-
Posts
-
I can’t comment on this ridiculous film , but I read a post a couple of weeks back possibly from scep about the concept of ” right and wrong ” and given if someone is an atheist with no possible retribution in a non existent afterlife, what motive or reason bar obvious legal superficiality would anyone have to remain within this boundary of “right and wrong”. It’s something which plays on my mind more as I get older and given the belief there is only one life with no discernable purpose, I can see how many may get immersed into a dark mode of thought regarding actions.
We are all programmed from a young age to follow the template set out by society … school up to 16 , possible higher education till early 20s , dead end/ semi worthwhile job to mid 60s whilst you have a mortgage, kids, pottering round in old age decaying nearing death watering the daffodils entering F3 ( gods waiting room). If you don’t follow that design and adopt a rogue spirit , it’d be very likely complete chaos would ensue , no real law and order and true darwinism in survival of the fittest in every sense would materialise. We have this flimsy shell of a ” purpose to life” but step away from that , it gets very dark indeed.
3 members liked this post.
I thought that was a very serious post, Norfolk, to be taken seriously. It may not be totally relevant to the thread, but neither have been quite a lot of the posts, and it was more serious than a lot of them.
I had said that if there were no God, then why should we do what is right as opposed to what is wrong. If there were no God, then everything is permitted. It is even permitted to be good and to think of others; but it is equally legitimate to be self-serving and cruel, insensitive to others.
I think what you set out are the reasons why people set up laws and obey them, not the reason for people being good. Without such rules, life would be ‘nasty, mean, brutish and short’ as someone once put it.
but the civilizations we have built up for our security have never prevented people from being cruel or self-serving. Think in the past of regimes like Inca Peru with its child sacrifices or Nazi Germany. In the public sector of our own country – health, education – there is a lot of back-biting and scheming and bullying and lying to advance or defend personal interests – I’ve seen it. There is what in the Nazi Civil Service was called a bicycle pedal culture. You lift the bike pedal to lick the backside of your superior, then bring the pedal down hard on the head of your inferior, then lift the pedal up again to lick bottom, then down again hard, the wheel spinning faster and faster until you achieved promotion.
Obeying the rules keeps a sort of security but something horrible is going on behind the curtain. Eichmann, the aspiring Nazi, didn’t hate Jews; he cultivated friendships with the Jewish elders to help make the system run more efficiently, his diaries are full of dinner dates to suck up to his superiors in order to achieve promotion; at the bottom a footnotes were timetables for the running of train taking men, women and children to Auschwitz and Buchenwald; these little things weren’t really of importance to him compared with climbing the ladder. It’s what one woman called the banality of evil.
People use the rules of a society in order to advance themselves. They ar preapred to be very cruel in doing so, a lot of them,. not all. But many.
What you are setting out is a reason for obedience. That isn’t necessarily the same thing as why we should be good or bad. In a novel called Brighton Rock, a woman says she knows all about right and wrong, about obeying and disobeying laws, but compared with Good and Evil, such things as ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ on the laws don’t mean very much.
If there isn’t a God, you can be good, you can obey the rules, you can help others. People do. But there’s no fundamental reason why you can’t use the rules to hurt people and advance your own interests. Yes? no?
2 members liked this post.
Heh, geez louise….
You and Mafia had me going scep..
Think with coffee, I could sit with u and Mafia on a lovely debate of thoughts for awhile. Very thorough, my opinion for u both.
Impressed by both, and thank u to both.. Made me think both thoughts shared.. impressive.Xxx
Mafia Xxx
Linda
Scep, how would you define what is ” good or bad” as this is a term which isn’t set in stone and would vary from one society to the next. Assuming we take universal evil as indiscriminate murder as one example, it’s fair to say practically every worldwide government or monarchy directly /indirectly murders its native through either draconian regimes, wars or issues of poverty which could be addressed. The reason we have laws is to prevent complete anarchy , but it doesn’t mean they should be respected – just adhered to for self preservation to avoid prison etc. As a species, Myra hindley and Ian bradey will have the same fate in the afterlife ( a worms belly) as mother teresa so the only thing regulating behaviour is pc plod and our own moral compass.
There are no rewards for behaving in a certain manner despite the selfish behaviour of bible bashers doing ” selfless acts ” purely for some kind of vindication in a perceived afterlife… it’s narcissism at it’s finest. As though some “creator ” is looking down saying ” There goes Mr Smith, he helped an old lady across the road and reads hymns at church so he is coming to heaven after his worthless existence on a tiny ball of rock situated in a vast vacuum of space has expired for being …. good”
3 members liked this post.
