The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Some (awkward?) questions that should be asked, but rarely are > Comments

Some (awkward?) questions that should be asked, but rarely are : Comments

By Graham Preston, published 6/8/2014

Why are we here? Is it just to devour each other?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. ...
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. 9
  11. All
We are here because we were fortunate enough to be able to evolve against many odds, and then survive, on this planet.
We will go out because we have mutated into a virus breeding ourselves out of house and home.
Posted by ateday, Wednesday, 6 August 2014 12:39:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Good article.

And well said, Yuyutsu. Whenever we do examine the beliefs and reasons of the statists we find that they cannot withstand critical scrutiny and just degenerate into a jumble of factual, logical and ethical falsehoods. By the same token we don't really care what metaphysics the statists believe.

It is enough to show whether their beliefs are circular and self-contradictory which they invariably are. Their only differences are on what double standard they think everyone else should be ordered around.

I think we have a foundational moral duty to seek truth, identify falsehood, and try to base our beliefs on the facts. For how can ethical beliefs be true if they’re based on factually untrue premises? Historically, the great crimes of the religious always come from their permitting themselves false beliefs, or beliefs that were so unlikely to be true that they really have no excuse for causing others to suffer on that pretext.

An example is the Genesis account of creation, which invalidates Jewish, Christian and Muslism beliefs IMO. It was one thing for ancient goatherds to believe this stuff; for modern man to base moral conclusions on it is willful culpable ignorance; made 1000 times worse by being backed by force.

Speculations on entire collective abstract categories are fertile ground for error: the difference between astrology and astronomy. It is ironical that Newton and the natural scientists, who set out only to explain strictly limited observable phenomena, excluding recourse to supernatural beings and excluding irrational methodology - ended up explaining far more and far better than all the saints and metaphysical speculators who take as their subject matter the whole creation, thus hopelessly confusing the origin of the universe, the origin of the planets, the origin of life, the origin of species, the origin of languages, and the origin of ethics.
Posted by Jardine K. Jardine, Wednesday, 6 August 2014 1:09:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Good article.

And well said, Yuyutsu. Whenever we do examine the beliefs and reasons of the statists we find that they cannot withstand critical scrutiny and just degenerate into a jumble of factual, logical and ethical falsehoods. By the same token we don't really care what metaphysics the statists believe.

It is enough to show whether their beliefs are circular and self-contradictory which they invariably are. Their only differences are on what double standard they think everyone else should be ordered around.

I think we have a foundational moral duty to seek truth, identify falsehood, and try to base our beliefs on the facts. For how can ethical beliefs be true if they’re based on factually untrue premises? Historically, the great crimes of the religious always come from their permitting themselves false beliefs, or beliefs that were so unlikely to be true that they really have no excuse for causing others to suffer on that pretext. An example is the Genesis account of creation, which invalidates Jewish, Christian and Muslism beliefs IMO. It was one thing for ancient goatherds to believe this stuff; for modern man it’s willful culpable ignorance.

Speculations on entire collective abstract categories are fertile ground for error: the difference between astrology and astronomy. It is ironical that Newton and the natural scientists, who set out only to explain strictly limited observable phenomena subject to strict exclusions - e.g. excluding recourse to supernatural beings and excluding illogical methodology - ended up explaining far more and far better than all the metaphysicians and theologians taking as their subject matter the whole creation, thus hopelessly confusing the origin of the universe, the origin of the life, the origin of sex, the origin of species, the origin of languages - and of course the origin of ethics!
Posted by Jardine K. Jardine, Wednesday, 6 August 2014 1:18:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
(Oops! Sorry 'bout that. Anyway.)

The more cogent explanations of the evolutionary theorists and praxeologists, start with the foundational tenet that life is decided *at the margin*. It cannot be properly understood without taking as its centrepiece individual action at the margins of because this is where all action is decided: subsistence, sexuality, reproduction, utility, you name it. Trying to understand it as an abstract aggregate category is vain.

Without your own life you are incapable of even perceiving anything. The question is: what does life mean *to you*?

Atheism no more requires the abnegation of ethics than theism justifies ethics.

“ Would [atheists] agree that, if atheism is correct, anyone else's goals, no matter how diametrically opposed to their own they are, are just as "valid" or "invalid" as their own?”

No, because the scarcity of resources, and the nature of human social co-operation, make possible, and require, a rational ethics. This rules out the use of aggression or fraud to get what you want: the chronic crime of statists and religious alike.

If ruling out aggression and fraud on first principles is not logically ‘valid’, that problem is no more solved by theism than by atheism, since if by recourse to fables the theist can conjure arbitrary assumptions in favour of ethical behavior, the theists can do the same without recourse to fabulous supposed invisible beings. It is enough to cut out the middle-man and go direct to asserting ethical standards.

The theists indeed are less likely to miscarry ethics in valuing human beings and the benefits of social co-operation in their own right, rather than by way of gods which, as it turns out, have often been pretty nasty pieces of work: angry, capricious and very violent.

Now. Having found the true meaning of life, I regret I am unable to inform you what it is, because it’s a secret. However if you seek truth, and shovel aside bullsh!t for long enough, you may hope to find it eventually, and when you do, you’ll be very happy.
Posted by Jardine K. Jardine, Wednesday, 6 August 2014 1:23:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes G Preston

Out the heretics! Lets be like America where politicians, and even generals, lean to fundamentalist neo-con Christian-Jewish causes by being forced to wear religion on their sleeves.

As to G Preston's About the Author description: "Graham Preston is an illustrator and a student of life."

If he is actually the Queensland anti-abortion activist then the following newspaper story is relevant:

"BRISBANE MAN CHARGED OVER ANTI-ABORTION PROTEST IN HOBART"
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-03-04/brisbane-man-charged-over-anti-abortion-protest-in-hobart/5297756 :

4 Mar 2014,

"A Brisbane man has become the first person charged under a new Tasmanian law which bans protests close to abortion clinics.

The lone protestor, Graham Preston, was arrested after holding two placards and handing out leaflets while standing outside an abortion clinic in central Hobart.

The 58-year-old says he has been arrested for similar action in Brisbane and came to Hobart to promote the right-to-life message.

Preston said he was aware of the new Tasmanian law which prohibits such protests within 150 metres of an abortion clinic.

"It would seem to me to be incredible if somebody could get arrested for promoting the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Australia is a signatory to it," he said.

Police charged Preston under the Reproductive Health Act. He was released on bail and will appear in court at a later date."
Posted by plantagenet, Wednesday, 6 August 2014 1:33:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I can see the merit of quizzing those in power about their fundamental beliefs where they clearly affect their roles – for example, if a Roman Catholic health minister intends to restrict abortion. But by and large I don’t think it’s very important, for a couple of reasons.

First, most positions of power are constrained and contingent. It matters very little if the head of the Department of Transport believes in karma and reincarnation or not, as it is not relevant to her/his role.

Second, religious belief/unbelief is a poor predictor of how a person exercises power. There are believers and non-believers across the political spectrum. Scott Morrison and Philip Ruddock are both self-described Christians but have presided over what many would see as very unchristian policies on asylum seekers. It might be legitimate to ask them how they square their actions with their beliefs, but knowing in advance that they were Christians would give very little insights into how they behaved.
Posted by Rhian, Wednesday, 6 August 2014 2:35:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. ...
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. 9
  11. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy