ♥๑۩۞۩★ Happy-Omar ★۩۞۩๑♥ says: why cos athiest peole dont have a way of life to give it to humnaty they life by their desire
[7:34:30 AM] ♥๑۩۞۩★ Happy-Omar ★۩۞۩๑♥ says: imagin if the athiest peopl countrol the world what will happend ?????
[7:35:44 AM] brian says: "don't have nothing"? see, once again, you're using the same old, dusty, tired phrases...i don't know if they're just ploys to irritate me, or whether you actually believe them - but i will tell you one thing i've noticed: you don't ever seem to accept or understand ANY of my explanations when you mention these things... (think) and you never ask me any follow-up questions to the points i make, you just make up questions that might be directed towards a child, which have seemingly obvious answers |-( but, the funny thing is, the answers aren't always as obvious as you think! anyway, i don't ever feel like we have a real discussion. i get the vibe from you that you're just some old, crusty teacher who hates his job and asks the students the same questions all the time, because he doesn't know any other way to teach the material :D
[7:36:25 AM] ♥๑۩۞۩★ Happy-Omar ★۩۞۩๑♥ says: lol
[7:36:43 AM] ♥๑۩۞۩★ Happy-Omar ★۩۞۩๑♥ says: give me somthign that i can understand athiest with it
[7:36:45 AM] brian says: hey, you probably don't remember this, but once i asked you where YOUR morality comes from...but you never answered me...
[7:36:51 AM] ♥๑۩۞۩★ Happy-Omar ★۩۞۩๑♥ says: for me as a muslim i have quran
[7:37:07 AM] ♥๑۩۞۩★ Happy-Omar ★۩۞۩๑♥ says: its all comes from quran
[7:37:25 AM] brian says: i mean, is there any answer besides "because god says so?" is that your only criterion to judge ethical issues? (think)
[7:37:27 AM] ♥๑۩۞۩★ Happy-Omar ★۩۞۩๑♥ says: open quran and read the history of prophet muhammad and u will see it
[7:37:56 AM] ♥๑۩۞۩★ Happy-Omar ★۩۞۩๑♥ says: i have a teaching and this teaching is me
[7:38:03 AM] ♥๑۩۞۩★ Happy-Omar ★۩۞۩๑♥ says: ist hard to understand it ?
[7:38:15 AM] brian says: ok, great, you have a book, and that's your ONLY source? (think) so basically, your ONLY method of distinguishing between right and wrong is if you think "god says so"? (think)
[7:38:31 AM] ♥๑۩۞۩★ Happy-Omar ★۩۞۩๑♥ says: yes
[7:38:36 AM] ♥๑۩۞۩★ Happy-Omar ★۩۞۩๑♥ says: waht about yours ?
[7:38:39 AM] ♥๑۩۞۩★ Happy-Omar ★۩۞۩๑♥ says: nothing
[7:38:46 AM] ♥๑۩۞۩★ Happy-Omar ★۩۞۩๑♥ says: its only your dseire
[7:38:59 AM] ♥๑۩۞۩★ Happy-Omar ★۩۞۩๑♥ says: desire*
[7:39:10 AM] ♥๑۩۞۩★ Happy-Omar ★۩۞۩๑♥ says: thats all
[7:39:20 AM] ♥๑۩۞۩★ Happy-Omar ★۩۞۩๑♥ says: what is ok with your v its ok
[7:39:26 AM] brian says: ok, OBVIOUSLY you were NOT paying attention to what i said at the very BEGINNING...
[7:39:27 AM] ♥๑۩۞۩★ Happy-Omar ★۩۞۩๑♥ says: and what is not its not ok
[7:39:46 AM] brian says: this is what i said just a few minutes ago: (wait)
"i believe most people in the world are decent(particularly because of a concept called the biological leash), and they won't easily find a reason to be hateful, destructive or intolerant of their fellow human beings."
[7:40:35 AM] ♥๑۩۞۩★ Happy-Omar ★۩۞۩๑♥ says: so u just fellow a human like u ?
[7:40:42 AM] brian says: we don't need to go searching for morality, because it's already built in! it's an evolved trait!
[7:40:57 AM] ♥๑۩۞۩★ Happy-Omar ★۩۞۩๑♥ says: ok iof its
[7:41:03 AM] brian says: no, you're ignoring what i said about the "biological leash" |-(
[7:41:06 AM] ♥๑۩۞۩★ Happy-Omar ★۩۞۩๑♥ says: tell me is it ok to drink alchool ?
[7:41:23 AM] ♥๑۩۞۩★ Happy-Omar ★۩۞۩๑♥ says: ist ok to do sex without marrieg ?
[7:41:27 AM] brian says: it's a simple fact of nature that in order for any social animal to survive, there MUST be morality.
[7:41:46 AM] ♥๑۩۞۩★ Happy-Omar ★۩۞۩๑♥ says: tell me is it ok to drink alchool ?
[7:41:50 AM] ♥๑۩۞۩★ Happy-Omar ★۩۞۩๑♥ says: ist ok to do sex without marrieg ?
[7:42:00 AM] brian says: alright, dude, let's not do this again right now, please. can we just try to stick with the main issue? i'm really getting tired of these childish questions... |-(
[7:42:28 AM] ♥๑۩۞۩★ Happy-Omar ★۩۞۩๑♥ says: yes its a childish questions. cos u cant answer it
[7:42:37 AM] brian says: see, every single time i give you proof of human's inherent morality, you start asking me these ridiculous questions :^) are you trying to ignore me on purpose? (think)
[7:42:55 AM] ♥๑۩۞۩★ Happy-Omar ★۩۞۩๑♥ says: lol
[7:43:02 AM] ♥๑۩۞۩★ Happy-Omar ★۩۞۩๑♥ says: u didnt even understand me
[7:43:21 AM] ♥๑۩۞۩★ Happy-Omar ★۩۞۩๑♥ says: from where you have your morality ?
[7:43:26 AM] brian says: look dude, if you don't want to have a serious conversation, that's fine...i can boogie anytime
[7:43:36 AM] ♥๑۩۞۩★ Happy-Omar ★۩۞۩๑♥ says: from where you have your morality ?
[7:43:36 AM] brian says: [7:41:27 AM] brian says: it's a simple fact of nature that in order for any social animal to survive, there MUST be morality.
[7:43:38 AM] brian says: [7:41:27 AM] brian says: it's a simple fact of nature that in order for any social animal to survive, there MUST be morality.
[7:43:48 AM] ♥๑۩۞۩★ Happy-Omar ★۩۞۩๑♥ says: good
[7:44:00 AM] ♥๑۩۞۩★ Happy-Omar ★۩۞۩๑♥ says: so lets see what is athiest like u
[7:44:05 AM] brian says: seriously, how many times do i need to say it? |-(
[7:44:13 AM] ♥๑۩۞۩★ Happy-Omar ★۩۞۩๑♥ says: morality ?
[7:44:25 AM] ♥๑۩۞۩★ Happy-Omar ★۩۞۩๑♥ says: tell me about your morality
[7:44:36 AM] ♥๑۩۞۩★ Happy-Omar ★۩۞۩๑♥ says: is it ok to drink achool
[7:44:43 AM] ♥๑۩۞۩★ Happy-Omar ★۩۞۩๑♥ says: alchool
[7:44:48 AM] brian says: wait a second, do you even know what morality is? :D or do you think it's just "whoever agrees with me"? :D
[7:44:59 AM] ♥๑۩۞۩★ Happy-Omar ★۩۞۩๑♥ says: :D
[7:45:08 AM] ♥๑۩۞۩★ Happy-Omar ★۩۞۩๑♥ says: why dont u answer
[7:45:10 AM] brian says: are you expecting a "yes or no" answer?
[7:45:13 AM] ♥๑۩۞۩★ Happy-Omar ★۩۞۩๑♥ says: and i wil tell u
[7:45:41 AM] brian says: because it depends...on a micro level, it's ok...on a macro level, it's not.
[7:45:51 AM] ♥๑۩۞۩★ Happy-Omar ★۩۞۩๑♥ says: aha
[7:46:01 AM] ♥๑۩۞۩★ Happy-Omar ★۩۞۩๑♥ says: so its ok to drink
[7:46:08 AM] brian says: that's why i call these questions childish, because they grossly oversimplify the concept of morality :D
[7:46:49 AM] ♥๑۩۞۩★ Happy-Omar ★۩۞۩๑♥ says: so my friend when an athiest is drunk can he hurt any one even his family or not ?
[7:47:07 AM] brian says: on a micro scale, yes, it's ok (nod) but when it begins to affect more people, then it begins to become more of a problem.
[7:47:31 AM] brian says: ok, if you had understood what i said, you wouldn't need to ask that question.
[7:47:38 AM] brian says: [7:45:41 AM] brian says: because it depends...on a micro level, it's ok...on a macro level, it's not.
[7:47:43 AM] ♥๑۩۞۩★ Happy-Omar ★۩۞۩๑♥ says: so my friend when an athiest is drunk can he hurt any one even his family or not ?
[7:48:25 AM] brian says: on a micro level, it only affects the person who drinks the alcohol. but when it affects other human beings, then it becomes a problem: when it reaches the macro scale.
[7:48:32 AM] ♥๑۩۞۩★ Happy-Omar ★۩۞۩๑♥ says: what is the morality in hurting people cos you are drunk ?
[7:48:51 AM] brian says: actually, now THAT's a good question! (y)
[7:49:00 AM] brian says: right on, bro! you're stepping up your game! :D(handshake)
[7:49:03 AM] ♥๑۩۞۩★ Happy-Omar ★۩۞۩๑♥ says: good u start understanding me
[7:49:11 AM] brian says: still, it's easy to answer (nod)
[7:49:17 AM] ♥๑۩۞۩★ Happy-Omar ★۩۞۩๑♥ says: ok go for it
[7:49:41 AM] brian says: well, i still don't know what you're getting at, but as long as you ask meaningful questions, i'll gladly try to follow (chuckle)
[7:50:27 AM] ♥๑۩۞۩★ Happy-Omar ★۩۞۩๑♥ says: its ok
[7:52:07 AM] brian says: anyway, it's normally understood that when something happens on accident, it's not really a crime(at least it isn't as serious a crime as something intentional)...
BUT, in the case of alcohol, even if a drunk hurts someone accidentally, it's still his fault, because he made the choice to drink.
[7:52:36 AM] ♥๑۩۞۩★ Happy-Omar ★۩۞۩๑♥ says: aha
[7:52:47 AM] ♥๑۩۞۩★ Happy-Omar ★۩۞۩๑♥ says: so the problem here cos he is drunk
[7:53:04 AM] brian says: so he can be held accountable for his choice, which led to the wrongful actions(whether or not he intended those actions as a consequence)
[7:53:36 AM] brian says: oh yeah, i was going to expand on my answer, but i didn't want to keep you waiting too long (chuckle)
[7:53:41 AM] ♥๑۩۞۩★ Happy-Omar ★۩۞۩๑♥ says: so my friend what is the problem in achool and why ?
[7:54:54 AM] ♥๑۩۞۩★ Happy-Omar ★۩۞۩๑♥ says: brb
[7:55:38 AM] brian says: ok
[7:55:43 AM] brian says: damn skype crashed (doh)
[7:59:38 AM] brian says: anyway, i'll play along with this little thought experiment for the sake of argument, and assume in this case that the most direct cause of this hypothetical crime was the fact that the man was drunk. (namely, that it wouldn't have happened if he hadn't been drunk) and indeed, that does frequently happen, unfortunately. :S
