I Think Dutch Is Agnostic, Now

[Dirtydutch 8]

I think Dutch is agnostic, now. Actually, I think I've been for years, but I've been holding on to religion by ignoring it; probably for illogical, Pascalian reasons, and because I really don't want to have to deal with all the arguments I'm going to have to have with my friends and family. This is a lot like being gay, but without getting rejected by men, too.A least this makes way for my to justify my complete amorality. Thoughts?

[KramitDaToad 0]

Thoughts?

Yes you are allowed those now.Congratulations

[crowTrobot 2]

Thoughts?

1. being atheist/agnostic is actually "in" these days socially in every 1st-world country except the USA, which is lagging behind but not for very much longer. i wouldn't worry about long-term minority stigma or anything like that.2. if your friends reject you for that they aren't your friends (to state the obvious).3. referring to yourself in the third person is a sign of subconscious homosexuality.

[BigDMcGee 3,355]

I think Dutch is agnostic, now. Actually, I think I've been for years, but I've been holding on to religion by ignoring it; probably for illogical, Pascalian reasons, and because I really don't want to have to deal with all the arguments I'm going to have to have with my friends and family. This is a lot like being gay, but without getting rejected by men, too.A least this makes way for my to justify my complete amorality. Thoughts?

asian and godless in the south? I put the over/under on your lynching to be 7 months.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

A least this makes way for my to justify my complete amorality.

Hardly. Morality certainly can exist in a universe even without some sort of omniscient "nanny." In fact, I would argue that following some god's orders only so that one can have a chance of entering heaven isn't morality at all; it's simply slavery. Morality is doing that which is "good" or "right" simply because they are so. It is the idea that a "good deed" (whatever that may be defined to be) is something pure and good and is it's own justification.Now for the first time can you actually experience morality. Your good deeds will not be the result of fear but rather an intrinsic brilliance associated with goodness itself.Of course, the difficult question is defining those good deeds. To do this, I would simply go with the answer provided by the two greatest philosophers of all time: Jesus Christ and Immanuel Kant (they both came up with the same answer).

[Dirtydutch 8]

Hardly. Morality certainly can exist in a universe even without some sort of omniscient "nanny." In fact, I would argue that following some god's orders only so that one can have a chance of entering heaven isn't morality at all; it's simply slavery. Morality is doing that which is "good" or "right" simply because they are so. It is the idea that a "good deed" (whatever that may be defined to be) is something pure and good and is it's own justification.Now for the first time can you actually experience morality. Your good deeds will not be the result of fear but rather an intrinsic brilliance associated with goodness itself.Of course, the difficult question is defining those good deeds. To do this, I would simply go with the answer provided by the two greatest philosophers of all time: Jesus Christ and Immanuel Kant (they both came up with the same answer).

See, I don't understand why (a) there would be any such thing as "right" are "wrong" without cosmic order, and (b), why you would even want there to be.

[Dirtydutch 8]

asian and godless in the south? I put the over/under on your lynching to be 7 months.

I rarely leave my liberal ******* hippy shelter of Atlanta, anyway.

[CobaltBlue 662]

See, I don't understand why (a) there would be any such thing as "right" are "wrong" without cosmic order, and (b), why you would even want there to be.

There isn't. And, if there isn't, it doesn't "matter" whether you want there to be or not.

[CobaltBlue 662]

To do this, I would simply go with the answer provided by the two greatest philosophers of all time: Jesus Christ and Immanuel Kant (they both came up with the same answer).

You mean this, right?One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, "Of all the commandments, which is the most important?" "The most important one," answered Jesus, "is this: 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.' The second is this: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no commandment greater than these."

[Dirtydutch 8]

There isn't. And, if there isn't, it doesn't "matter" whether you want there to be or not.

You could sure still pretend. Pretending seems to be the basis of most philosophy, anyway. It's not really that bad a way to go, really.

[CobaltBlue 662]

You could sure still pretend. Pretending seems to be the basis of most philosophy, anyway. It's not really that bad a way to go, really.

Yes, you could, but why would you? (Or why would you not?) And, what definition of 'bad' are we using?

[Vick07 0]

1. being atheist/agnostic is actually "in" these days socially in every 1st-world country except the USA, which is lagging behind but not for very much longer. i wouldn't worry about long-term minority stigma or anything like that.

Not really.. here being "Christian" is turning synonymous with "gentleman"... It's just a good adjective that sounds nice. Besides that atheism and agnosticism are almost as "in" as everywhere else.

[Dirtydutch 8]

Yes, you could, but why would you? (Or why would you not?) And, what definition of 'bad' are we using?

Rephrase, to placate semantics boy:You could sure still pretend. Pretending seems to be the basis of most philosophy, anyway. It's not really that ineffective in its goal of what degree of partial happiness is possible, really.

[crowTrobot 2]

See, I don't understand why (a) there would be any such thing as "right" are "wrong" without cosmic order

the only morality intrinsic to our existence is what is beneficial for life on a combination of individual and group levels. "right" is simply actions/choices that lead to reduced suffering, prolonged human lifespan, & increased chances for survival as a species.socially empathetic behavior isn't something that necessarily has to be god given to have importance and meaning.

[crowTrobot 2]

Besides that atheism and agnosticism are almost as "in" as everywhere else.

no they absolutely are not. in most major european countries and japan, even though many still practice religion for traditional/cultural reasons, the *majority* of the population describe themselves as atheist/agnostic and it is definitely hip to do so - widely accepted as a sign of intelligence and social progression. in the USA only around 15% describe themselves at such. the percentage and acceptance is growing rapidly, but in most of the country it is still frowned on.

[Dirtydutch 8]

the only morality intrinsic to our existence is what is beneficial for life on a combination of individual and group levels. "right" is simply actions/choices that lead to reduced suffering, prolonged human lifespan, & increased chances for survival as a species.socially empathetic behavior isn't something that necessarily has to be god given to have importance and meaning.

