I am between reliable Internet sources currently, and as such haven't been able to post ad often as I'd like. This month there will be no insane imagery, but if you have an idea for one, don't hesitate to email me. The address is prophetoflogic@hotmail.com. And now to my post.
There are many reasons one could come up with to suggest that religious people can be amoral, or at least highly immoral. But that isn't such a big problem. It's treatable, just like many mental disorders. A bigger problem is that, despite all evidence to the contrary, most people fail to accept their insanity. And it's transferrable, like paranoia within conspiracy theorist circles. The difference is that conspiracies aren't accepted and respected like religion. Every soul saved is a mind lost. Every person who accepts supernatural claims without, or in spite of, evidence is at least delusional, at worst schizophrenic. But it's even worse.
Some of those counted amongst the saved don't feel anything different to an atheist; don't attribute coincidence to some omnipotent being. In almost every way these people could be considered sane, except that they desire, usually very strongly, a supernatural feeling. They want to be delusional, though they wouldn't call it that, or even know it. It actually saddens me to see otherwise rational people say they long for the day they are touched by god.
when they get this 'touch' ignorance seems to infect their whole mind, moving from simply god to other areas like science and law. I've known people to over the course of a year (after being born again) change their opinion from being strongly against the death penalty, to being strongly for it, as well as other horrible acts, like corporal punishment. It imitates an infection, without a biological or chemical agent. The are no anti-ideology medications. The only thing we, the strongly atheist, can do is to explain their delusion, usually in nicer terms, and try to return them to sanity. It doesn't work often, but when it does, I suspect the sensation is similar to when a psychologist hears a schizophrenic patient say the voices aren't real.
Unfortuantely every soul lost is not a mind saved. Many times when someones soul is lost (not because of death) it is a conversion story. It is easier to believe that the voice in your head was someone different to who you thought, then it is to accept that it wasn't real to start with. No-one wants to be insane. Those who recover, though, seem to retaliate against religion harder than others who, like myself, were never converted to begin with.
Every soul saved is a mind lost. The impression of needing to be saved is hurtful to people, usually causing massive amounts of guilt, and manifesting in other unexpected ways *cough**catholic church**cough*. The idea that atheists need rescuing isn't completely untrue. Most times, however, they need to be rescued from their supposed Sabines. Beatings, life threats and constant harassment seem more characteristic of a stalker, or violent sociopath, than is does of a morally upstanding citizen, but therein lies the paradox. In order to save someone, you should isolated and punish them until they believe. That belief seems about as reliable as a confession given under torture. This has led good-hearted atheists to start groups dedicated to helping the unfortunate victims of the savior paradox. And I am thankful for them everyday.
You probably noticed I said "every soul saved is a mind lost" a number of times. This was no accident. This phrase associates being saved with being insane. It is my hope that it help to alleviate the savior paradox problem. I hope to see it floating around the web eventually, and perhaps even in real life. I know I'll be doing my part, by donating to he groups I vaguely pointed out and by trying to bring people back to the light of reason and sanity.
frites evidentia logica
Sunday, September 25, 2011
Thursday, July 28, 2011
Insane Imagery
Welcome to the late edition of Insane Imagery. This month I'm doing Star Wars, and focussing on the key elements of the films. These features include:
We all know what a lightsabre is, the fantastic sword apparently made of extreme light and heat, which in all other aspect behaves like a sword. But is it a plausible weapon? Short answer: No. Any weapon which is made of light is not going to be solid enough to deflect other weapons, or blaster bolts, or anything else for that matter. Ever try to block a punch with a laser light?That doesn't even get into the idea of keeping the light in a very constricted shape, without the use of mirrors.