[8:03:03 AM] brian says: but if you're trying to look for the true root cause of this crime, then it's not productive to just stop at the bottle: you have to look at the man behind the bottle, who bought it, who opened it, who drank too much so he lost his self-control.
[8:05:54 AM] brian says: and this is exactly what i was talking about earlier! trying to find "answers" to moral questions is something everybody does! i really have no idea why you find it so hard to believe, but it really doesn't matter what a person's religion is; this subject is important to just about anybody. unfortunately, though, many people don't give it the attention it deserves... |-(
[8:23:37 AM] brian says: anyway, the reason why i put "answers" in quotes is because dealing with ethicsis like dealing with mathematics: there are different levels of complexity, and the more complex ethics gets(just like math), the harder it is to find a solid "answer" that can be used EVERY time. in math, it's called a "proof" - and it's not at all unusual for mathematical proofs to defy solution for years, decades, even centuries!
so, that's why i've gotten frustrated in the past when you kept coming at me with these basic questions that are like arithmetic, like 1+1=2...because first, you ask me what the SOURCE of my morality is(which is a very complex and serious question, something at least more like algebra, if not trigonometry or calculus). and the reason why it's frustrating is because to me, it feels exactly like you're trying to solve a complex mathematical proof by performing simple arithmetic functions over and over again |-( for example, like trying to prove the set of prime numbers is infinite by counting and counting and counting :D(doh)
[8:25:30 AM] brian says: so, when somebody asks me what the SOURCE of my morals is, i'm not just going to say "because i know murder is wrong"...that's like if somebody asked me to prove that i UNDERSTAND math, and i say "because 1+1=2". that makes no sense, and it doesn't say anything about WHY 1+1=2. so that's what i do with ethics. it's more productive to search for the answer to WHY than just the answer to WHAT. i'll give you a simple example: a child might ask "what should i do if this happens? what should i do if that happens?" well, you can answer each of the questions as they arise, but using that method, it's a lot more difficult for the child to actually learn anything meaningful. but, on the other hand, sometimes just ONE good, solid, meaningful answer to a "why" question eliminates the child's need to ask any more "what" questions. i think that's why kids ask "why" so much; it seems like their favorite interrogative! :D but like i said before, this quest for knowledge is found innately in all humans; it's instinctual. and so is a sense of morality. unless there's some brain defect, etc., every child begins to notice a sense of "fairness", which evolves into a higher concept of "justice"...BUT, the problem is that there's no set of universal guideposts to point people in the right direction. so, since there's no "secret ethical decoder ring", we MUST, as human beings, develop the capacity to analyze situations in a moral context and make decisions which benefit the greatest number of people, and harm the least.
[8:42:45 AM] ♥๑۩۞۩★ Happy-Omar ★۩۞۩๑♥ says: :D
[8:43:02 AM] ♥๑۩۞۩★ Happy-Omar ★۩۞۩๑♥ says: (y)
[8:50:56 AM] brian says: and yes, i understand that you think i'm wrong, that the quran IS the set of universal guideposts...but if it were truly universal, then...well, then it would be UNIVERSAL! :D meaning, nobody would be thinking the EXACT same thing about the bible, the torah, the bhagavad gita, the tao de ching, or whatever! and i can already guess what you're gonna say: well, it IS universal, but the problem is, not everybody understands it yet. well, once again, let me refer back to my old buddy, the analogy with math! now, in all seriousness, i really don't know if there's an underlying "meta-ethics", as philosophers call the search for moral understanding, that is as universal and unchanging as math, and there's a lot of evidence to the contrary! (whew) but it seems like religious people who talk about the "source" of morals seem to think so. so, if that were the case, then it should be as easily accessible as math! throughout history, no matter what the sociopolitical, economic or religious climate, human civilization has been steadily progressing in an understanding of math, because as i said, it is universal and unchanging, and if the rules are applied properly, it never contradicts itself (in fact, logic is basically the same thing as math, and one of the logical absolutes is the "law of non-contradiction"!) but, unfortunately, every religious text that has come along claiming to the the ULTIMATE source of ALL morality has come up short, because they're all fraught with contradictions, so that's why nobody in the world can agree about religion. BUT, at least everyone in the world can agree on math and logic, because they never lie (mm)8-| and that's why they have survived the test of time (nod)
[8:51:53 AM] brian says: hey, who knows? maybe allah's contribution to human literature wasn't really "al-qur'an"...maybe it was "al-jabr wa'l muqabalah"! ;)8-|(chuckle)
[8:52:32 AM] ♥๑۩۞۩★ Happy-Omar ★۩۞۩๑♥ says: well if the qran is not universal why do people believe it froma ll the world even athiest ?????????????
[8:53:39 AM] ♥๑۩۞۩★ Happy-Omar ★۩۞۩๑♥ says: look ist hard for u to explan in a short sentence ?
[8:54:26 AM] ♥๑۩۞۩★ Happy-Omar ★۩۞۩๑♥ says: learn from the quran one word that explan evrthing
[8:55:13 AM] brian says: ah, well, atheists by definition can't believe in the supernatural claims of the quran, otherwise they wouldn't be atheists; it's just part of the definition. but yeah, the same thing is true of all those other texts i mentioned, even the book of mormon and really crazy ones like that...hell, even SCIENTOLOGY has members scattered all over the world! :D the main thing is, people are hungry for answers, and "easy" answers are very appealing...
[8:56:04 AM] brian says: unfortunately, the world just isn't that simple...and you know what, it's not even unfortunate! :D i wouldn't like it if everything were that simple. i like complexity.
[8:56:25 AM] ♥๑۩۞۩★ Happy-Omar ★۩۞۩๑♥ says: :D
[8:56:37 AM] ♥๑۩۞۩★ Happy-Omar ★۩۞۩๑♥ says: okt hx for your time man
[8:56:51 AM] ♥๑۩۞۩★ Happy-Omar ★۩۞۩๑♥ says: do u have mic ?
[8:58:03 AM] ♥๑۩۞۩★ Happy-Omar ★۩۞۩๑♥ says: do u have mic ?
[9:00:52 AM] brian says: anyway, it might seem really easy to have simplistic moral edicts like "don't EVER drink", because it's obvious that alcohol can lead to disaster...but it's not always as simple as that...there's a tricky human element to everything; when the u.s. tried to ban alcohol(i'm sure you've heard of the prohibition of the 20s and 30s), it gave rise to powerful organized crime, feeding the greed of people like al capone, etc. and many people suffered as a direct result of the stranglehold such crime lords held over neighborhoods...not to mention, a lot of people who used to work in bars and breweries and distillieries lost their jobs, and suffered as a result of that. but the main thing is, once the government tried to forbid something like that, it was easy for real criminals to take advantage of the situation and make things a lot worse. that's why prohibition was finally repealed.
[9:01:16 AM] brian says: oh, i got one somewhere... (think)(chuckle)
[9:01:17 AM] ♥๑۩۞۩★ Happy-Omar ★۩۞۩๑♥ says: do u have mic ?
[9:01:25 AM] brian says: why, you got a conference going?
[9:01:37 AM] ♥๑۩۞۩★ Happy-Omar ★۩۞۩๑♥ says: no
[9:01:45 AM] ♥๑۩۞۩★ Happy-Omar ★۩۞۩๑♥ says: i am talking to one of my friends
[9:01:47 AM] brian says: yeah, sorry for typing so much, i just wanted to get some things off my chest (whew)
[9:01:50 AM] brian says: ahhh
[9:01:53 AM] ♥๑۩۞۩★ Happy-Omar ★۩۞۩๑♥ says: u can join us
[9:02:10 AM] ♥๑۩۞۩★ Happy-Omar ★۩۞۩๑♥ says: its will be very eays
[9:02:16 AM] ♥๑۩۞۩★ Happy-Omar ★۩۞۩๑♥ says: esy
[9:02:48 AM] ♥๑۩۞۩★ Happy-Omar ★۩۞۩๑♥ says: cos u like philosophy alot
[9:03:04 AM] ♥๑۩۞۩★ Happy-Omar ★۩۞۩๑♥ says: so its better if its by mic
[9:03:19 AM] brian says: ok, if you wanna call me, that's cool, but i might not be able to talk, because i've been working on some stuff, and i don't want to forget about it (chuckle) plus, i gotta dig up my mic (doh)
[9:03:25 AM] brian says: :D
[9:03:33 AM] brian says: ah, well, sometimes it can be better, yeah (nod)
[9:03:51 AM] ♥๑۩۞۩★ Happy-Omar ★۩۞۩๑♥ says: ok then lets do it
[9:03:54 AM] ♥๑۩۞۩★ Happy-Omar ★۩۞۩๑♥ says: can i cal u ?
[9:04:25 AM] brian says: but actually, i find that the written word is much more reliable, because there's no chance of forgetting something, or losing track...which i often do (drunk):D
[9:04:43 AM] brian says: yeah, go ahead, but you won't be able to hear me |-(
[9:05:49 AM] *** ♥๑۩۞۩★ Happy-Omar ★۩۞۩๑♥ added ♥๑۩۞۩★ DREAM ★۩۞۩๑♥ to this chat
Click here to view remainder of this chat.
***

