Atheists and Agnostics Meeting Place

[PINOY_RADICAL]

Just wanna share this one:

The Mystical Ethics of the New Atheists

This article(published in The Objective Standard, Alan Germani) shows that the New Atheists like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and their ilk, share similar "code of morality" with the religious people whom they fanatically reject. (What an irony!). This "code of morality" is Altruism. History tells us that Altruism empowers the two destroyers of our civilization: Faith and Force.

History tells us that we ruled by two kinds of mystics:
The mystic of spirit (the religionists/religious people, cultists or spiritualists)
The mystic of muscle (the communists, imperialists, socialists, fascists, Nazis, etc.) note: Capitalism and Imperialism are contradiction in terms

These two groups have in common, they are both collectivists and their morality is primarily based on Altruism.

And yes, the New Atheists are the new mystics of our modern age.


In his article, Alan Germani states:

Why do these alleged men of reason join men of faith in appealing to mysticism as a basis for morality? The reason is simple: The morality they seek to defend, altruism, cannot be grounded in reason or reality. There are no facts that give rise to the principle that a person should sacrifice himself for the sake of others. Those who maintain that being moral consists in being altruistic have no alternative but to base that belief on some form of mysticism—whether “innate ideas,” or “intuition,” or a “mysterious consensus,” or religious faith. The New Atheists may have omitted God from their ethics, but their ethics remains essentially the same as that of the religions they condemn: a mystical call to self-sacrifice.

In today’s predominantly religious world, it takes some measure of courage to criticize faith and challenge the existence of God—and Hitchens, Harris, Dennett, and Dawkins deserve some measure of credit for doing so. But it takes greater courage to challenge the even more widespread belief that being moral consists in self-sacrificially serving others. If the New Atheists are serious about convincing people to abandon religion and adopt a rational secular worldview, then they must find the courage to follow reason wherever it leads—even if it leads them, as it will, to challenge the validity of altruism.

Fortunately for those who do have the courage to follow reason and challenge the validity of altruism, Ayn Rand has already discovered, demonstrated, and codified a morality based on and derived from the demonstrable requirements of human life, happiness, and coexistence: rational egoism. By first asking the question “Why does man need morality?” she proceeded to discover that man, as a being who must make choices, needs morality as a guide to life-promoting action. She discovered that man’s life is the standard of moral value—which means that actions that advance man’s life are moral and that those that retard or destroy man’s life are immoral.

Unlike religion and secular altruism, rational egoism neither entails nor permits any claim on the lives of other men. It holds that each man should act in his own best interest and that each man is the proper beneficiary of his own thought and action. And because egoism recognizes that it is right for a man to think and act in his self-interest, it also recognizes that it is wrong for others to violate this right through physical force or fraud. Rational egoism not only serves to guide an individual’s actions; it also serves as the foundation for a rights-respecting, civilized society.

It is beyond the purpose of this article to elaborate the ethics of rational egoism. But those who see the glaring need for a rational (i.e., non-mystical), life-serving (i.e., non-sacrificial) morality—a morality for living and achieving happiness on Earth—will find it elaborated in the works of Ayn Rand.

For those interested in studying Ayn Rand’s ethics, I recommend as excellent starting points her essays “The Objectivist Ethics” in The Virtue of Selfishness (New York: Signet, 1964) and “Causality Versus Duty” in Philosophy: Who Needs It (New York: Signet, 1982); and Craig Biddle’s Loving Life: The Morality of Self-Interest and the Facts that Support It.

I believe it is not enough to criticize faith and the existence of God to encourage people to forsake or reject religion.

like Allan Germani said, "it takes greater courage to challenge the even more widespread belief that being moral consists in self-sacrificially serving others."

If the New Atheists want to encourage believers/religious to abandon their faith, they must muster the courage to discover reason and to reject and challenge their "code of morality" - altruism.