Of course, that isn't to say something similar will never be available. The characteristics of a Lightsabre are almost identical to those exhibited by a Plasma Sword. What's Plasma? Why, Plasma is the forth state of matter! Solid, Liquid, Gas, Plasma. If somthing doesn't fit solid, liquid or gas, it's probably plasma. Some examples are, FIRE! LIGHTNING! AURORA BORIALIS! AURORA AUSTRALIANIS! NEBULAS! and many others. Chemically, plasma is a state of matter in which all molecules are dissociated and most are ionized. Make any sense to you? Chemists, correct me if I'm wrong, but is that basically the nuclei (centres) of the molecules are not really connected, but the electrons are almost free moving? Sounds about right.
In any case, if enough energy was produced to superheat plasma, it could be drawn out and held in place with a ridiculously powerful electro-magnetic field. The EMF would cause the sword to strike other such swords as though they were solid, but would pass straight through a non-magnetic sword... although the superheated plasma would probably do some damage. Another advantage would be drawing magnetic weapons to it, melting or contorting them to be useless. This isn't seen in the movies, but would be cool to see in real life.
Despite the seeming simplicity of the concept, creating a "lightsabre" would be next to impossible, as the energy requirements for even short term use are astronomical. In order to create one with today's technology, you would need a nuclear reactor, several super computers and something the size of a tank to house it all. and that's for a normal length blade. We won't be seeing any lightsabres around here any time soon. Blasters on the other hand...
Blasters
The other handheld weapon of the Star Wars trilogies is the blaster. In effect, a blaster is a handheld weapon of similar shap and size to our current firearms, the only difference being they shoot what looks like lasers. A more likely shot would be, you guessed it, Plasma.
Plasma guns do exist. They aren't military grade, and are VERY bulky, but they do exist. They are known as Dense Plasma Focuses or DPF, and shoot short lived high temperature, high density plasma in scientific experiments. If the design could be miniaturized, and the yield increased, so as to increase the life of the plasma shot, it might achieve a weapons grade. As it is, it is indescribably useful to science, and completely useless to the military.
The other big problem would be energy. It requires a large amount of energy to create the shots of plasma, and nothing we can currently create at a handheld level as anywhere near the levels of output required to run such a device. If a small portable fusion or even fission reactor could be designed, then we'd be much closer to the time of lightswords and ray guns. If we managed to create such a device, perhaps we'd have the energ needed for faster then light travel.
Space travel
First off, when designing the films, the distance between planets was not taken into account, or at least can't have been thought through. Most of the travel in the galaxy was by large starships going at light speed. Not only is this impossible, it is impractical. The faster an object moves, the more energy it needs to go faster; and the more energy it has, the larger it's mass. In order to go at the speed of light, an object would require an infinite amount of energy, and because of that it would have an infinite amount of mass. This is one of the things discovered by Einstein's Theory of Relativity.
The design of the starships witin the Star Wars universe are reminiscent of the rockets of old. They suggest that some fuel burning within a confined space would create a sufficient speed for galactic travel. This is not the case. Unless the fire at the back of the ships were plasma vents... A more realistic inter-planetary transport system would be an Alcubierre Drive, which is akin to the Warp Drive of Star Trek. A drive of this style creates a wave IN THE VERY FABRIC OF SPACE! Doing this would make the space around the ship move, not the ship itself, so it violates no Relativistic laws. Of course an Alcubierre Drive doesn't suggest the intricate maneuvers demonstrated in the films as possible. Though if it could be weakened and directed, there isn't any logical reason why it wouldn't work. At present, there are no known ways to create a spacial distortion event. Perhaps we'll find an alien species who knows a way...
Aliens
This is an interesting question, are there aliens, and if so, what do they look like? The best thing about the films is that the aliens really do look strange. If aliens are out there, it is almost impossible that they'd look similar to anything we have on earth. The conditions of life on other planets would be different to Earth, just because it isn't Earth. They even have creatures that aren't sentient, which is how you would expect it to be, if they worlds there are anything like Earth.
I won't say whether there are aliens out there or not, because I have no idea. Whose to say just how likely a life starting event is? Or a sentience event? It's possible that we'll never find alien life, just as it it possible we'll find some tomorrow. I will remain agnostic to this question, as the evidence just isn't there for either side.