-------------

wow, that's creepy...i said "you won't be able to hear me"...it feels like he never has really heard me... :D and then he added "DREAM" to the chat...he hasn't been able to hear me, because he's been screaming his dreams so loud, he can only hear the sound of his own thoughts, echoing the same things over and over... *whew*

ok ok, i was taking a little dramatic license there :D
i'm sure he's an ok guy; though i've never had a productive discussion with him... :/

peace, everybody...live your dreams, don't be afraid of the unknown.

and now, here's my mega-response, in all its glory: QUINING QUINTESSENCE.

peace,
-b

-------------

in the UPDATE at the top, i mentioned a subsequent chat: here it is.
i sincerely hope that you, the readers, are able to glean some nuggets of understanding from it... perhaps at least some cultural insights, if not any ethical ones.

-------------

[1:30:12 AM] ♥๑۩۞۩★ Happy-Omar ★۩۞۩๑♥ says: http://alqaree.com/
[1:30:25 AM] ♥๑۩۞۩★ Happy-Omar ★۩۞۩๑♥ says: its al here u can listen to it if u like
[1:31:19 AM] brian says: i like the tradition of singing :) i guess there's a little bit of that tradition in the bible, like the song of solomon, but nobody actually sings it anymore |-( it's too bad! (chuckle) also, the hindu scripture "bhagavad gita" means "song of god", and originated as a song :)
[1:31:24 AM] brian says: ahh, cool!
[1:31:44 AM] ♥๑۩۞۩★ Happy-Omar ★۩۞۩๑♥ says: lol
[1:31:54 AM] ♥๑۩۞۩★ Happy-Omar ★۩۞۩๑♥ says: its not a song
[1:32:02 AM] brian says: as i said, i'm interested in languages, but i'm also very fascinated by different styles of music throughout the world (music)8-|(mm)
[1:32:06 AM] ♥๑۩۞۩★ Happy-Omar ★۩۞۩๑♥ says: did u hear any musik ????????
[1:32:31 AM] brian says: well, i guess they don't sing it anymore, but it's derived from oral tradition (nod)
[1:32:42 AM] brian says: you mean last time? (nod)
[1:32:44 AM] ♥๑۩۞۩★ Happy-Omar ★۩۞۩๑♥ says: lol
[1:32:56 AM] ♥๑۩۞۩★ Happy-Omar ★۩۞۩๑♥ says: listen to any musik and to quran
[1:33:03 AM] ♥๑۩۞۩★ Happy-Omar ★۩۞۩๑♥ says: and u will see quran is not a musik
[1:33:32 AM] ♥๑۩۞۩★ Happy-Omar ★۩۞۩๑♥ says: just listen to it more http://alqaree.com/
[1:33:42 AM] ♥๑۩۞۩★ Happy-Omar ★۩۞۩๑♥ says: and u wil understand it by yiur self
[1:33:52 AM] ♥๑۩۞۩★ Happy-Omar ★۩۞۩๑♥ says: brb
[1:49:51 AM] brian says: hmm, ok... (think)
[1:51:03 AM] brian says: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FpNx3iqVeNA
this is my favorite style of singing from a different part of the world (mm) in this video, it's a woman singing it (mm)(music)
[1:51:55 AM] ♥๑۩۞۩★ Happy-Omar ★۩۞۩๑♥ says: (y)
[1:52:12 AM] brian says: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxK4pQgVvfg
and here are some men singing it 8-)(music)
[1:52:24 AM] ♥๑۩۞۩★ Happy-Omar ★۩۞۩๑♥ says: we have alot like it lol
[1:52:33 AM] brian says: ahhh!
[1:52:56 AM] ♥๑۩۞۩★ Happy-Omar ★۩۞۩๑♥ says: but the quran is not a musik lol
[1:53:06 AM] ♥๑۩۞۩★ Happy-Omar ★۩۞۩๑♥ says: just undersatnd it
[1:53:09 AM] ♥๑۩۞۩★ Happy-Omar ★۩۞۩๑♥ says: thats all
[1:53:35 AM] brian says: yeah, i have noticed some subtle overtone qualities in arabic singing too...but there's nothing quite like tuvan throat singing 8-)
[1:53:41 AM] brian says: what's wrong with music? (think)
[1:54:05 AM] brian says: hmm, when you say "understand it", does that mean i have to agree with the things that i find immoral? :S
[1:54:08 AM] ♥๑۩۞۩★ Happy-Omar ★۩۞۩๑♥ says: who said that there is worng with musik ?
[1:54:21 AM] ♥๑۩۞۩★ Happy-Omar ★۩۞۩๑♥ says: immoral ?
[1:54:50 AM] brian says: i mean, what's wrong with listening to people sing the quran, and thinking of it as nice music? (think)
[1:55:24 AM] ♥๑۩۞۩★ Happy-Omar ★۩۞۩๑♥ says: look when u , understand what is musik u will now that quran is not a musik
[1:55:32 AM] brian says: yes, i have found many parts of the quran(and the bible, and other scriptures) to be immoral.
[1:55:47 AM] ♥๑۩۞۩★ Happy-Omar ★۩۞۩๑♥ says: ok show me one in the quran ?
[1:55:50 AM] brian says: oh, so now i don't understand music? (sweat)
[1:56:24 AM] brian says: well, i've already shown you several, but you always give me the same answer, so i guess i'll just have to wait for someone else to explain it to me... :S and i don't want to waste your time if you just plan to give the "party line" every time...
[1:56:45 AM] ♥๑۩۞۩★ Happy-Omar ★۩۞۩๑♥ says: ya u mean about the hell
[1:57:04 AM] brian says: well, yes, that's one thing which is immoral...
[1:57:22 AM] brian says: in fact, yes, that's the most immoral thing about any religion
[1:57:25 AM] ♥๑۩۞۩★ Happy-Omar ★۩۞۩๑♥ says: so what u want it to be like
[1:57:38 AM] brian says: infinite punishment doesn't fit finite crimes.
[1:57:50 AM] brian says: it's not about what i "want", it's about justice.
[1:58:09 AM] ♥๑۩۞۩★ Happy-Omar ★۩۞۩๑♥ says: aha so there is no justice
[1:58:17 AM] brian says: sometimes justice means NOT getting what i want, but i'd rather have justice than get what i want...justice is more important to me.
[1:58:19 AM] ♥๑۩۞۩★ Happy-Omar ★۩۞۩๑♥ says: so can u tell me what is justice ?
[1:58:44 AM] brian says: no, there IS a form of justice, but it is not consistent, so there are some mistakes.
[1:59:33 AM] ♥๑۩۞۩★ Happy-Omar ★۩۞۩๑♥ says: if you are a king and there is people who says that you are a liear and they wnat to make people to hate u what is justice for them will be from u ?
[1:59:55 AM] brian says: sure, it still works a lot of the time, especially in everyday human affairs: after all, just as i said, humans are born with a societal instinct (nod)
[2:00:52 AM] brian says: well, in that case, i probably wouldn't even need to deal with the liars. i would simply have to present my argument to my own people, and show them why the liars' words are false.
[2:01:12 AM] ♥๑۩۞۩★ Happy-Omar ★۩۞۩๑♥ says: nop
[2:01:17 AM] ♥๑۩۞۩★ Happy-Omar ★۩۞۩๑♥ says: i didnt ask u that
[2:01:21 AM] brian says: if i demonstrated the evidence to my people, then there wouldn't be a problem.
[2:01:26 AM] ♥๑۩۞۩★ Happy-Omar ★۩۞۩๑♥ says: what will u do to them ?
[2:02:02 AM] brian says: well, then the answer is i wouldn't try to punish the liars, no. because i believe the value of free speech is far greater than any "example" that might be shown by punishing those who spread lies.
[2:02:11 AM] ♥๑۩۞۩★ Happy-Omar ★۩۞۩๑♥ says: lol
[2:02:35 AM] ♥๑۩۞۩★ Happy-Omar ★۩۞۩๑♥ says: they will punish u if u dont punish them cos they try to take your kingdom
[2:03:06 AM] brian says: also, it would engender the belief that i couldn't handle criticism, so i force my opponents to remain silent by punishing them. that is the wrong strategy.
[2:03:25 AM] ♥๑۩۞۩★ Happy-Omar ★۩۞۩๑♥ says: hey will punish u if u dont punish them cos they try to take your kingdom
[2:04:16 AM] brian says: but if their methods consist purely of spreading false information to try to sow dissention among my own people, then i would simply have to educate my people about the false information.
[2:04:26 AM] brian says: false information is only dangerous when it is believed to be true.
[2:04:37 AM] brian says: once i take away the power of the lies, they are harmless.
[2:04:41 AM] ♥๑۩۞۩★ Happy-Omar ★۩۞۩๑♥ says: i didnt ask u that
