shouldn’t the choices be “atheism will be adapted by sri lankans”, “atheism will not be adapted by sri lankans”, and “other”? why the other baggage ? 🙂
after all
not all religions are “organized”
atheism as adapted by most ppl can be irrational.( ask most atheists why person x should not kill person y if x can get away with it and benefit from it , and you will see them lose it )
etc etc
The choices were selected on the basis on the impact on Sri Lanka’s future. Don’t you think that saying “atheism will be adapted by Sri Lankans” is a open ended statement that lacks some credibility? The choices are trying to convey, I hope, is whether the free thinking philosophy within Atheism is the way forward.
“ask most atheists why person x should not kill person y if x can get away with it and benefit from it , and you will see them lose it” – Do we a need a higher authority to tell murder is wrong? If you think that religion is the only thing stopping us murdering each other, you are very much mistaken. Most murder happens in the name of religion. I don’t see how an intellectual would ‘lose it’ for the question you provided, the answers are fairly obvious.
Organized religion is the single biggest threat to secular values at the moment. Lets deal with it first and then move onto the crackpot religions okay? they are easier to oppose anyway.
On the question of murder:
Lose it? you really have underestimated and underrated mans ability to make so called “moral” judgments. To begin with most biologists contend that “morality” -for want of a better term, is innate.
This has been observed amongst chimps and other animals, I wont bother to cite references, I’m assuming here that you know how to use a search engine to look up academic papers.
If this argument does not convince you think of the issue in a new light.
We have agreed as humans that killing is definitely immoral (hence it is a criminal offense), mankind is advancing day by day and we have methods of storing said knowledge and passing it on. Therefore why do we need religion to tell us that killing is immoral? we know this to be a FACT. So get rid of the excess baggage, cut it off using Occam’s razor and one is left with a set of moral values based on truth (science and research) as opposed to fiction.
For example, science has proved that homosexuality is not harmful to ones health in any sense, hence the LG community is off the hook.
On the basis of this evidence a secular society SHOULD reorganize its laws and statutes to incorporate the LG community.
However religions have automatically “decided” that it is “immoral” (by some arbitrary means in support of which holy texts or the word of god may be cited and called upon).
I contend that we label something to be “immoral” after which it has been demonstrated to be “immoral” (harmful) by scientific research in addition to the large list of immoral acts which we have compiled over time.
I also take the viewpoint of tharinda and QFAP on this issue. Just thought I’d provide a little more insight by my argument.
what did i say about irrational “atheists”!
they try to rationalize morality. lol
person x thinks he can get away with murdering y and it is beneficial to him. as such why shouldn’t he kill y? that is the rational thing to do. it is good for him. as a rational atheist he should kill y.
it does not matter if person q (who is atheist) thinks he knows right from wrong, or that some others thinks society has ‘knowledge’ that murder is ‘innately’ immoral and has made murder a criminal offense . most ppl would be benefited by obeying the law. but why should x care for all that, if he can get way with it?
atheists who do not dare to face the fact that all attempts to rationalize morality stumble on the each individual’s relative pov, are irrational.
@nut:
You seem to be asserting that there are instances where being rational (not a rationalist) and being moral would come into conflict and even would be contradictory viewpoints.
You also seem to be alluding to the fact that since atheists are proponents of rationalism (to which degree is a matter of debate) that they would be at a quandary when faced with the stark possibility of being able to kill a man, benefit from it and get away with it.
“attempts to rationalize morality stumble on the each individual’s relative pov..” should we leave morality to be dealt with by the spiritualists? of course relative POVs will come into play! we just want to get rid of the mumbo jumbo (ala Occam’s razor) which have absolutely no scientific basis! for example think of female genital mutilation practiced in the name of religion in tribal Africa even to this day (why go that far just ask a Muslim or a Jew)- the assertion that this should be stopped is not “merely based on a POV” it is based on hard science. I oppose this practice not simply because it is “my POV” but because I have the EVIDENCE based on scientific research that sewing up a woman’s labia during puberty would cause a lot of trouble in the long run especially when she comes to bear a child and would in turn put the life of her child at risk – this is not a POV this is objective science.The data is in my friend.
