4 ms·

> and I think it boils down to her not believing that someone can be "moral" its interesting to note, that the concept of morality, is in fact, moored as a co

> and I think it boils down to her not believing that someone can be "moral" its interesting to note, that the concept of morality, is in fact, moored as a consensual hallucination as to what is good. therefore, as an atheist, you might mimic a "cultural" sense of goodness; but since the intent is not from the same source -- you may not pretend to share it. Logically, you are immoral simply because you do not share the same inspiration. This is a direct consequence of "assuredness". if you want it in mathematical format ;) you have to look deeper than the act. Which is what, you are missing. It is not enough to be 'good' (as if some objective standard can be said to exist!); it is also important to be able to enunciate the impulse to 'goodness'; and further to assure the reliability of that impulse. This is why atheism, is and always will be, a minority religion. You lack the one characteristic, that all other religions share. A framework. That is not to say, btw, that organized religion is "better". As with everything, the intent and education/erudition of the practitioner, makes the difference in real effect. > so his acts are based on an inner sense of morality. ... or self-interest/greed.

Jordrok 8y ago
> its interesting to note, that the concept of morality, is in fact, moored as a consensual hallucination as to what is good. Says who? You? > therefore, as an atheist, you might mimic a "cultural" sense of goodness; but since the intent is not from the same source -- you may not pretend to share it. Logically, you are immoral simply because you do not share the same inspiration. This is a direct consequence of "assuredness". if you want it in mathematical format ;) Again, your entire argument here is hinged on the assumption that all morality originates from religion and everyone else is just faking it. What you believe is right and everyone else is, by definition, wrong. Give me a break with this "mathematical format" nonsense and condescending smiley faces.
- paulgrant999 8y ago
  > Says who? You? Yup. Your idea of good, is not my idea of good. That we can reach an agreement (compromise), the consensual portion. That good, is often a matter of perspective, and subject to change in hindsight (i.e. a value judgement distorted heavily by the sensorium/ego) is where it is a hallucination. > Again, your entire argument here is hinged on the assumption that all morality originates from religion no, it doesn't. in point of fact, religion arises as a consequence, of the argument. So do gangs/police/armies/nations. Welcome to the morass, of humanity. :) ;) or if you prefer "the road to hell, is paved with "good" intentions". or more succinctly, "hell is other people". > Give me a break with this "mathematical format" nonsense Not a fan of logic? > and condescending smiley faces. condescending? not really. simply commenting on an alternate pathway to arrive at the conclusion, as a consequence rather than a posit. as I am not privy to your actual conversation with said "religious" person, I chose to demonstrate the line of reasoning. But by all means, continue to stick your head up your ass and think its "religion is the only source of goodness" statement, rather than a logical argument, predicated on human psychology and its biases.

Jordrok 8y ago

> its interesting to note, that the concept of morality, is in fact, moored as a consensual hallucination as to what is good. Says who? You? > therefore, as an atheist, you might mimic a "cultural" sense of goodness; but since the intent is not from the same source -- you may not pretend to share it. Logically, you are immoral simply because you do not share the same inspiration. This is a direct consequence of "assuredness". if you want it in mathematical format ;) Again, your entire argument here is hinged on the assumption that all morality originates from religion and everyone else is just faking it. What you believe is right and everyone else is, by definition, wrong. Give me a break with this "mathematical format" nonsense and condescending smiley faces.

paulgrant999 8y ago
> Says who? You? Yup. Your idea of good, is not my idea of good. That we can reach an agreement (compromise), the consensual portion. That good, is often a matter of perspective, and subject to change in hindsight (i.e. a value judgement distorted heavily by the sensorium/ego) is where it is a hallucination. > Again, your entire argument here is hinged on the assumption that all morality originates from religion no, it doesn't. in point of fact, religion arises as a consequence, of the argument. So do gangs/police/armies/nations. Welcome to the morass, of humanity. :) ;) or if you prefer "the road to hell, is paved with "good" intentions". or more succinctly, "hell is other people". > Give me a break with this "mathematical format" nonsense Not a fan of logic? > and condescending smiley faces. condescending? not really. simply commenting on an alternate pathway to arrive at the conclusion, as a consequence rather than a posit. as I am not privy to your actual conversation with said "religious" person, I chose to demonstrate the line of reasoning. But by all means, continue to stick your head up your ass and think its "religion is the only source of goodness" statement, rather than a logical argument, predicated on human psychology and its biases.