I have hopefully explained to you the various logical inaccuracies and potential real world applications of the science of Star Wars. I'm likely forgetting a lot, so if you notice something I forget, please comment on here so I can address it. Otherwise, comment of likes and dislikes, follow me if you want, and stay tuned for mor INSANE IMAGERY!
- The Lightsabre
- Blasters
- Space Travel
- Cloning
- Aliens
We all know what a lightsabre is, the fantastic sword apparently made of extreme light and heat, which in all other aspect behaves like a sword. But is it a plausible weapon? Short answer: No. Any weapon which is made of light is not going to be solid enough to deflect other weapons, or blaster bolts, or anything else for that matter. Ever try to block a punch with a laser light?That doesn't even get into the idea of keeping the light in a very constricted shape, without the use of mirrors.
Of course, that isn't to say something similar will never be available. The characteristics of a Lightsabre are almost identical to those exhibited by a Plasma Sword. What's Plasma? Why, Plasma is the forth state of matter! Solid, Liquid, Gas, Plasma. If somthing doesn't fit solid, liquid or gas, it's probably plasma. Some examples are, FIRE! LIGHTNING! AURORA BORIALIS! AURORA AUSTRALIANIS! NEBULAS! and many others. Chemically, plasma is a state of matter in which all molecules are dissociated and most are ionized. Make any sense to you? Chemists, correct me if I'm wrong, but is that basically the nuclei (centres) of the molecules are not really connected, but the electrons are almost free moving? Sounds about right.
In any case, if enough energy was produced to superheat plasma, it could be drawn out and held in place with a ridiculously powerful electro-magnetic field. The EMF would cause the sword to strike other such swords as though they were solid, but would pass straight through a non-magnetic sword... although the superheated plasma would probably do some damage. Another advantage would be drawing magnetic weapons to it, melting or contorting them to be useless. This isn't seen in the movies, but would be cool to see in real life.
Despite the seeming simplicity of the concept, creating a "lightsabre" would be next to impossible, as the energy requirements for even short term use are astronomical. In order to create one with today's technology, you would need a nuclear reactor, several super computers and something the size of a tank to house it all. and that's for a normal length blade. We won't be seeing any lightsabres around here any time soon. Blasters on the other hand...
Blasters
The other handheld weapon of the Star Wars trilogies is the blaster. In effect, a blaster is a handheld weapon of similar shap and size to our current firearms, the only difference being they shoot what looks like lasers. A more likely shot would be, you guessed it, Plasma.
Plasma guns do exist. They aren't military grade, and are VERY bulky, but they do exist. They are known as Dense Plasma Focuses or DPF, and shoot short lived high temperature, high density plasma in scientific experiments. If the design could be miniaturized, and the yield increased, so as to increase the life of the plasma shot, it might achieve a weapons grade. As it is, it is indescribably useful to science, and completely useless to the military.
The other big problem would be energy. It requires a large amount of energy to create the shots of plasma, and nothing we can currently create at a handheld level as anywhere near the levels of output required to run such a device. If a small portable fusion or even fission reactor could be designed, then we'd be much closer to the time of lightswords and ray guns. If we managed to create such a device, perhaps we'd have the energ needed for faster then light travel.
Space travel
First off, when designing the films, the distance between planets was not taken into account, or at least can't have been thought through. Most of the travel in the galaxy was by large starships going at light speed. Not only is this impossible, it is impractical. The faster an object moves, the more energy it needs to go faster; and the more energy it has, the larger it's mass. In order to go at the speed of light, an object would require an infinite amount of energy, and because of that it would have an infinite amount of mass. This is one of the things discovered by Einstein's Theory of Relativity.