[2:04:55 AM] ♥๑۩۞۩★ Happy-Omar ★۩۞۩๑♥ says: answer me plzz
[2:05:14 AM] ♥๑۩۞۩★ Happy-Omar ★۩۞۩๑♥ says: dont start philosophy with me man
[2:05:18 AM] brian says: yes, you asked me what "justice" i would exact on people who would try to conquer my kingdom with lies: and my answer is that i wouldn't respond to them.
[2:05:20 AM] ♥๑۩۞۩★ Happy-Omar ★۩۞۩๑♥ says: ist hard to answer ?
[2:05:35 AM] brian says: but philosophy IS what we're talking about...
[2:05:43 AM] brian says: no, it's easy to answer!
[2:05:47 AM] ♥๑۩۞۩★ Happy-Omar ★۩۞۩๑♥ says: look answer me plzz
[2:05:51 AM] brian says: i've already told you EXACTLY what i would do!
[2:05:56 AM] ♥๑۩۞۩★ Happy-Omar ★۩۞۩๑♥ says: they want to take your kingdom
[2:06:05 AM] ♥๑۩۞۩★ Happy-Omar ★۩۞۩๑♥ says: what will u do to them
[2:06:14 AM] brian says: i'm sorry if you don't agree with my strategy, but it's the most effective and non-violent way to stop a rebellion.
[2:06:18 AM] ♥๑۩۞۩★ Happy-Omar ★۩۞۩๑♥ says: do u fight them back to save it or not ?
[2:06:31 AM] brian says: i will laugh at them, because their lies have no meaning when i expose them.
[2:06:38 AM] ♥๑۩۞۩★ Happy-Omar ★۩۞۩๑♥ says: look how its easy my quesioin
[2:06:48 AM] ♥๑۩۞۩★ Happy-Omar ★۩۞۩๑♥ says: and u talk in a philosophy way
[2:06:57 AM] brian says: in order for them to elicit a response from me, there has to be a real, physical threat(not just words)
[2:06:57 AM] ♥๑۩۞۩★ Happy-Omar ★۩۞۩๑♥ says: plzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
[2:07:01 AM] ♥๑۩۞۩★ Happy-Omar ★۩۞۩๑♥ says: just answer me
[2:07:03 AM] ♥๑۩۞۩★ Happy-Omar ★۩۞۩๑♥ says: ok
[2:07:16 AM] brian says: wait, you say "fight them back"
[2:07:26 AM] ♥๑۩۞۩★ Happy-Omar ★۩۞۩๑♥ says: people who wants to take your kindom ann they want to kiil u waht will u do ?
[2:07:56 AM] brian says: does that mean would i respond to mere words with physical violence? then once again, the answer is NO.
[2:08:18 AM] ♥๑۩۞۩★ Happy-Omar ★۩۞۩๑♥ says: so u will let them kiil u and take your kingdom ?
[2:08:24 AM] brian says: no, i would not start physical violence with anyone who didn't start violence with me.
[2:08:36 AM] ♥๑۩۞۩★ Happy-Omar ★۩۞۩๑♥ says: agree
[2:08:42 AM] ♥๑۩۞۩★ Happy-Omar ★۩۞۩๑♥ says: so what if they start ?
[2:08:51 AM] ♥๑۩۞۩★ Happy-Omar ★۩۞۩๑♥ says: do u fight back ?
[2:08:59 AM] brian says: no, i already told you: i would educate my people about their lies, and the danger, so they would be prepared to defend our nation.
[2:09:13 AM] ♥๑۩۞۩★ Happy-Omar ★۩۞۩๑♥ says: omg
[2:09:14 AM] ♥๑۩۞۩★ Happy-Omar ★۩۞۩๑♥ says: man
[2:09:27 AM] ♥๑۩۞۩★ Happy-Omar ★۩۞۩๑♥ says: they want to kiil u and take your kingdom
[2:09:33 AM] ♥๑۩۞۩★ Happy-Omar ★۩۞۩๑♥ says: what will u do
[2:09:41 AM] ♥๑۩۞۩★ Happy-Omar ★۩۞۩๑♥ says: all what they want is to kiil u
[2:09:48 AM] ♥๑۩۞۩★ Happy-Omar ★۩۞۩๑♥ says: do u , understand ???????????????????
[2:10:04 AM] ♥๑۩۞۩★ Happy-Omar ★۩۞۩๑♥ says: غبـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــيييييييييييى
[2:10:06 AM] brian says: ok, now we're getting into tricky territory, because it would depend on the nature of the situation, and the depth of violence in the other society.
[2:10:25 AM] ♥๑۩۞۩★ Happy-Omar ★۩۞۩๑♥ says: man plzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
[2:10:27 AM] brian says: you're describing monsters from a horror movie. i'm talking about REAL LIFE.
[2:10:32 AM] ♥๑۩۞۩★ Happy-Omar ★۩۞۩๑♥ says: ist hard to answer
[2:10:40 AM] brian says: yes, if they were monsters from a horror movie, i would kill them.
[2:10:50 AM] brian says: YES< it's hard to answer.
[2:10:55 AM] ♥๑۩۞۩★ Happy-Omar ★۩۞۩๑♥ says: ok
[2:11:04 AM] brian says: it SHOULD be hard to decide whether or not to KILL someone.
[2:11:14 AM] ♥๑۩۞۩★ Happy-Omar ★۩۞۩๑♥ says: if some one wnats to kill u do u fight him back or u will let him kiil u ?
[2:11:20 AM] brian says: this is not a subject to be taken so frivolously.
[2:12:26 AM] brian says: look all you're saying is that he WANTS to kill me. that's MOTIVE, only one criterion out of THREE that are necessary to provoke a response.what's important is whether he has
[2:12:50 AM] brian says: he would have to have MOTIVe, MEANS and OPPORTUNITY for me to consider using violence.
[2:12:50 AM] ♥๑۩۞۩★ Happy-Omar ★۩۞۩๑♥ says: just answer me plzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
[2:12:57 AM] ♥๑۩۞۩★ Happy-Omar ★۩۞۩๑♥ says: why u run from the answer
[2:13:08 AM] ♥๑۩۞۩★ Happy-Omar ★۩۞۩๑♥ says: if some one wants to kill u do u fight him back or u will let him kiil u ?
[2:13:12 AM] brian says: i AM answering you. you want to know what would make me use violence, andi'm telling you.
[2:13:27 AM] ♥๑۩۞۩★ Happy-Omar ★۩۞۩๑♥ says: ok just answer me yes or no
[2:13:35 AM] brian says: MOTIVE = he wants to kill me.
MEANS = he has a gun.
OPPORTUNITY = he is close enough to shoot me.
[2:13:36 AM] ♥๑۩۞۩★ Happy-Omar ★۩۞۩๑♥ says: all what u said i know it
[2:13:48 AM] ♥๑۩۞۩★ Happy-Omar ★۩۞۩๑♥ says: i knowwwwwwwwwwwwwww
[2:13:51 AM] brian says: then yes, i would resort to violence to save my life.
[2:13:55 AM] ♥๑۩۞۩★ Happy-Omar ★۩۞۩๑♥ says: just answer me
[2:14:13 AM] ♥๑۩۞۩★ Happy-Omar ★۩۞۩๑♥ says: ok (dance)u answer me
[2:14:14 AM] brian says: but ONLY if i were satisfied that those three criteria were met.
[2:15:05 AM] brian says: dude, did you really think i would give a different answer??? (think) like i said, these are CHILD'S issues! :D
[2:16:01 AM] brian says: for a long time, i have been hoping that you would move past these simple, basic, yes/no problems and move on to a deeper analysis of ethics... (think)
[2:16:40 AM] brian says: but it doesn't look good...because you say "don't use philosophy"...that's basically like saying "don't think. don't use your head."
[2:16:46 AM] ♥๑۩۞۩★ Happy-Omar ★۩۞۩๑♥ says: so if the people wnats to kill u and take your kingdom and they are in your home and they but the gun and they are loking at u in your eye and saying ok kill him and wow they are shting at u with the gun and the bullet is comeing to u and its neer to u its comeing look out from it aha so know u will kill them cos its very clear that they really wants to kill u
[2:17:04 AM] brian says: "don't use your head to think, use it as an object to throw at anyone who doesn't like you."
[2:17:09 AM] ♥๑۩۞۩★ Happy-Omar ★۩۞۩๑♥ says: i said dont answer me in a philosophy way
[2:17:20 AM] ♥๑۩۞۩★ Happy-Omar ★۩۞۩๑♥ says: its an easy quesioin
[2:17:25 AM] brian says: no, i DON'T know that i will kill them.
[2:17:33 AM] ♥๑۩۞۩★ Happy-Omar ★۩۞۩๑♥ says: ya
[2:17:35 AM] ♥๑۩۞۩★ Happy-Omar ★۩۞۩๑♥ says: you are right
[2:17:43 AM] ♥๑۩۞۩★ Happy-Omar ★۩۞۩๑♥ says: so go and teel that to your country
[2:17:59 AM] brian says: all i know is that i will try to do anything in my power to save my life, but i will NOT let that conflict with my OTHER moral obligations.
[2:18:23 AM] ♥๑۩۞۩★ Happy-Omar ★۩۞۩๑♥ says: when they go and kill muslims cos they are going to kil them they are terrorism
[2:18:36 AM] ♥๑۩۞۩★ Happy-Omar ★۩۞۩๑♥ says: ya they dont wait
[2:18:40 AM] brian says: no, i would also protect my country...all i'm saying is that i would NOT sacrifice my morality in order to do it. because there is more than just ONE way.