It's possible that for the overall good of humanity that some of these instincts are useful, but I have no stake in the general good of the world, or at least less then I do in my own selfish interests. I think the first sign to me that there probably wasn't a God was that I've never really felt empathy.

[CobaltBlue 662]

Rephrase, to placate semantics boy:You could sure still pretend. Pretending seems to be the basis of most philosophy, anyway. It's not really that ineffective in its goal of what degree of partial happiness is possible, really.

Yes, but why is happiness something to be valued?

[CobaltBlue 662]

the only morality intrinsic to our existence is what is beneficial for life on a combination of individual and group levels. "right" is simply actions/choices that lead to reduced suffering, prolonged human lifespan, & increased chances for survival as a species.

Why is our continued existence/life intrinsically a good thing?

[Dirtydutch 8]

Yes, but why is happiness something to be valued?

Because I enjoy it.

[crowTrobot 2]

It's possible that for the overall good of humanity that some of these instincts are useful, but I have no stake in the general good of the world, or at least less then I do in my own selfish interests.

morality in that sense is more of an emergent property of social evolution than something that's necessarily instinctual on an individual level (although it probably is both). for example you may think it's ok for you to kill someone, but you make the conscious choice not to do so because of the social consequences that have emerged from murder being detrimental to society.

I think the first sign to me that there probably wasn't a God was that I've never really felt empathy.

i doubt that lol. it's pretty hard to have any positive emotions at all towards anyone without empathy being attached.

[Dirtydutch 8]

morality in that sense is more of an emergent property of social evolution than something that's necessarily instinctual on an individual level (although it probably is both). for example you may think it's ok for you to kill someone, but you make the conscious choice not to do so because of the social consequences that have emerged from murder being detrimental to society.i doubt that lol. it's pretty hard to have any positive emotions at all towards anyone without empathy being attached.

First point, I agree. I don't kill people because there are consequences. And also I have no great reason to.

[crowTrobot 2]

Why is our continued existence/life intrinsically a good thing?

since you're trying to make an irrelevant philosophical point of some kind i'm not sure i understand the question. obviously humans in general like being alive so our survival is a good thing for us. if life were nothing but torture and suffering you could make the point that humans are better off not existing, but that doesn't seem to be the case lol.on a purely mechanical level survival IS the meaning to existence built into us by evolution.

[BigDMcGee 3,355]

My "morality" such as it is, is too fold. I think a society should take on a utilitarian philosophy in doing things like making laws and foreign policy. That is, I think that murder should be illegal because if it was legal the society would be chaotic and unable to operate efficiently. And also, for selfish reasons, because I don't want to be murdered.On a personal level, my morality is completely risk/reward. Something being legal or illegal as such doesn't prevent me from doing something, it just adds to the equation. For example, murder. I don't murder other people because it's wrong. I don't murder because the risk ( going to jail for life/being executed) is much to high for the reward (I don't really have any reason to murder someone, and I don't think there's a reward out there that's worth the risk of getting caught). If murder were legal, I'd be much more apt to engage in it, but I wouldn't want to live in that kind of society as I think I'd much more likely be the murderee, than the murderer. And i'd probably have to work out more, which is a pain in the ass.Another example is theft. I think a society, from a utilitarian POV, should pushing theft, as if theft was legal, it would cause alot of violence and chaos ect. However, when I was younger, I used to shop lift a great deal, because the risk of getting caught was so low, and even If i was caught, I was a first time offender and would have been able to pre-trial diversion it. I don't currently steal (unless intellectual property counts...) because A) I don't really need to and B) The novelty of it kind of wore off ( I felt like quite the empowered anarchist when I was doing it at first). But if I ever got to the point where I needed to, if it was like a chose between eating or not or what ever, then I would steal without a second thought.

[Dirtydutch 8]

My "morality" such as it is, is too fold. I think a society should take on a utilitarian philosophy in doing things like making laws and foreign policy. That is, I think that murder should be illegal because if it was legal the society would be chaotic and unable to operate efficiently. And also, for selfish reasons, because I don't want to be murdered.On a personal level, my morality is completely risk/reward. Something being legal or illegal as such doesn't prevent me from doing something, it just adds to the equation. For example, murder. I don't murder other people because it's wrong. I don't murder because the risk ( going to jail for life/being executed) is much to high for the reward (I don't really have any reason to murder someone, and I don't think there's a reward out there that's worth the risk of getting caught). If murder were legal, I'd be much more apt to engage in it, but I wouldn't want to live in that kind of society as I think I'd much more likely be the murderee, than the murderer. And i'd probably have to work out more, which is a pain in the ass.Another example is theft. I think a society, from a utilitarian POV, should pushing theft, as if theft was legal, it would cause alot of violence and chaos ect. However, when I was younger, I used to shop lift a great deal, because the risk of getting caught was so low, and even If i was caught, I was a first time offender and would have been able to pre-trial diversion it. I don't currently steal (unless intellectual property counts...) because A) I don't really need to and B) The novelty of it kind of wore off ( I felt like quite the empowered anarchist when I was doing it at first). But if I ever got to the point where I needed to, if it was like a chose between eating or not or what ever, then I would steal without a second thought.

I think I 100% agree with everything there. The last few weeks, especially, I've been more-and-more articulating the risk/reward deterrentary government.

[BigDMcGee 3,355]

I think I 100% agree with everything there. The last few weeks, especially, I've been more-and-more articulating the risk/reward deterrentary government.

Oh, dutch.. I'm a egg and you're a twinkee.. lets go out and kidnap Natale Portman and make her birth your and I's genetically engineered children. I'm sure we could raise the perfect evil genius.