The design of the starships witin the Star Wars universe are reminiscent of the rockets of old. They suggest that some fuel burning within a confined space would create a sufficient speed for galactic travel. This is not the case. Unless the fire at the back of the ships were plasma vents... A more realistic inter-planetary transport system would be an Alcubierre Drive, which is akin to the Warp Drive of Star Trek. A drive of this style creates a wave IN THE VERY FABRIC OF SPACE! Doing this would make the space around the ship move, not the ship itself, so it violates no Relativistic laws. Of course an Alcubierre Drive doesn't suggest the intricate maneuvers demonstrated in the films as possible. Though if it could be weakened and directed, there isn't any logical reason why it wouldn't work. At present, there are no known ways to create a spacial distortion event. Perhaps we'll find an alien species who knows a way...
Aliens
This is an interesting question, are there aliens, and if so, what do they look like? The best thing about the films is that the aliens really do look strange. If aliens are out there, it is almost impossible that they'd look similar to anything we have on earth. The conditions of life on other planets would be different to Earth, just because it isn't Earth. They even have creatures that aren't sentient, which is how you would expect it to be, if they worlds there are anything like Earth.
I won't say whether there are aliens out there or not, because I have no idea. Whose to say just how likely a life starting event is? Or a sentience event? It's possible that we'll never find alien life, just as it it possible we'll find some tomorrow. I will remain agnostic to this question, as the evidence just isn't there for either side.
I have hopefully explained to you the various logical inaccuracies and potential real world applications of the science of Star Wars. I'm likely forgetting a lot, so if you notice something I forget, please comment on here so I can address it. Otherwise, comment of likes and dislikes, follow me if you want, and stay tuned for mor INSANE IMAGERY!
Saturday, July 23, 2011
Imagine all the people
Can you imagine my rage? I recently went on to youtube to listen to one of my favourite songs of all time, Imagine by John Lennon. What i find, amongst the numerous remixes, covers and film clips, but this garbage:
http://m.youtube.com/index?desktop_uri=%2F&gl=AU#/watch?v=oS8T3fy9yQo
This is clearly a mobile weblink, so if you can't follow it, it's called Imagine(christian version). This really burns my biscuits. I'm sure this guy felt his response was grea, but unfortunately he missed the point of the original song. He seems to think the strongest message is anti-religion. That message is there, but it's an accompanying message. The main point of the song is "give peace a chance", to quote another John Lennon song. It seems to me that any message of peace that doesn't mention religion is HORRIBLY flawed. In order for peace to be achieved in the world, there must be understanding and acceptance between religion. That or accepting the fact that if there is some deity out there, it has lost all the fucks it had to give.
This post is not a rambling about the evils of religion, nor am I going to destroy this guy (he made no argument either than his belief in god). This post is my attempt to enlighten people to the things people will do for their belief. Creating a parody is one thing, this is another. To me it seems as though this man thought his religion was being singled out, so he wrote a pro-"my religion" version of the song. It's one of the better reactions possible, but pointless, stupid and counter-productive. Ignorance breeds ignorance, and if a song like this became popular, there's a good chance that the hell theists believe in would break loose upon the Earth.
Crites evidentia logica.
http://m.youtube.com/index?desktop_uri=%2F&gl=AU#/watch?v=oS8T3fy9yQo
This is clearly a mobile weblink, so if you can't follow it, it's called Imagine(christian version). This really burns my biscuits. I'm sure this guy felt his response was grea, but unfortunately he missed the point of the original song. He seems to think the strongest message is anti-religion. That message is there, but it's an accompanying message. The main point of the song is "give peace a chance", to quote another John Lennon song. It seems to me that any message of peace that doesn't mention religion is HORRIBLY flawed. In order for peace to be achieved in the world, there must be understanding and acceptance between religion. That or accepting the fact that if there is some deity out there, it has lost all the fucks it had to give.
This post is not a rambling about the evils of religion, nor am I going to destroy this guy (he made no argument either than his belief in god). This post is my attempt to enlighten people to the things people will do for their belief. Creating a parody is one thing, this is another. To me it seems as though this man thought his religion was being singled out, so he wrote a pro-"my religion" version of the song. It's one of the better reactions possible, but pointless, stupid and counter-productive. Ignorance breeds ignorance, and if a song like this became popular, there's a good chance that the hell theists believe in would break loose upon the Earth.