[2:18:48 AM] ♥๑۩۞۩★ Happy-Omar ★۩۞۩๑♥ says: for all muslims to kome and kill them
[2:18:59 AM] brian says: yes, that's a terrible thing.
[2:19:06 AM] brian says: and do you know what the BEST solution is?
[2:19:08 AM] ♥๑۩۞۩★ Happy-Omar ★۩۞۩๑♥ says: they just hear that muslims country wants to kill them by there terrorism people
[2:19:14 AM] ♥๑۩۞۩★ Happy-Omar ★۩۞۩๑♥ says: are u in this world
[2:19:23 AM] brian says: ok, you COULD just slaughter them all, then the problem would be gone. but would that be moral?
[2:19:36 AM] brian says: no, the most effective AND moral solution is EDUCATION.
[2:19:40 AM] ♥๑۩۞۩★ Happy-Omar ★۩۞۩๑♥ says: so why dont u teach your country your philosophy ?
[2:19:55 AM] brian says: education is a FAR more powerful tool than violence.
[2:20:06 AM] ♥๑۩۞۩★ Happy-Omar ★۩۞۩๑♥ says: EDUCATION with gun ?
[2:20:12 AM] ♥๑۩۞۩★ Happy-Omar ★۩۞۩๑♥ says: and kiiling kids
[2:20:25 AM] brian says: because those who will ALWAYS resort to violence are those who are not EDUCATED enough to know a better way.
[2:20:37 AM] ♥๑۩۞۩★ Happy-Omar ★۩۞۩๑♥ says: so u say somthing and your country say another wow
[2:20:40 AM] brian says: yes, education.
[2:20:45 AM] ♥๑۩۞۩★ Happy-Omar ★۩۞۩๑♥ says: so u dont agree with your country ?
[2:21:33 AM] brian says: if they're killing kids, and you decide to go kill a bunch of them, there will be collateral damage. ou will kill some of THIER kids. so basically, you're saying "hey! it's wrong to kill kids! and just to show you HOW wrong it is, i'm gonna kill some of YOUR kids!"
[2:21:43 AM] brian says: people don't respond to such "lessons".
[2:21:49 AM] ♥๑۩۞۩★ Happy-Omar ★۩۞۩๑♥ says: tell me is EDUCATION to kiil kids ?
[2:22:05 AM] ♥๑۩۞۩★ Happy-Omar ★۩۞۩๑♥ says: tell me is EDUCATION to kiil kids ?
[2:22:22 AM] brian says: yes, as i said, if you just kill all of them, then the problem will be gone. but there will still be that gaping hole in your heart that asks "could i have done something else? did i HAVE to kill?"
[2:22:46 AM] brian says: no, education is to prevent the killing of kids.
[2:23:31 AM] ♥๑۩۞۩★ Happy-Omar ★۩۞۩๑♥ says: tell me is EDUCATION to womans ?
[2:23:34 AM] brian says: ask yourself: if you had to name ONE universal factor that is present in ALL disputes between individuals, families, groups, societies, and nations, WHAT would it be?
[2:23:43 AM] brian says: well, i can name one right off the bat: fear.
[2:23:48 AM] brian says: and where does fear come from?
[2:23:51 AM] brian says: IGNORANCE.
[2:24:46 AM] brian says: once you understand something, it's a lot harder to fear it. the more you learn about other cultures and people, the less of a chance there will be for misunderstandings and fights.
[2:24:50 AM] ♥๑۩۞۩★ Happy-Omar ★۩۞۩๑♥ says: tell me is EDUCATION to destroy building ?
[2:25:31 AM] brian says: that is the WHOLE objection i have been raising RIGHT from the start. it's WRONG to say, "if this happens, you should kill someone."
[2:25:48 AM] brian says: killing should be a LAST resort.
[2:26:06 AM] ♥๑۩۞۩★ Happy-Omar ★۩۞۩๑♥ says: so u dont agree with your country ?
[2:26:29 AM] brian says: the LAST thing people need is an instruction to kill...you don't NEED to tell people how and when and why TO kill...killing is a natural part of the animal kingdom, always has been, always WILL be.
[2:26:40 AM] ♥๑۩۞۩★ Happy-Omar ★۩۞۩๑♥ says: so u dont agree with your country ?
[2:30:02 AM] brian says: what you NEED to do is teach people when NOT to kill. show them that killing is from the most primitive part of our nature, and of COURSE the natural instincts will kick in when a person's life is threatened. what we NEED to do is learn ways to identify those instincts, and realize that they are out of place in this modern world of society and culture. we NEED to set violence ASIDE, and discuss OTHER OPTIONS. there is NO NEED to try and get me to answer your questions about violent invaders with motive, means and opportunity. only someone with brain damage or a severe chemical imbalance would NOT instinctively react to save his/her life. what we NEED to do is show that that "life/death" instinct is often WRONG, and is something that we should leave in the jungles and savannas and deserts of our ancient ancestors.
[2:31:05 AM] ♥๑۩۞۩★ Happy-Omar ★۩۞۩๑♥ says: good can u teach your country that plzzzz?
[2:31:10 AM] ♥๑۩۞۩★ Happy-Omar ★۩۞۩๑♥ says: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VwwMF6biCJU
[2:32:28 AM] brian says: what we NEED to do, as a species, is WORK on ways to solve problems WITHOUT using violence. that doesn't mean we should NEVER use violence. it just means that we need to be a LOT more careful about the types of instinctive animal behavior that we can continue to allow to run rampant in our society. we need to EDUCATE people about these behaviors, and show that there are MANY ways to deal with behavior, not just simply responding with the SAME EXACT BEJAVIOR and then wishing the problem would go away. and, dare i say, people need to learn critical thinking skills; skills which form the foundation of logic and philosophy. that way, people can have a larger "toolset" to deal with problems. the best thing to do with a bomb is DEFUSE it. not just blow it up with your own bomb, or throw it intosomeone else's house, even if you consider that person an "enemy".
[2:34:55 AM] ♥๑۩۞۩★ Happy-Omar ★۩۞۩๑♥ says: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VwwMF6biCJU
[2:36:51 AM] brian says: oh, bro, TRUST me...i totally realize that my country needs this help...more than a lot of other countries, peaceful countries like in scandinavia...when i say people need education, i mean ALL people....especially my own people, many of whose minds are starving from ignorance.
[2:37:44 AM] brian says: [2:20:45 AM] ♥๑۩۞۩★ Happy-Omar ★۩۞۩๑♥ says: so u dont agree with your country ?
[2:37:47 AM] ♥๑۩۞۩★ Happy-Omar ★۩۞۩๑♥ says: good so plzz do somthing for that and teach your country
[2:37:50 AM] brian says: i'm sorry, i didn't answer that question.
[2:38:29 AM] brian says: the answer is "it depends" - unfortunately, i disagree with many of the politicians here on many issues.
[2:39:58 AM] brian says: and of course i disagreed with the invasion of iraq, because the american politicians had failed to present evidence of MOTIVE, MEANS and OPPORTUNITY. you see, i hold the SAME standards to everyone. i especially would like my own country to adhere to these standards, and i am quite ashamed when i see ignorant, barbaric behavior.
[2:40:09 AM] ♥๑۩۞۩★ Happy-Omar ★۩۞۩๑♥ says: (y)
[2:40:27 AM] ♥๑۩۞۩★ Happy-Omar ★۩۞۩๑♥ says: thx for your time
[2:40:31 AM] brian says: yeah, sure
[2:41:44 AM] brian says: i really hope you're starting to understand me...i'm not just trying to avoid questions of morality. in fact, it's the exact opposite. i take it VERY seriously, which is EXACTLY why i have to be careful about my responses, and use logic, philosophy, etc. to examine serious issues.
[2:41:48 AM] brian says: anyway...
[2:42:17 AM] ♥๑۩۞۩★ Happy-Omar ★۩۞۩๑♥ says: (F)
[2:43:06 AM] brian says: (F)
[2:43:10 AM] brian says: (handshake)
[3:24:18 AM] ♥๑۩۞۩★ DREAM ★۩۞۩๑♥ says: ]:)