 

[mightymarc]

She discovered that man’s life is the standard of moral value—which means that actions that advance man’s life are moral and that those that retard or destroy man’s life are immoral.

I agree. Nabanggit ko na rin ata yan... na yun morality from god eh in reality learned concept of morality, right and wrong... kung beneficial sa tao, right etc.

But im reserving my judgement on whether Dawkins promotes true altruism. Simply because my interest, a person's interest can also be others'. And that i have yet read or heard him tell his audience to sacrifice themselves for others' interest. Kung namiss ko, please direct me to the right direction

 

[joseromeo]

"Itanong mo kay Soriano, Biblia ang sasagot sayo."

nanunuod kasi ako nyan
_____________________________________
----------------------------------------------------------


share lang

 

[humility21]

may bago pa lang share. maya ko na intindihin ulit. di ko pa naintindihan yung una e. trabaho muna. hahaha..

brb.
----------@@@@@--------------

soriano?.. oo na nga lang.

 

[joseromeo]

"Itanong mo kay Soriano, Biblia ang sasagot sayo."


_____________________________________
----------------------------------------------------------


share lang

 

[ronell10]

wew ayos usapan, medyo naaabsorb ko na

gandang gabi guys

ice breaker muna, medyo ok yung movie na "Immortals"

 

[joseromeo]

@ronell

kuya anu religion mu?
__________________________________
-----------------------------------------------------

uu maganda immortals

 

[ronell10]

@ronell

kuya anu religion mu?
__________________________________
-----------------------------------------------------

uu maganda immortals

catholic by papers... di na ako naniniwala sa ganun e

 

[joseromeo]

catholic by papers... di na ako naniniwala sa ganun e

catholic rin ako..
pero curious din sa ibang religious groups/religions



try mu panuodin yung "itanong mo kay soriano, biblia ang sasagot sayo" sa UNTV

-i find it entertaining, kasi parang totoo naman sinasabi niya(base sa bible ang sagot nya)


-grabe mga patama nya sa ibang relihiyon lalo na sa katoliko.
basta try mu panuorin hehe

 

[ronell10]

catholic rin ako..
pero curious din sa ibang religious groups/religions



try mu panuodin yung "itanong mo kay soriano, biblia ang sasagot sayo" sa UNTV

-i find it entertaining, kasi parang totoo naman sinasabi niya(base sa bible ang sagot nya)


-grabe mga patama nya sa ibang relihiyon lalo na sa katoliko.
basta try mu panuorin hehe

ahh matagal ko ng napapanood yan natatawa na nga lang ako e, dati kasi i-minus 1 mo lang yung channel mo sa cable, INC naman makikita mo kung saan puro sila bangayan

Highschool plang ako napanood ko na yan, i find it entertaining though pero dumagdag lang sya sa curiousity ko about god/religion

 

[joseromeo]

ahh matagal ko ng napapanood yan natatawa na nga lang ako e, dati kasi i-minus 1 mo lang yung channel mo sa cable, INC naman makikita mo kung saan puro sila bangayan

Highschool plang ako napanood ko na yan, i find it entertaining though pero dumagdag lang sya sa curiousity ko about god/religion

ahh..kakatuwa si bro eli kanina..lalo na yung ateyista kawawa di naka imik..jajaja
ang ganda makinig sobra kasi accurate lahat ng mga sagot niya
isa pang nagustuhan ko sa kanya ay dahil kabisado nya ang bible hehehe

 

[humility21]

@mightymarc,
parang puro kwento sa bible mga naiisip ko na "sacrifice" para maconsider as altruism, kagaya ng patayin yung anak, kapatid para mapatunayan ang pagsamba sa "diyos". yun pwede ko maconsider as evil talaga yun. walang kwentang sakripisyo yun e, sasakripisyo mo mahal mo to praise your so called all loving god?

pero in reality, wala ako maisip. meron, kumpare ng tatay ko dati, binaril nya anak nya kasi daw napahiya kumpare nya so para mapatawad sya pinatay nya anak nya. And siguro yung mga kwento na sa sobrang hirap ng buhay, binebenta nila mga anak nila o mismong sarili nila para magkapera at makakain. Yun mga naiisip kong "sacrifice" na pwede macategory as "evil".