Crites evidentia logica.
Thursday, July 7, 2011
Apathy
Before I begin the rant you've all been waiting for, I must first apologise for my absence the last month. I have had the flu, and have been without access to the Internet. I missed last months "Insane Imagery" and will hopefully post that this weekend. However, I'm back now and completely ready to rant.
"Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little death that brings total obliteration." Dune 1965, Frank Herbert. This quote is memorable for it's vivid imagery and simplicity. Everyone has been scared before and everyone can understand the thoughts and feelings that occur when one is scared. This seems to make this quote more substantial, more real. And I assert a similar idea: Apathy is the soul-killer. Apathy is the slow but steady death of passion and thought that bring utter annihilation. I use the word soul as a synonym for inspiration, and not as an ethereal entity that acts as your mind.
Apathy has been a major concern of mine, first as my classmates succumbed to its allure, then as I battled it during my years of social anxiety. And now as the world hides from itself behind the shadowy cloak of apathy, I find myself rejuvenated, my normal wish to stay inside and do nothing destroyed, and a new desire to get out and work washing over me, soaking to my core. There isn't much that I can do, especially in gfc world, but without doing something I will go insane. Aside from looking for work, I am going to do my part to save the world. I will write on this blog, make my YouTube videos (currently in editing by the way), and I will be taking every opportunity I can find to discuss this problem and remove it. This will involve public speaking, so I'll be letting everyone know when I do it and how it went. As a personal note, my apathetic nature during puberty led me to become frail and unfit, lacking in self-confidence and stooped over to boot. I am rectifying the situation, working out more, eating healthier and visiting the doctor in regards to a overall health plan. This is all about me, I got off track.
Apathy is a major symptom of clinical depression, as there is virtually no difference between not feeling and hiding from your feelings. Depressed people don't want to show their feelings for various reasons, including being scared of what they'd see, or thinking no-one would like them. They need care and understanding, but because it's a difficult problem, they mostly get confusion or outright rejection. The first step a person can take to help inspire the world is to notice broad spectrum apathy for what it is, and try to help those they see with it.
Harder than noticing apathy in others is noticing it within yourself. If those around you seem worried, or you're bored 90% of the time, you might be depressed and hiding behind apathy. If you think you might be depressed, talk to someone, either someone you trust or a mental healthcare professional. Preferably the latter, as they have been trained to help and know what they are doing. A single apathetic person can deflate a whole room, and as such should do all they can to help themselves, if not for themselves, then for the inspired people they might meet.
Finally, apathy within a group is an easy fix. Anyone can do it, as passion can be contagious. A word of encouragement here, a pat on the back there is all it takes to bring someone out of a slump. If you're really up for it a well timed speech can cause even the least caring individual to become fervent. Even without a set stage a speech can work wonders. If whilst walking down the street you see the chance to inspire, take it. Talk proudly, passionately and with conviction, and people will listen. Let it come from within and people will be impressed by your passion, or have it prepared and let your words come out clear. There are other ways to eliminate the soul-killer, but this is a start, I call it the "Inspire the World Campaign". Please comment with your contributions and support, or point to the multiple flaws in my ad hoc plan. I can benefit from both.
crites evidentia logica.
"Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little death that brings total obliteration." Dune 1965, Frank Herbert. This quote is memorable for it's vivid imagery and simplicity. Everyone has been scared before and everyone can understand the thoughts and feelings that occur when one is scared. This seems to make this quote more substantial, more real. And I assert a similar idea: Apathy is the soul-killer. Apathy is the slow but steady death of passion and thought that bring utter annihilation. I use the word soul as a synonym for inspiration, and not as an ethereal entity that acts as your mind.