-------------

yet again, the chat ends with an appearance by the DREAM...and this time, as you'll have noticed if you're already familiar with skype smilies, it is an "evil grin"...i wonder what it might portend, this sinister smile from his dear friend, the dream...

to all of you brave readers who have managed to make it this far, i applaud you, and and once again, let me express the sincere hope that you've gained something from all this.

peace,
-b

atheist manifesto?

as i recall, i indicated in my first post that these first few posts might be predominantly directed towards religion; well, so far, it seems to be a self-fulfilling prophecy. still, i originally had no intention of continuing this trend; in fact, i had a sketchy idea of doing a post about submission to authority(which, incidentally, i think would make a good follow-up to this post). actually, the origin of this "essay" can be found in the murky depths of a christian-oriented chatbox in skype. i was brought into this chatbox, and every day, i would see a link to some section of the bible. invariably, there would be some aspect(s) of the scriptures which greatly offended my moral sensibilities. i'm not saying it got me all in a huff, since(unfortunately) i've come to expect such things from the bible, and i've been pretty inured to it. anyway, i couldn't help making a few comments about the scriptures which were overtly critical; but also, i accompanied almost every criticism with a heartfelt request to have it explained to me. i admit, some of these questions were loaded, such as "can you explain how this is NOT sexist?" but still, i'd like to think i at least tried to convey an honest desire to have the shit explained to me. anyway, needless to say, i didn't get any reasonable responses, and even got a couple of insults, including a classic christian insult in verse form, the "pearls before swine" line. in fact, that verse was regurgitated in response to my appeal to 1 peter 3:15, which exhorts followers to explain the reasons for their beliefs. since i had thus far been stymied by these people in any attempt to explain their beliefs, i decided to write this "short" message to clarify the situation:

[3:00:50 PM] brian says: i don't know if any of you have even bothered to notice, but i'm not making any personal attacks against anyone! i'm merely criticizing the things in the bible which i find morally reprehensible; if you cherish these ancient words, and if my tone seems harsh, then i apologize...but also, if that's the case, then i implore you to explain these things to me! otherwise, in my mind, my criticisms will stand. i've been accused of "taking it out of context"...well then, PUT IT IN CONTEXT FOR ME! PLEASE! here is the situation as it stands now: i don't like genocide. i don't like rape. i don't like slavery. i don't like mysogyny. i don't like human blood sacrifice(or animal sacrifice, for that matter), and i wouldn't approve of any deity who would EVER demand or even expect or accept such "burnt offerings", no matter HOW primitive his followers were. i don't like scapegoating. i don't like shirking personal responsibility(for good deeds OR bad deeds). i also don't like holding people responsible for the deeds of their ancestors. i think responsibility should sit squarely on the shoulders of the perpetrator of the deed, whether good or bad(though i do recognize that there are some cases where people are somehow coerced or conviced to commit evil deeds through some outside influence...uh, like religion). i don't like any authority that commits or condones such atrocities or cultivates such immoral mindsets. (on a side note, i don't like blind submission to such an authority; i'm not accusing anyone here of being guilty of that, but it's VERY tempting to believe that that's the case, since no one here is willing to provide me with any justification for their submission to this authority)...now, if you claim i'm wrong about any of these things, please explain why. if you think i don't have the right to "judge" what i see in these scriptures, then please explain why. also, let me assure you that the jury is still out...i've seen a lot of evil in the bible, and i'm aware of a lot of evil that has been committed in the name of these beliefs; also, i'm painfully aware of the potential for further pain, suffering and destruction which is quite possible, even inevitable, if blind submission to authority is encouraged(even lauded!), especially if the authority is immoral. however, people keep assuring me that there is plenty of good to be found in this ancient religion, so i don't want to jump to any conclusions about it; also, i will NEVER pass judgement on any individual, no matter what s/he claims his/her beliefs to be, since labels are never a good starting point to form a picture of someone's true character...as it stands now, i've met a couple of nice people here, and i really have nothing against any of you, even though i've been insulted by more than one of you. i simply desire to start an open, honest dialogue, and learn exactly WHAT you believe, and more importantly, WHY. to be completely honest with you, i don't know what parts of the bible ANY of you believe in! apparently, you don't believe in 1 peter 3:15, or you would've answered me already...but hey, if i'm wrong about that, PLEASE tell me! if you just think i'm an arrogant asshole, and you don't want to talk to me at all, then just tell me that! but let me warn you, i won't abandon any of my criticisms just because everybody refuses to address them. also, if you insist on ignoring 1 peter 3:15, then i'll just have to accept that i have no idea which parts of the bible any of you pay attention to, and i have even less of an idea what basis any of you use for moral guidance...once again, let me assure you that i am not here to insult anybody, or just to start shit...yes, i AM here to start an argument, but when i say "argument", i mean it in the philosophical sense: i'm here to encourage a rational discourse about morality and ethics(perhaps even theology, epistemology, ontology, cosmology, evolution, etc.!), and to sincerely ask you all what you believe, and why you believe the things you do...many of you seem to study these scriptures EVERY DAY, so obviously you understand them better than i do, because i can't stomach them for too long. so, please, once more, i implore you to shed some light on this shit...put it "in context" for me, PLEASE...i guess the thing i'm most curious about is why the creator of the universe would conform to the zeitgeist of the time(e.g. would behave primitively in the bronze age, and gradually become more enlightened as society became more enlightened). if you think this is the wrong question to be asking, PLEASE TELL ME WHY! and let me assure you that that request ALWAYS stands...if you think my tone is too harsh, or if you think i'm asking the wrong questions, PLEASE TELL ME! AND EXPLAIN WHY! obviously, you have access to knowledge and insights which i am sorely lacking, seeing as how you're all so blasé about these things which i find seriously disturbing...you invited me here, supposedly in a spirit of fellowship, and i have some serious concerns about these scriptures; if you think i have some erroneous preconceptions, please explain how they are erroneous. also, if you don't think these scriptures accurately reflect your beliefs, then PLEASE tell me so! regardless of how vitriolic you think my diatribe is when i denounce atrocities, please let me assure you that i'm just reaching out a hand for some human understanding and compassion here...just tell me what's close to your heart...as it stands now, i don't know WHAT's close to your heart! (maybe the atrocities!) (sweat):D "how dare he denounce our beloved atrocities!" (rofl) sorry, i couldn't resist...anyway, sorry this was so long, but i don't want there to be ANY confusion about my motives and desires. i just want to cultivate some communication. peace. (bow)(talk)(nod)(wave)

if i get any requests for updates on the situation, i'll post them here. to be completely honest, i'm not holding my breath. i think these people are just too attached to their atrocities! :P

as for the title of this post(atheist manifesto?), i hope everyone appreciates the irony: atheism is simply a lack of belief in gods, and the epistemological basis for such a lack of belief can vary greatly. i'm sure a google search for "strong atheism", "gnostic atheism", "weak atheism", or "agnostic atheism" will shed a lot of light on the situation. once again, if i receive any requests, perhaps i'll do my own post specifically about the different flavors of atheism and some different rationales behind them. still, there's already SO much information out there, i feel like it's not really my bailiwick. anyhow, to get back to the irony of the title: if there's anything that's clear about atheists, it's that you can't pigeonhole us. i recall one quote as saying something like: "trying to organize atheists into a group is like trying to herd cats." so, needless to say, i can't imagine there ever being such a thing as an "atheist manifesto" which even a large majority of atheists would agree with. the only thing ALL atheists have in common is a LACK of belief in any deities. that being said, i still feel pretty confident that many atheists will agree with the core components of my message here, even though it doesn't even directly say anything about atheism. now, there is such a thing as secular humanism, which does seem to have some pretty solid components; i don't know very much about it, but i've agreed with everything i've seen espoused so far. in fact, i think some of the core beliefs of secular humanism are represented in my "essay" here, such as encouraging personal responsibility, independent thinking, and things like that. even so, i still wouldn't even call this a seculr humanist piece. in the end, even if i did choose to call it a "manifesto", then it would just be my personal manifesto to this particular group of people. also, if there are any christians reading this, then please take the relevant parts as applying to you as well! i'm always open to criticism from any direction. just be aware: i've already seen the "pearls/swine" line, and i'm not impressed. :P
peace,
-b