A society which functions on universal morality is a utopia, the legal system is made up of POVs.
You also assert that atheists attempt to “rationalize” morality (I prefer the term “explain what morality is and its origins from a scientific point of view”)
What atheists and scientists do is we attempt to explain morality on the basis of Darwinian natural selection and other scientific principles, and we are of the opinion that morality need not have a spiritual basis to be practiced. It can be practiced independently of the divine and that we have the tools (granted by evolution and by our own creation – for example scientific research,the legal system, the parliament, committees and debates) to even go one step further to facilitate the moral practices which hold our society together and advance us as a species.
I suggest you update yourself on current debates on secular humanism and atheism before coming up with weak X and Y type arguments. Read some Kant. His criticism on the rational viewpoint should answer some of your questions. If you still believe that atheists are supreme rationalists and HAVE to take the extreme rationalist viewpoint and hence SHOULD behave contradictorily when it comes to decisions having a moral weightage I shall be happy to engage you.
//person x thinks he…as a rational atheist he should kill y.//
Yes. That is often been done.
//atheists who do not dare to face the fact that all attempts to rationalize morality stumble on the each individual’s relative pov, are irrational.//
Nature, always irrational, until you are capable of rationalizing it.
.. I mean is there a “Purpose” behind the reason, why human beings are different to each other. No two human beings who ever lived on this planet ever looked the same… not even by accident … why?
Nope – Mary Kate is Left handed and Ashley is right handed .
Sorry I made the mistake , should have said ”No two human beings who ever lived on this planet ever , were the same”…. Why?
Babies are not left nor right handed. southpawness has not proved genetic.
//…ever … were the same//
in the absence of exact set of properties to look in to, we do not have capacity to say two humans NEVER were same (or not). I’m not the same person I used to be when I press this “K”ey down, and now the key came up. If I’m not absolute, I do not have possible capacity to measure another complex object with indefinite number of properties which most of them define by me.
If we do not use the word NEVER, humans, even twins or clones are not exactly the SAME (according to our experience in our lifetime). I think that because humans are not absolute objects (just like any other objects), humans are affected by indefinite number of variables such as weather to atomic movements to gossips. I don’t think even two statues standing next to each other 10 feet apart would have exact measurement perhaps in temperature, or number of microbes randomly landed on them. Or the same stature wouldn’t be the same after 10 minute.
If that question only limited to evaluation, there are enough left-handed kids out there with the same exact look before they were noticeably change by the environment.
The shortest answer to your question is, because the planet was never the same.
oh…. thanks for enlightig me with a fairly reasonable answer. So then, is it fair to conclude that human beings are not just “äbsolute objects” that just evolve automatically , but carefully planned in detail and created by some power above.
If so, the answer to my first question now becomes more clearer. ( Is there a purpose in human beings being different to each other?). If there is a creator who creates every thing, then he could have pleasure in knowing each person individually, because every one is individually different. Makes sense ! thanks
Just because something makes sense it does not mean it is a fact.Small example,the first condition is that all animals have horns and since a rabbit is animal it should all so have horn.But we know this is not a fact but a mere ornithological argument.
We are not looking for sense so we can stay nicely inside our all beautiful cocoon,we are looking for facts.See quantum duality.
Religurd 
shouldn’t the choices be “atheism will be adapted by sri lankans”, “atheism will not be adapted by sri lankans”, and “other”? why the other baggage ? 🙂
after all
not all religions are “organized”
atheism as adapted by most ppl can be irrational.( ask most atheists why person x should not kill person y if x can get away with it and benefit from it , and you will see them lose it )
etc etc
The choices were selected on the basis on the impact on Sri Lanka’s future. Don’t you think that saying “atheism will be adapted by Sri Lankans” is a open ended statement that lacks some credibility? The choices are trying to convey, I hope, is whether the free thinking philosophy within Atheism is the way forward.