‘Good and ‘evil’ aren’t set in stone? Well, that’s precisely what we’re discussing; whether obedience to law, no matter how evil, as long as we are secure and protected from anarchy
If ‘good’ and evil’ are relative terms, then child sacrifice is good if you’re living in Inca Peru, because it keeps the Sun God satisfied (jc experts on Inca Peru may correct me here on the type of God etc). If you’re living in Nazi Germany, then ‘good’ and ‘evil’ are defined by that regime. Himmler told officers at one of the camps (I can find the quote if needed) that if Germany were defeated, they would be reviled for ever, but if Germany won, their extermination of the Jews and others who didn’t fit in would be seen as one of the greatest and heroic acts in humanity. In other words, power defines what is ‘good’ and ‘evil’ if there is no God.
Is this what you’re saying, Norfolk? It does follow from the absence of God. I’m trying not to put words in your mouth.
I’m not commenting on what kind of God – there may well be no God – and I’m not commenting on Heaven and Hell, reward and punishment for obeying God. I have my own views on all that, and they don’t conform with yours or with most Christians..
The only point I’m making is that without a God, how can we avoid the Himmler view of what can be done and not done? I’m not assuming a God. This chilling approach to morality may be right, though I hope not (and I believe not)
2 members liked this post.
‘Good and ‘evil’ aren’t set in stone? Well, that’s precisely what we’re discussing; whether obedience to law, no matter how evil, as long as we are secure and protected from anarchy If ‘good’ and evil’ are relative terms, then child sacrifice is good if you’re living in Inca Peru, because it keeps the Sun God satisfied (jc experts on Inca Peru may correct me here on the type of God etc). If you’re living in Nazi Germany, then ‘good’ and ‘evil’ are defined by that regime. Himmler told officers at one of the camps (I can find the quote if needed) that if Germany were defeated, they would be reviled for ever, but if Germany won, their extermination of the Jews and others who didn’t fit in would be seen as one of the greatest and heroic acts in humanity. In other words, power defines what is ‘good’ and ‘evil’ if there is no God. Is this what you’re saying, Norfolk? It does follow from the absence of God. I’m trying not to put words in your mouth. I’m not commenting on what kind of God – there may well be no God – and I’m not commenting on Heaven and Hell, reward and punishment for obeying God. I have my own views on all that, and they don’t conform with yours or with most Christians.. The only point I’m making is that without a God, how can we avoid the Himmler view of what can be done and not done? I’m not assuming a God. This chilling approach to morality may be right, though I hope not (and I believe not)
How is sacrificing a child ever good even if it follows a certain law? You are confusing morality and legality. We are talking about moral compasses when people often think if they don’t conform with laws then they must be wrong. If I found a burglar in my house, I would quite possibly kill the person.. the law would say that I have committed murder as it goes beyond reasonable force but many would argue it was justified.
I have no respect for laws, only a fool would have as they are continually changing so why respect something which is forever fluctuating open to interpretation ? I keep within them for selfish reasons like any sane person would. laws are completely irrelevant in determining my moral compass as they should for any sane person .. in times gone by “lords” could execute lower classes on a whim. It doesn’t make it any less barbaric and neither does child sacrifice because the law says so. On the other side of the coin you get drivers coming to an emergency stop on a road as a sign suddenly changes from 50 MPH to 40MPH as this in the minds of many sheep is an absolute rather than using common sense . Anyone doing 45 is deemed reckless by police on a summer road with no traffic yet in icy conditions with someone doing 40 when a safe speed is 30 its perfectly fine. Good and evil have no relevance to law, it’s about common sense which is subjective and whatever silly laws are set by politicians is irrelevant although cultural behaviour often stem from them
2 members liked this post.
Mafia
Make sure when guy dies,falls inside your home not outside of it. Shows he trespassing,,, hee…
1 member liked this post.
Just play Whole Lotta Rosie by AC/DC and rock your brains out. Then just come back with a rational mind. LOL
It’s a shame when some people just aren’t capable of understanding, or following, a decent and interesting debate.
Norfolk and Scep, really good posts and thought provoking topic altho I think it does deserve its own thread. Norfolk, most of your thoughts and idea’s echo my own in some ways… However, although I am non-religious I do respect others who are and their views. Keep it up guys, makes a nice change from nonsensical, self backslapping drivel.
LOL
-
This reply was modified 6 years, 7 months ago by
mooosey88.
4 members liked this post.
OMFG
we don’t care about what film you are talking about
its about how the rooms are laid out
hence the name of the thread
your manly banter is cool
But some of us really just want to comment on the actual thread.
anyway
Am I the only one here finding the knock on effect from no guests in room 3??
I am really thinking of leaving altogether.
I don’t want TDA and his groupies, please take him back :( he disgusts me.
I hate married men and women salivering over eachother in front of me.
call me a prude but I just don’t want none of it.
and I’m getting bullied and abused over my comments
makes me sick
I just don’t agree with people disrespecting their partners by arse licking people in a chat room.
I’m single and I don’t even do that.
I want my room back :(
someone please get me my room back xxxxx
they make me sick :(
-
This reply was modified 6 years, 7 months ago by
The topic ‘Chat Forum Three: Registered Members Only’ is closed to new replies.