Free Counselling for Theists!

[HIGHERBEAM]

Every language has a word expressing good in the sense of "having the right or desirable quality" (ἀρετή) and bad in the sense "undesirable". A sense of moral judgement and a distinction "right and wrong, good and bad" are cultural universals.[1] The notion of "good and evil" in an absolute moral or religious sense, however, is not ancient, but emerges out of notions of ritual purity and impurity. The basic meanings of κακός and ἀγαθός are "bad, cowardly" and "good, brave, capable", and their absolute sense emerges only around 400 BC, with Pre-Socratic philosophy, in particular Democritus.[2] Morality in this absolute sense solidifies in the dialogues of Plato, together with the emergence of monotheistic thought (notably in Euthyphro which ponders the concept of piety (τὸ ὅσιον) as a moral absolute). The idea is further developed in Late Antiquity by Neoplatonists, Gnostics, and Church Fathers.

This development from the relative or habitual to the absolute is also evident in the terms ethics and morality both being derived from terms for "regional custom", Greek ήθος and Latin mores, respectively

[boxy]

It's not the individual believer that is important, it's the survivability of the meme. If it persists, it's successful, or even if only parts of it survive to be incorporated into new memes.

Memes like "do unto others as you would have done to unto you" compete and interact within their environment, the human collective consciousness.

Sometimes it seems to compete with our animalistic nature, painting it as evil... but in reality, memes must embrace our essence, which is their lifeblood.

[J.W. Frogen]

That still would not explain why entire groups stick to memes or morality that actually endangers their existence such as the examples I sited.

Why often people will choose en-mass morality that seems to be suicidal, such as early Christianity, which had very little hope and no knowlege would become a state religion thus insuring it's survival.

I think it is the other way around, memes do not determine morality, successful morality determines memes.

[J.W. Frogen]

Tomato..... or tomAto?

[pierre]

Have you noticed that virtually all the qualities we admire as representative of "higher civilization" (compassion, preservation of the unfit, selflessness, charity,etc) are all contrary to the supposed mechanism of evolutionary theory.
Stranger and stranger said Alice. PS Dawkins is an evil bastard.
Beamer,
The Ten Commandments date from about 1440 BC but the concepts of good and evil existed from the beginning of the Bible story, (Cain and Able, Sodom and Gomorrah, Noah etc.)
Yours absolutely,
Pierre.
PPS I agree with your last post Froglet, now I'm getting worried.

[TomB]

I am so going to get into this argument when I stop worshiping my message in a bottle.

[boxy]

Have you noticed that virtually all the qualities we admire as representative of "higher civilization" (compassion, preservation of the unfit, selflessness, charity,etc) are all contrary to the supposed mechanism of evolutionary theory.

Not so. We are social animals. Your community benefits from compassion and selflessness. And you and your family (and hence genes) benefit from a strong society.

That still would not explain why entire groups stick to memes or morality that actually endangers their existence such as the examples I sited.

Why often people will choose en-mass morality that seems to be suicidal, such as early Christianity, which had very little hope and no knowlege would become a state religion thus insuring it's survival.

I think it is the other way around, memes do not determine morality, successful morality determines memes.

Stubbornness is often a successful trait, as is commitment, allegiance and courage.

[Ned Kelly]

Where is Rally Waffles when you need him!!!!!

[Swami Dring]

Ever put any thought into the motivations for satanists (and the like)? It's one thing to believe in a deity who tells you to be good (even considering the pavement on the path to hell), but to worship evil?

Prior to reading your question, no, I hadn't. Probably just naughty boy syndrome. If they were genuine badasses they would be popping a Marty B on someone's ass.

[Swami Dring]

Dring, a gentle word of advice, calling theists idiots and then admonishing them on their incivility is sort of an own goal while playing against a team quadriplegics.

Not quite. If I visited my local MP's office and called him an idiot, I would be shown the door. If, instead, I threatened him with violence and torture, I would be facing criminal charges.

The fact that the godboy's henchman can't deliver on the threat due to not existing does not make the threat any less uncivilised. Plenty of dumbasses DO feel threatened by the prospect of going to hell and it's simply not a nice thing to say.

I think it is important to confront theists directly with the sheer, monumental idiocy of their beliefs. Too many atheists tiptoe around the contrived delicate sensibilities of theists. Rub their noses in it, I say.