“ask most atheists why person x should not kill person y if x can get away with it and benefit from it , and you will see them lose it” – Do we a need a higher authority to tell murder is wrong? If you think that religion is the only thing stopping us murdering each other, you are very much mistaken. Most murder happens in the name of religion. I don’t see how an intellectual would ‘lose it’ for the question you provided, the answers are fairly obvious.
Organized religion is the single biggest threat to secular values at the moment. Lets deal with it first and then move onto the crackpot religions okay? they are easier to oppose anyway.
On the question of murder:
Lose it? you really have underestimated and underrated mans ability to make so called “moral” judgments. To begin with most biologists contend that “morality” -for want of a better term, is innate.
This has been observed amongst chimps and other animals, I wont bother to cite references, I’m assuming here that you know how to use a search engine to look up academic papers.
If this argument does not convince you think of the issue in a new light.
We have agreed as humans that killing is definitely immoral (hence it is a criminal offense), mankind is advancing day by day and we have methods of storing said knowledge and passing it on. Therefore why do we need religion to tell us that killing is immoral? we know this to be a FACT. So get rid of the excess baggage, cut it off using Occam’s razor and one is left with a set of moral values based on truth (science and research) as opposed to fiction.
For example, science has proved that homosexuality is not harmful to ones health in any sense, hence the LG community is off the hook.
On the basis of this evidence a secular society SHOULD reorganize its laws and statutes to incorporate the LG community.
However religions have automatically “decided” that it is “immoral” (by some arbitrary means in support of which holy texts or the word of god may be cited and called upon).
I contend that we label something to be “immoral” after which it has been demonstrated to be “immoral” (harmful) by scientific research in addition to the large list of immoral acts which we have compiled over time.
I also take the viewpoint of tharinda and QFAP on this issue. Just thought I’d provide a little more insight by my argument.
Urm Sitting Nut, most atheists, myself included, do not need a higher being to tell us the difference between right and wrong.
You seem to be confusing atheism with hedonism.
what did i say about irrational “atheists”!
they try to rationalize morality. lol
person x thinks he can get away with murdering y and it is beneficial to him. as such why shouldn’t he kill y? that is the rational thing to do. it is good for him. as a rational atheist he should kill y.
it does not matter if person q (who is atheist) thinks he knows right from wrong, or that some others thinks society has ‘knowledge’ that murder is ‘innately’ immoral and has made murder a criminal offense . most ppl would be benefited by obeying the law. but why should x care for all that, if he can get way with it?
atheists who do not dare to face the fact that all attempts to rationalize morality stumble on the each individual’s relative pov, are irrational.
@QFAP: well said!
@nut:
You seem to be asserting that there are instances where being rational (not a rationalist) and being moral would come into conflict and even would be contradictory viewpoints.
You also seem to be alluding to the fact that since atheists are proponents of rationalism (to which degree is a matter of debate) that they would be at a quandary when faced with the stark possibility of being able to kill a man, benefit from it and get away with it.
“attempts to rationalize morality stumble on the each individual’s relative pov..” should we leave morality to be dealt with by the spiritualists? of course relative POVs will come into play! we just want to get rid of the mumbo jumbo (ala Occam’s razor) which have absolutely no scientific basis! for example think of female genital mutilation practiced in the name of religion in tribal Africa even to this day (why go that far just ask a Muslim or a Jew)- the assertion that this should be stopped is not “merely based on a POV” it is based on hard science. I oppose this practice not simply because it is “my POV” but because I have the EVIDENCE based on scientific research that sewing up a woman’s labia during puberty would cause a lot of trouble in the long run especially when she comes to bear a child and would in turn put the life of her child at risk – this is not a POV this is objective science.The data is in my friend.
A society which functions on universal morality is a utopia, the legal system is made up of POVs.
