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


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Choice: the current mask of nihilism > Comments

Choice: the current mask of nihilism : Comments

By Peter Sellick, published 7/7/2006

Choice in the guise of freedom is used to cover up a moral abyss.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. ...
  7. 10
  8. 11
  9. 12
  10. All
"So be warned. Whenever you come across someone who proclaims the glory of choice as an isolated good in itself, be aware that you are in the presence of a salesman and that you are about to have the wool pulled over your eyes."

Okay, so this is one way of looking at it. But you can just as easily replaced the word 'choice' with the word 'faith.'

When fundamental flaws are pointed out in theories of Christianity, or any other institutionalised religion for that matter, the answer is always, 'have faith'.

Sorry. That's just seems like too much of a copout. The salesman's pitch that cannot be debated.

I'd rather stick with my 'choice,' but then again, I suppose I just don't have enough 'faith' right?

If you want to discover a moral abyss, take a look at some of the atrocities committed throughout history in the name of institutionalised religion.

Whilst all preach peace in theory, not all practice it.
This is exactly the same for agnostics and atheists.
The moral abyss is not exclusive to those without religion, sadly it is part of humanity that has always been there.

Perhaps it is not just a decay of society, perhaps it has always been there, and now there are just more people with differing views, and thanks to a more encompassing media, now we just know about what's actually going on.
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Friday, 7 July 2006 9:27:27 AM
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 Sells, choice is an evil word to those incapable of understanding or responsibly enacting it. Choice is something the human race has recently obtained, we can see the reaction of monotheism by, “The only recourse open to a prophet sent to such a people is to wage war on the fortified self'. Your whole paragraph gives proof of what we are seeing in monotheistic governments around the world, as they desperately lie, cheat enslave and roll back the freedoms many fought centuries to obtain.

Choice gives options, not understandable by repressed theists, it also brings responsibility, something your belief frowns on. Why should people have to feel bad, its sensible and logical to want to go through life with the least problems. Just because some want everyone to be fearful and submissive because of their own lacking of reality, doesn't mean everyone should suffer as well. After all, life will certainly make you sit up and take notice, if you step across the invisible line called ethics. Ethics are something lacking in the followers of god and it's history.

Its mostly the followers of god who judge simply by price or the size of their income. Lifestyle overcame the boredom of religion and allowed people to experiment with their lives, gaining a better feeling of personal satisfaction and express their individualities beyond closeted fearful superstition.

Inventing firsts is a part of the evolutionary process of testing ourselves against ourselves and life. When it comes to the whole of society, it gives everyone to excel differently, its called free choice. Your against anything giving people personal satisfaction and control over their lives, demanding we return to the despotic repression of the past and submit to failure.

Choice is a developing evolution, it has its pitfalls and problems, they're being worked out as all new understandings do. We'll get it right once evolution overtakes god completely.
Posted by The alchemist, Friday, 7 July 2006 10:42:50 AM
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'm with Alchemist on this.

Too much choice is bad, in the same way as too much water will kill you. Choice itself is good, in the same way that water is essential to our survival.

Choice forces us to think, and our thinking defines us.

In his primitive state, man elected to define his religion in simplistic ways that coincided with critical aspects of his lifestyle – the sun, the weather, the presence or absence of woolly mammoths. We have gradually evolved to a level where these phenomena have become increasingly “understood” - we know that the sun is a ball of burning hydrogen, and the weather is caused by a myriad of natural phenomena – and as a result the quest for spiritual “truth” has moved over the centuries into more abstract and cerebral pastures.

But to posit the benefits of a particular religion from the evils of a plethora of choice is a long bow, even for our resident proponent of reductio ad absurdum, Mr Sells.

>>So what do we do in this new era of the absolutely free self? We marry and choose not to have children. We seek ever more thrilling experiences with the aid of drugs and travel agents and adultery. We invent new quests that prove that we are actually here.<<

Who is this “we”, kemo sabe? I know it will come as a surprise, but the vast majority of folk don't fit this mould. Yes, we choose to marry, and choose whether we bring children into the world. And yes, sometimes we make a mistake in our selection of a life partner, and make in-flight adjustments. But the rest of your homily is simply ascribing to the majority the acts of a tiny minority. Generalizing from the particular is unattractive in any argument, but this is blatant exaggeration for effect.