SUFFERING SUCKS!

greetings, geeks!

well, with no further ado, here it is: my first post. in this instance, the topic is morality; specifically, the "source" of morality, or rather, the basis for what we consider "absolute morality", as far as it's possible to have such a thing. indeed, i do agree that there is such a thing, but my theory is that, as moral issues and ideas become more complicated, individual morality becomes more relativistic, based on each individual's conception of "suffering", and which steps to take regarding the management of suffering. i originally posted this comment on ray comfort's blog, as a response to one of the more closed-minded christian apologists(sye tenb), who seems to be convinced that without a moral "lawgiver"(i assume he means ONLY the judeo-christian "god", "yahweh"), we would all be running wild in the streets, eating all the children, etc. etc. etc., ad nauseam(pun...intended.) :P

now, let me be clear: the purpose of this post was not to insult christians. my main motivation behind this post was to explain to christians(all religious people, in fact) that atheists are not inherently immoral people(it feels weird even having to say that, as if people didn't actually KNOW that already). i have seen so many different apologists use this argument, for many different reasons, usually either trying to convince people that we "need" religion/"god" to be "good", or simply trying to insult atheists. first of all, let me just tell you: when you use such an obviously specious argument, you insult no one but yourself(and incidentally, you demonstrate that even WITH religion, morals can still be sorely lacking, and there's no "no true scotsman" fallacy that can dodge that bullet). whether or not the following post convinces you of that, i hope you'll abandon your petty tactics.

so, on to the post. and one more quick disclaimer: i certainly do not speak for all atheists, and there will probably be some objections to my arguments, but i hope that the main point of my thesis is clear: that human morality is based on an understanding of suffering and a natural, evolved sense of empathy. also, i don't go into the "source" of morals, e.g. parental guidance and upbringing, since this article describes WHY we are moral at ALL. however, i would like to mention that it's an important part of human nature that babies are particularly susceptible to instruction, and are naturally inclined to trust everything they hear and see(at first). then, of course, they begin to enter the "why" phase(i'm sure every parent can relate to that). anyway, it's important, regardless of one's upbringing(especially a lack thereof), that one seriously analyze one's motivations, and contemplate the source of one's own morality, no matter what his/her beliefs(religious or otherwise).

-------------

sye:

i don't even know why i'm bothering to explain this to you, as you seem to be closed to all of the excellent explanations provided by other commenters, such as Jœl and Laura. it seems like you just accuse people of your own faults; for example, YOU are the one "begging the question" by inserting your conclusion into your premises. also, you [seem to] love to *try* to poke holes in evolution, morality, etc., but you don't provide any PROOF of your alternative viewpoint.

anyway, i'll try to make this short and sweet(but still, i don't want to leave any dark, dank, stinky corner for you to wriggle into). here's an absolute basis for a fundamental system of morality. SUFFERING SUCKS. yes, we've all experienced suffering, and we all know it sucks. there are, for example, many responses to pain stimuli, involving the instinctual need to avoid pain at any cost, that have (dare i say) evolved. the reasons for this are obvious(mainly, that the experience of pain is a signal that damage is being done to the organism, thereby threatening its survival). on a larger(societal) scale, these inherent "pain-fearing" traits are projected onto the "community" of a more advanced organism, whereby the organism "senses" that damage done to its fellow organisms represents a "bad" thing. yes, and here's where the word "bad" comes in. originally, and in the simplest terms, "bad" is anything that is detrimental to the survival of a species. of course, individual organisms don't actually go through any mental process of considering what is best for their species(it would be ridiculous to think that). rather, natural selection has favored those species whose members exhibit behavior which is beneficial, not only to themselves, but to their species as a whole.

when i say the organism "senses" its relationship to other members of its species, i am referring to the evolved trait of empathy, which is crucial for certain organisms, but not so crucial for others(for example, those which reproduce en-masse). that should answer your question as to why we don't just go around killing "willy-nilly", as other animals SEEM to do. still, there are organisms that DO produce en-masse, and yet still seem to have VERY stable "moral codes"(such as ants and other colony-type insects), whereby they cooperate VERY well with each other, and have very stable societies. basically, you don't seem to understand how "morality" works in favor of maintaining the health of a species. as for "absolute morality", it's insane to judge animals for killing for food, when if they didn't, they'd starve to death. you seem to think they just kill for the sheer pleasure of it. it seems to me that the only animals who ever kill for the sheer pleasure of it are humans. and yes, i believe, strictly speaking, that such people are maladapted to live in a healthy society.

unlike other animals, which apparently only have a sense of empathy that they seem not to understand, we humans, now that we have developed such advanced brains, CAN consciously think about what is best for our species as a whole(should we so choose), and our evolved sense of empathy(which trait obviously originally served the purpose of maintaining the health of a community of organisms) has extended itself to ANYTHING that we, as individuals, consider to be "suffering". this, of course, includes physical pain, but naturally, it also includes ANYTHING else that we, as individuals, have determined to be "suffering". individuals may not consciously realize it, but such feelings of empathy were obviously just traits that we inherited from our ancestors, which helped us(as a species) to survive. also, it just so happens that, now that we live in a technologically advanced society, we have the luxury to ponder such questions as morality. now, even though we ALL have a solid basis(the knowledge of suffering) for our individual opinions on morality, the application of this knowledge varies from person to person.

now, THIS is where the "relativism" that you fear SO much comes into play. yes, every individual has a different idea of what "suffering" is(and to different degrees than other individuals), and different opinions on how best to alleviate suffering(some, for instance, believe that inflicting suffering on those who cause suffering is "right", whereas others believe that inflicting suffering is ALWAYS "wrong"). there are even some people(psychopaths, sociopaths) who don't even CARE about the suffering of others. this says NOTHING about some theoretical "system of moral relativism", it only speaks to the malformation of the brains of these individuals. by what basis can i(and others) judge that these people's brains are, indeed, malformed? by the realization, as i explained before, that "suffering is bad". any person with a WORKING brain can easily determine that: "if suffering is bad for me, then it must be bad for others." by extension, there is an INBORN, EVOLVED mechanism which compels healthy individuals to shrink away from causing harm to fellow members of their species. in some individuals' cases, this empathy even extends to other animals that they deem to be "sentient"!

as you can see, on a more complex scale, more and more variations occur in individuals' personal moral structures, according to what they deem to be "suffering", and how best to alleviate it. however, in the brain of every NORMAL individual, there is an inborn knowledge that "pain hurts", and "suffering is bad". actually, i'm quite surprised that you don't seem to recognize that complex morals(by and large) ARE relative, and we(as a species) need to DEAL with that fact, instead of ignoring it, and resorting to an ancient(and contradictory) set of beliefs. i won't even get into what various religious texts say about slavery, misogyny, and about various deities committing genocide, and ordering it to be committed by their followers. i think that any moral person would consider these things "wrong", because they cause MUCH more suffering than they alleviate. it's as simple as that. you don't need to be "given" a set of morals to recognize when you see something that causes suffering. on a side note, i DO believe people should seriously contemplate such issues, since it's not all "cut-and-dried", as you seem to think.

as i said, i won't get into the condemnation of any specific religious belief system. what i WILL do is admit one thing. now that i have presented my case for a NATURAL origin of morality, and therefore the basis for a system of ethics(which, as i have admitted, can be difficult to formulate, based on different opinions regarding suffering), i will grant that you can insert any explanation you choose as to WHY this is the case. you can worship any deity you want, and imagine that s/he/it waved a magic wand and created these natural survival instincts in each organism. but i think that you should accept the fact that i have, indeed, presented a SOLID basis for a NATURAL set of morals, not contingent upon any "lawgiver", but contingent merely upon the knowledge that "suffering sucks". i think we can ALL agree on that point(assuming we have working brains), and therefore take steps to alleviate suffering in all its forms.

certainly, there are disagreements as to what FORMS suffering takes, and how best to alleviate it, but why can't we have an intelligent discussion about it? what's so wrong about establishing a SOLID code of morals on our OWN, using the brains that we have? unlike you, i truly do not believe that we HAVE established this "perfect system" yet. fine, if you insist on believing that it already exists, and that it was created by a lawgiver, then i won't quibble with you over minutiae. basically, i think we can all agree that there is SOME possible system of ethics which would be beneficial to the most amount of people, and harmful to the least amount of people(and by "people", i mean sentient people, who have the capacity to experience suffering, not a puddle of semen or a collection of cells in a petri dish). i say this system doesn't exist yet, and we should formulate it. if you say "it already exists", then we can just change the language, and say let's "discover" it! because obviously nobody has "enlightened" us to this "perfect" system yet, so i'm sure you wouldn't object to trying to know the mind of this creator you believe in.