So baka yun naman ang sinasabi na sacrifice as evil, hindi yung parang mga heroic acts, charity and noble deeds.

Edit:
Share ko lang pala to, habang nadadrive pauwi along fairview nakita ko to.

A new look at global
ethics and The Four-Way
Test:

1. Is it the TRUTH?
2. Is it FAIR to all concerned?
3. Will it build GOODWILL and BETTER
FRIENDSHIPS? 4
. Will it be BENEFICIAL to all concerned?

Dati dinadaan daanan ko lang pero napansin ko na parang may relate sa topic natin. Kaya share ko na rin, tignan natin kung magtugma o hindi sa idea na sineshare ni pinoy_radical.

Moral codes and ethics give us tools but
also raise questions to be answered:
How should we live? What is morally
good and bad, right and wrong? Shall
we aim at happiness or knowledge?
Virtue or the creation of beautiful objects? If we choose happiness, will it
be our own or the happiness of all?

www.rotary.org/en/MediaAndNews/News/Pages/070917_news_Four-WayTest.aspx

 

[PINOY_RADICAL]

"Sacrifice" is the surrender of a greater value for the sake of a lesser one or of a nonvalue.

If you exchange a penny for a dollar, it is not a sacrifice; if you exchange a dollar for a penny, it is. If you achieve the career you wanted, after years of struggle, it is not a sacrifice; if you then renounce it for the sake of a rival, it is. If you own a bottle of milk and give it to your starving child, it is not a sacrifice; if you give it to your neighbor’s child and let your own die, it is. If you give money to help a friend, it is not a sacrifice; if you give it to a worthless stranger, it is. If you give your friend a sum you can afford, it is not a sacrifice; if you give him but of the good for the sake of money at the cost of your own discomfort, it is only a partial virtue, according to this sort of moral standard; if you give him money at the cost of disaster to yourself—that is the virtue of sacrifice in full. If you renounce all personal desires and dedicate your life to those you love, you do not achieve full virtue: you still retain a value of your own, which is your love. If you devote your life to random strangers, it is an act of greater virtue. If you devote your life to serving men you hate—that is the greatest of the virtues you can practice.

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/sacrifice.html

 

[thrown]

^now that make things clearer ...

 

[kuku09]

dba pinigilan naman ni god na i sakripisyo nung manunupa yung anak nya,
instead tupa na lang daw dba?
Kasi nga manunupa nga sya...
Ewan ko walang wala pa kc ko yata
karapatan sa palagay ko na questionin ang bibliya..
Magmuka lang ako rebeldeng 8yr old kid nyan na kinequestion ang gusto ng dad nya

 

[mightymarc]

@humility, kahit yun pagbenta ng anak, benefit pa rin SELF dun eh so di rin yun sacrifice. Benta sarili, benefit parin SELF, di rin sacrifice.

Wala naman ata talagang nagpapractice ng tunay na sacrifice eh. Pwera na lang sa odd and weird cases na medyo may sayad yung tao, gaya ng sinabi mong binaril yung anak nya[though di rin sacrifice yun kasi ginawa nya yun para sa SELF di ba?]

Yun mga sinabi ni PR na example, parang wala naman talagang gumagawa nun. Though tinuturo nga yun sa religions BUT kakaunti ang sumusunod.

Bakit kamo? Eh siguro nga lahat naman eh individualist.

Yun mga sinampal sa left cheek ba nagpapasampal din ng right cheek?
May nagdodonate ba lahat ng yaman nila? as in lahat tapos mamumuhay na mahirap?

Kaya medyo nagtaka ako bakit nasabi ni PR na headed ang Pinas sa disaster dahil sa pagiging collectivist. When corruption ang problema natin which imo is a case of self-interest.