Choice is an essential part of our lives, and to suggest that it is “a sign of the moral depravity of a society” to approve of it is untenable.
Posted by Pericles, Friday, 7 July 2006 10:51:16 AM
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

The 'atrocities' committed in the name of Institutionalized religion, show us the evil which resides in man, not in the faith itself, when that faith is in Christ.

"As the Father has sent me, SO I SEND YOU" said Jesus (John)

i.e. In the same manner...... we are sent. If you can find 'atrocity' in the life or words of Jesus, then by all means ramp up the criticism. Otherwise, just criticize the actions of 'men'.

The judgement on the Canaanites was not an 'atrocity' it was judgement.
Have a read about Canaanite religion 'here'

Some aspects of the Crusades were 'atrocities'. Hitlers holocaust was an 'atrocity'.

Faith is not blind. Our faith is based on one major event. The resurrection of Christ. You may dispute this, just as 9/11 is disputed and claimed by some to have been a CIA thing. That is your choice :)

The ethical and behavioral aspects of the faith are unsurpassed and involve simple common sense.

Your criticism of 'INSTITUTIONALISED' religion and the 'just have faith' point are quite valid. Arn't we all blessed that Jesus did NOT build an 'instituion'. The real church is not a huge beurocracy, it is in the hearts of individuals. They 'are' the Church.

As I said in my other post on Emily's article about removing choice and limiting life:

Choice without boundaries is moral anarchy.

Specially in a post modern 'My truth is truth for me' society.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Friday, 7 July 2006 11:00:24 AM
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
It's always amusing when the Christlings throw "original sin" around to prove an argument. It's a very simple concept really which is time and again lost on them.

Peter says:
The serpent says to her: “You will not die; for God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

Guess What!

They did not die
Their eyes were opened
And they were like God

ergo God decieved. The serpent was correct. Adam and Eve knew that God had created them for his own ammusesment. God created humanity for servitude, not for love.

Peter goes on to say:
when Jesus is tempted by the devil in the gospel of Matthew (Chapter 4) he presents him with the desirable things, bread to ease his hunger, miraculous power and absolute political rule

Yet Jesus goes on to head a the christian church which has almost absolute rule for a thousand years over Europe, miraculous powers and the ability to create food/wine etc. Who is kidding who.

Both of these examples required a free choice between two black-and-white extremes. If the choice was removed because it was "morrally reprehensible" then there would be no choice, no freedom, no free-will. God indeed would then be the pre-determiner of all things and the lifes and souls of the christlings would have no value.
Posted by Narcissist, Friday, 7 July 2006 11:35:54 AM
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 Zeuss(or the god of your choice)! Peter has used a reference to the word "heresy" as originating from a pagan mob - the ancient Greeks: One of the article's few demonstrable facets of intellectual breadth. The poor Hindus, Taoists, Buddhists, etc. etc. don't get a look in.
And what rigour can be expected from it when, in spite of its statement "we know we are in the area of propaganda", shortly afterwards comes in with the statement "Never mind the fact that we are teetering on the brink of demographic extinction".
What a load of cobblers that statement is. It seems to me that the effects of overcrowding in Australia becomes more manifest year by year.
Just in case it is because I am getting old and grumpy, I consulted the Australian Bureau of Statistics. It said nothing about my mental situation, but did confirm that our population is rising at the rate of some million per four years. Roughly half of that is from immigration. The other half is due to a fertility rate of almost 1.8, combined with a strong cohort of females of breeding age: Even without an immigration component, Australia's population will continue to rise for about another generation.
Peter, you have been listening to too many porkies on that matter from our over-esteemed Treasurer. And it does not help your article to re-gurgitate them as "fact".
Posted by colinsett, Friday, 7 July 2006 2:14:04 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. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. ...
  7. 10
  8. 11
  9. 12
  10. All

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