juantoo3
....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb
Kindest Regards, Eudaimonist!
In short, no different subject, merely fleshing the subject out. I can't help if the "natural" connections are a bit...unsavory...to present company. I simply follow where the evidence (archeological and anthropological, psychological and physiological) leads. Scientific method, and all that jazz.![Big Grin :D :D]()
Huh?What does this have to do with what I wrote? I was talking about atheists being able to have meaning in life, and suddenly you are talking on a completely different topic.
We did look into this in the lengthy thread on morality in evolution. I do not disagree with you, but I do see a *huge* difference between "natural" morality and "learned" morality. For instance, in nature it is quite moral to kill one's offspring. I hardly think that is a moral thing in civilized society. There is also the issue of "us and them" at a natural level, the pack / herd / tribe does not necessarily extend moral courtesy to others of the same species if they are "outsiders." (In much the same way, I would think, that "we" foster the sense that the enemy is an "other" during wartime propaganda.) In other words, a "foreign" ape, for example, is quite likely to be ripped to shreds by a tribe of similar apes.
Perhaps, but a "logical" consequence of not believing in a "god" is that there is only the societal motivator for morality (e.g.: latent religious indoctrination). Once one realizes that, and withdraws from the societal motivator because it *is* linked to latent religious indoctrination, there is no more throttle to sustain a moral sway. Keep in mind I am referring to morality in a modern, civilized sense of the term. Logic would realize that self, and / or immediate circle (mate, possibly children only to a point), are what to value, defend and support. Could care less if others get theirs, gonna make sure "I" got enough (or more). Logic, in the absence of morality, tends to justify all of the base attributes of humanity. That's my basic point, and the reasoning behind the "despair" (or whatever it was) comment.
Logic, as *the* generator of morality, can be demonstrated by the book "Lord of the Flies," as it can be demonstrated by the series of Mad Max / Road Warrior movies. I do not know the authors to give credit, but I think these are excellent looks at the human psyche when turned loose without a "throttle." In short, the prognosis is not very good. Logic has this nasty habit of looking out for self at the expense of others, where morality seems to be looking out for others in spite of self. Logic and morality obviously coexist, but I question their relation to each other, I really doubt logic generates morality at a root / core / base level. (one might even dare point to elemental morality among herding and pack animals, and attempt to find "logic" among same...)
why does fatalism have to be slashed with despair? Couldn't somebody be happy and perfectly content to leave the universe in it's own hands to unfold as it will?
I suppose they could, now that the thought has been brought to my attention. I'm not certain I agree yet, but I can understand the premise.
You may have hit on something I had not considered..."cynical nihilist." Accepting that we use our "labels" in our minds in order to construct and guide our thoughts, perhaps I was saying "atheist" and meaning "cynical nihilist." I guess the thought hadn't occurred to me that an athiest could be anything but a cynical nihilist, so in that regard I suppose an apology is due.
I offer my full and complete apology to anyone offended by my misinterpretation.
In short, no different subject, merely fleshing the subject out. I can't help if the "natural" connections are a bit...unsavory...to present company. I simply follow where the evidence (archeological and anthropological, psychological and physiological) leads. Scientific method, and all that jazz.