now, speaking of creators: despite the fact that i don't believe in a sentient, intelligent, anthropomorphic creator of the universe, i would still agree that, IF such a being existed, and if such a being were omnibenevolent, and it wanted us to be omnibenevolent too, then we should indeed strive to be omnibenevolent! but let me also ask you this: IF such a being did NOT exist, wouldn't we still have VERY GOOD REASONS to try to be omnibenevolent anyway??????? that is absolutely the MOST shockingly ignorant part of your comments that i've seen. namely, your speculation that if such a being doesn't exist, then we would have NO reason to be good??? it's...ridiculous! outrageous! laughable! as for people with WORKING brains, i think it's obvious why we should try to be good(um, maybe for all the reasons that i've given here regarding suffering sucking?). but even for "average evil joes", there's still a reason to at least TRY not to be bad! uh...can you say "criminal justice system"? by the way, i think it's a lot easier to convince people of the existence of a terrestrial criminal justice system than a celestial one. just FYI.

regardless of the existence of an established system of justice, once again, as any rational mind can discover, those who inflict suffering will MOST LIKELY eventually experience suffering BECAUSE of the suffering that they have inflicted. obviously, this is not always the case, and there is no "natural" system of balance whereby each and every perpetrator gets punished for each and every crime. some people would like to think that this happens in "the next life"(and of course, the types of things that are considered "crimes" vary wildly and often have little to do with ACTUAL human suffering), but this is extremely lazy thinking, and it prevents people from dealing with REAL suffering in THIS life. in fact, that is WHY justice systems have been created: out of the realization that suffering sucks, and is harmful to societies; therefore, systems must be established IN THIS LIFE whereby the inflicting of suffering IN THIS LIFE is discouraged. of course, we are FAR from establishing a perfect justice system, and we won't get anywhere until we start seriously thinking about the REAL foundations of moral principles, and stop shirking responsibility by attributing moral foundations to some creator, basically saying "it's out of my hands, it's already been decided for me".

anyway, i've already gone on far too long. besides, judging by your previous posts, i have the sinking feeling that all of this is going to go in one ear and out the other. i just hope that someday, you can learn to have a civilized, rational dialogue about morals and ethics, and try to consciously use your OWN brain to formulate a system for yourself, whereby the greatest number of people benefit, and the least number of people suffer. does there really need to be an "answer" deeper than this? because suffering sucks, and preventing suffering is the right thing to do!!!!!!!!!!!!!

peace,
-b

Geeky Energy

HigH 8-|

HigH!!!!!!!!!!!!! 8-|

the blog

welcome to geeky energy! i've created this blog to share some of my geeky ideas with my friends around the world, and i also hope to pique the interest of curious(maybe even geeky!) people who happen to stumble across this blog. in this introductory post, i hope to clarify the purpose of this blog, as well as to give you an idea of what type of geeky geekiness to expect from this geeky blog. geeky geeks with geeky energy unite! (flex)8-|

what is geeky?

in my discussions with people around the world, i have, quite understandably, encountered some confusion as to the meaning of "geeky". to be completely honest, i think i might even encounter some resistance from my fellow english speakers on the definition, since(as you will see later) i have expanded it to suit my own purposes. basically, the main two dictionary definition of "geek"(on dictionary.com) is as follows:

1.	a peculiar or otherwise dislikable person, esp. one who is perceived to be overly intellectual.

2.	a computer expert or enthusiast (a term of pride as self-reference, but often considered offensive when used by outsiders.)

it seems to me that some people think of the word "geeky" as specifically pertaining to computer geeks, but as you can see, the main definition is more broadly encompassing. i think it describes me pretty well, as i am certainly "peculiar", and considered by some to be extremely "intellectual", perhaps even "overly" so. here is the main definition from thefreedictionary.com:

1. a. A person regarded as foolish, inept, or clumsy.

b. A person who is single-minded or accomplished in scientific or technical pursuits but is felt to be socially inept.

i can't say that i'm accomplished in any scientific or technical pursuits, but i am definitely socially inept in many cases, and have been for most of my life. of course, i'm not as inept as i used to be, because i've learned to subdue my geeky energy sometimes, as the situation requires. still, i'm constantly faced with a need to find outlets for my geeky energy; so, perhaps this blog will help me a little in that respect.

geeky etymology

now, let's talk a little about the origin of the word. if you visited either of those dictionary sites, you might have noticed that i omitted the final definition in each case, as it wasn't germane to my analysis at that time. now, however, we'll discuss the etymology of the word "geek". also, at the end of this introduction, under "taking back geeky", i'll reveal the final definition.

Origin:
1915- 20; prob. var. of geck (mainly Scots) fool < class="ital-inline">gek

[Perhaps alteration of dialectal geck, fool, from Low German gek, from Middle Low German.]

Our Living Language : Our word geek is now chiefly associated with contemporary student and computer slang, as in computer geek. In fact, geek is first attested in 1876 with the meaning "fool," and it later also came to mean "a performer engaging in bizarre acts like biting the head off a live chicken." Perhaps the use of geek to describe a circus sideshow has contributed to its current popularity. The circus was a much more significant source of entertainment in the United States in the 19th and early 20th centuries than it is now, and large numbers of traveling circuses left a cultural legacy in various unexpected ways. Superman and other comic book superheroes owe much of their look to circus acrobats, who were similarly costumed in capes and tights. We also owe the word ballyhoo to the circus; its ultimate origin is unknown, but in the late 1800s it referred to a flamboyant free musical performance conducted outside a circus with the goal of luring customers to buy tickets to the shows inside. Other words and expressions with circus origins include bandwagon (coined by P.T. Barnum in 1855) and Siamese twin.

it's very interesting to consider the word "geeky", in all its grudgingly appreciative and derogatory connotations. it's pretty much an asteism(backhanded compliment); almost like saying "wow, you're pretty smart, but really weird!" well, welcome to my world. 8-|

my geeky interests

i think you'll find that my geeky interests range far and wide, and comprise a variety of different topics. for starters, i love music(history, theory and practice), philosophy(including, but definitely not limited to theology, and especially logic and ethics), science and technology, literature, linguistics, etymology, history, world culture, and SOME aspects of law, politics and economics. pop culture sometimes vaguely amuses me, but rarely does it ever actually capture my active interest, unless, for example, i see or hear some funny story about a man going insane fuh cheezboiguhs. at the moment, those subjects are the only ones that come to mind, but i'm sure i'll find that there's some other subject or range of subjects that i've forgotten to mention, yet would be completely geekily enthralled by.

my geeky style

since i mentioned above that i'm not accomplished in any scientific or technical disciplines, you may be wondering why i don't hesitate to call myself "geeky". well, as i'm sure you've noticed by now, i have a peculiar style of imparting my geeky ideas. i like to use long, geeky sentences which contain as much geeky information as possible, including many subordinate clauses and parenthetical remarks which serve to elucidate my intent, exclude possible unintended corollaries which might be inferred from my chosen constructions, and eliminate any fallacious conclusions or mistaken assumptions regarding my line of reasoning. the extent of my success in these pursuits is left to the reader to evaluate, and i am open to any criticisms, geeky or otherwise, about the content of my writing. however, thinking back on an excruciating conversation i had recently on skype, i should mention that, while criticisms of the underlying content of my words are more than welcome, i should warn you that anyone's attempts to actually change my personal style(e.g. personal choice of words) are likely to be summarily rebuffed, unless you present irrefutable, concrete reasons why such a change would be warranted(i'll give you a hint: accommodating anyone else's personal preference is not a compelling reason for me to change my style). i think i might eventually dedicate a whole blog entry to this someday, as the subject of personal style can be very interesting(e.g. when to curtail one's own natural impulses to conform to certain social situations, or to better facilitate an exchange of ideas, and indeed, when conformity is appropriate at all).

why i made the blog

i should mention that i never thought i would make a blog, mainly because i'm sure i won't bother to update it very much. however, i've recently finished making a comment on another blog regarding my speculations about the natural origins of morality, and when i showed it to my friends, they encouraged me to put it on my own blog. i should also inform you that lately, i have been doing a lot of geeky research into theology, especially as pertains to my own belief system, so that i can more clearly and honestly define it to myself and others(should they ask). i think i'll work on a post about that sometime in the near future, and "lay my cards on the table", as it were. anyway, now that i've actually gotten a solid start on this introduction, i've realized that this will be a great medium through which to freely express my geekiness!

taking back geeky

above, you'll notice that i mentioned the "asteistic" aspect of the word "geeky". well, i think that one of my intentions in using the word as i do is to remove the stigma attached to geekiness. i proudly proclaim my geekiness to the world, and with that in mind, here's the final definition:

tr.v. geeked, geek·ing, geeks
To excite emotionally: I'm geeked about that new video game.

basically, i'm hella geeked to get this geeky blog underway, and i hope i can enlist a throng of geeky followers who also appreciate the geeky things i'm geeked about. i hope you fully understand what i mean when i say "geeky" now, and realize that when i refer to "geeky energy", i'm referring to the unbridled enthusiasm for the passionate, fearless pursuit of knowledge, in all its forms. so, with no further ado, here begins my geeky energy blog! i hope to instill it with more and more geeky energy and fill it with more and more geeky ideas as time geekily marches on into the geeky future! stay geeky!

peace,
-b