....
Reminds of that HouseMD episode, yun lalaking nagdonate ng million dollars sa charity. Bwisit sa kanya ang asawa nya kasi yun mga anak nya di nya nabibigay ang luho. Ang guest actor yun bida sa Prison Break. Grabe ang altruism nya kaya kinonsider as symptom. Brought about pala by Plummer's Disease. Actually parang meron pang isang episode na sobrang bait din yun patient, kinonsider din ni House na symptom.
Logical naman, kasi hindi na normal yun ganun.

 

[humility21]

parang nabasa ko dati sa posts nya na dahil nga rin sa maling konsepto ng pagpapalakad at role ng government natin. Kayo pa nga ata ang magkausap nun? Yung regarding kay Qaddafi.

It has to do with Capitalism and Corporatism ata. Ang natatandaan ko lang sa sinabi is The only proper role of government is to protect individual rights.

 

[thrown]

actually yun nga din ang pinagtataka ko eh kasi alam naman natin na yung selfishness ang root ng corruption. i agree na wala naman talagang nagpapractice ng altruism. pure insanity kasi yan sa tingin ko. kapag ginawa mo ang isang bagay lagi mo talagang iniisip ung benefit nyan sa sarili mo. kapag nagbebenefit ka but causes harm to others for sure hindi mo yun gagawin kahit pa sabihin nating it is for your self.
or maybe we failed to get the idea.

 

[humility21]

rational selfishness or self interest kasi nya is again strict ang meaning and concept. kaya nga gusto ko malaman kung ano pinagkaiba ng selfishness vs. greediness sa common terms at sa term ni pinoy_radical.

kasi para sa akin ang corruption is greediness na which is a higher form of self interest na. kumbaga may hawak na ngang manok sa kanan kamay gusto pa kunin yung sa katabi para dalawa na manok nya.

base sa pagkakaintindi ko sa self interest ni pinoy_radical is kukunin mo lang kung ano ang nararapat sa sarili mo at karapatan mo at hindi yung magnanakaw ka o manlalamang para sa sariling interes.

Distinguish good selfishness from bad selfishness

You've heard of
the "bait-and-
switch" con? Well,
guess what? This
is the "scare-and-
switch" con: "Selfish" has two entirely
different
meanings. One is: "taking advantage
of people against
their will." The
other is: "taking
care of yourself
and your family first and foremost
and to whatever
degree YOU deem
appropriate."
Obviously, the
latter is a virtue, and the former is a
vice. But if you fail
to distinguish
between the
meanings you're
prey to being suckered by con
artists of either
the deliberate
variety* or of the
more common
unwitting, unthinking "disease
carrier" kind.

First they make
you extremely
fearful of ever
being seen to take
advantage of
anyone unwilling, and then they
twist it with the
sneakiness of a
magician and the
cleverness of a
lawyer to make you ashamed of
ever being seen to
take care of
yourself and your
family first. Then, while trying
to get you to
accept the
ridiculous notion
that every kind of
"selfishness," even just making money
in the private
sector (earning a
living and growing
a nest egg) is
morally vicious,** they also try to get
you to accept the
even more absurd
idea that the
accumulating of
political power by government
employees and
politicians (and
their legal
machinations to
steal or control the property of
others) is morally
good. This is sold
along with an
implicit demand
that their professed concern
for "others" be
accepted without
question at face
value, together
with an implicit threat: "Don't you
DARE point out
that grasping for
and accumulating
political power
definitely IS a kind of 'selfishness,' only this time it's the bad kind, the
vicious taking-
unwilling-
advantage kind,
the kind that's the
hallmark of criminals,
politicians, their
intellectual
excuse-makers and
other aggressive
parasites."

 

[joseromeo]

TS lagyan mu poll)

para malaman natin kung sinu sinu mga atheist, agnostic o anu man dito