You also assert that atheists attempt to “rationalize” morality (I prefer the term “explain what morality is and its origins from a scientific point of view”)
What atheists and scientists do is we attempt to explain morality on the basis of Darwinian natural selection and other scientific principles, and we are of the opinion that morality need not have a spiritual basis to be practiced. It can be practiced independently of the divine and that we have the tools (granted by evolution and by our own creation – for example scientific research,the legal system, the parliament, committees and debates) to even go one step further to facilitate the moral practices which hold our society together and advance us as a species.
I suggest you update yourself on current debates on secular humanism and atheism before coming up with weak X and Y type arguments. Read some Kant. His criticism on the rational viewpoint should answer some of your questions. If you still believe that atheists are supreme rationalists and HAVE to take the extreme rationalist viewpoint and hence SHOULD behave contradictorily when it comes to decisions having a moral weightage I shall be happy to engage you.
Peace
Prav
Check my views on religion if you will – you’ll also find that Sitting Nut likes convoluted arguments that are often contradictory…
http://javajones.wordpress.com/2007/02/03/this-is-on-a-touchy-subject-so/
http://javajones.wordpress.com/2007/02/04/religion-%E2%80%93-the-more-positive-aspects/
http://javajones.wordpress.com/2008/06/26/a-few-thoughts-on-god-%E2%80%93-inspired-by-george-carlin/
http://javajones.wordpress.com/2008/06/27/the-wrath-of-god-%E2%80%93-watch-out/
Will check it out. sittingnut makes “arguments”? that’s news to me.
Can some one explain, why is every human being different to each other ? Is there a purpose or just evolved by mistake ?…. sorry for my ignorance
//Is there a purpose or just evolved by mistake//
What u mean by purpose????
//person x thinks he…as a rational atheist he should kill y.//
Yes. That is often been done.
//atheists who do not dare to face the fact that all attempts to rationalize morality stumble on the each individual’s relative pov, are irrational.//
Nature, always irrational, until you are capable of rationalizing it.
.. I mean is there a “Purpose” behind the reason, why human beings are different to each other. No two human beings who ever lived on this planet ever looked the same… not even by accident … why?
//No two human beings who ever lived on this planet ever looked the same… not even by accident … why?//
Olsen Twins.
Nope – Mary Kate is Left handed and Ashley is right handed .
Sorry I made the mistake , should have said ”No two human beings who ever lived on this planet ever , were the same”…. Why?
Babies are not left nor right handed. southpawness has not proved genetic.
//…ever … were the same//
in the absence of exact set of properties to look in to, we do not have capacity to say two humans NEVER were same (or not). I’m not the same person I used to be when I press this “K”ey down, and now the key came up. If I’m not absolute, I do not have possible capacity to measure another complex object with indefinite number of properties which most of them define by me.
If we do not use the word NEVER, humans, even twins or clones are not exactly the SAME (according to our experience in our lifetime). I think that because humans are not absolute objects (just like any other objects), humans are affected by indefinite number of variables such as weather to atomic movements to gossips. I don’t think even two statues standing next to each other 10 feet apart would have exact measurement perhaps in temperature, or number of microbes randomly landed on them. Or the same stature wouldn’t be the same after 10 minute.
If that question only limited to evaluation, there are enough left-handed kids out there with the same exact look before they were noticeably change by the environment.
The shortest answer to your question is, because the planet was never the same.
oh…. thanks for enlightig me with a fairly reasonable answer. So then, is it fair to conclude that human beings are not just “äbsolute objects” that just evolve automatically , but carefully planned in detail and created by some power above.
If so, the answer to my first question now becomes more clearer. ( Is there a purpose in human beings being different to each other?). If there is a creator who creates every thing, then he could have pleasure in knowing each person individually, because every one is individually different. Makes sense ! thanks
Just because something makes sense it does not mean it is a fact.Small example,the first condition is that all animals have horns and since a rabbit is animal it should all so have horn.But we know this is not a fact but a mere ornithological argument.
We are not looking for sense so we can stay nicely inside our all beautiful cocoon,we are looking for facts.See quantum duality.