Apathy has been a major concern of mine, first as my classmates succumbed to its allure, then as I battled it during my years of social anxiety. And now as the world hides from itself behind the shadowy cloak of apathy, I find myself rejuvenated, my normal wish to stay inside and do nothing destroyed, and a new desire to get out and work washing over me, soaking to my core. There isn't much that I can do, especially in gfc world, but without doing something I will go insane. Aside from looking for work, I am going to do my part to save the world. I will write on this blog, make my YouTube videos (currently in editing by the way), and I will be taking every opportunity I can find to discuss this problem and remove it. This will involve public speaking, so I'll be letting everyone know when I do it and how it went. As a personal note, my apathetic nature during puberty led me to become frail and unfit, lacking in self-confidence and stooped over to boot. I am rectifying the situation, working out more, eating healthier and visiting the doctor in regards to a overall health plan. This is all about me, I got off track.
Apathy is a major symptom of clinical depression, as there is virtually no difference between not feeling and hiding from your feelings. Depressed people don't want to show their feelings for various reasons, including being scared of what they'd see, or thinking no-one would like them. They need care and understanding, but because it's a difficult problem, they mostly get confusion or outright rejection. The first step a person can take to help inspire the world is to notice broad spectrum apathy for what it is, and try to help those they see with it.
Harder than noticing apathy in others is noticing it within yourself. If those around you seem worried, or you're bored 90% of the time, you might be depressed and hiding behind apathy. If you think you might be depressed, talk to someone, either someone you trust or a mental healthcare professional. Preferably the latter, as they have been trained to help and know what they are doing. A single apathetic person can deflate a whole room, and as such should do all they can to help themselves, if not for themselves, then for the inspired people they might meet.
Finally, apathy within a group is an easy fix. Anyone can do it, as passion can be contagious. A word of encouragement here, a pat on the back there is all it takes to bring someone out of a slump. If you're really up for it a well timed speech can cause even the least caring individual to become fervent. Even without a set stage a speech can work wonders. If whilst walking down the street you see the chance to inspire, take it. Talk proudly, passionately and with conviction, and people will listen. Let it come from within and people will be impressed by your passion, or have it prepared and let your words come out clear. There are other ways to eliminate the soul-killer, but this is a start, I call it the "Inspire the World Campaign". Please comment with your contributions and support, or point to the multiple flaws in my ad hoc plan. I can benefit from both.
crites evidentia logica.
Sunday, May 29, 2011
Relatively Good Morals
A large contention between atheists and theists is that of morals. "If there is no God, why be good?" This is something I hear fairly commonly in my life, whenever I start talking about evolution in a place where ignorance is high. There are many books, blogs, articles, videos, podcast's, and radio shows that answer this question. I will be included, with my own intriguing spin.
What is the benefit of being good? There are 4 evolutionary reasons for altruistic behaviour (helping others even to the point of hindering yourself).
Firstly, there's Relatives. A person you are related to has a higher chance of sharing similar genes to you, and so it would be beneficial to those genes that you help our family.
Second is Reciprocation. If you reward good, you'll be rewarded for your good acts. Reciprocation is a 2 way street, if you don't do good acts, you wont be rewarded, and if you do bad acts, you will be punished.
Third, Reputation. By doing altruistic things, you are known for those acts, and are more likely to be rewarded, if only because you are likely to reciprocate it.
Lastly, there's Ego. Large, obvious acts of altruism can be used as a way of saying "Hey, look at me, I can afford to give you my food, cause I'm that good. I can head the charge, cause I'm brave." This technically isn't altruism, as the reason isn't selfless, but the word fits better than most.
These can easily explain why we have a conscience. This doesn't explain how we determine our morals. A lot of it is easy, and obvious. An application of the Golden rule (which is attributed to religion, but can be traced back otherwise) is all we need for most of our morals. We don't kill because we wouldn't like someone to kill us. Immanuel Kant was right on the money when he said: "act only on that maxim whereby thou canst at the same time will that it should become a universal law." Understand? I didn't get it at first either, but what it means is that you should act in a way that you would want everyone to act at the same time. Be nice to others, because you want everyone to be nice to others. Don't be violent, because you don't want everyone to be violent.
Morals are, and always have been, relative. Relative to the circumstances, to the people, to society as a whole. I feel that everyone should be morally correct killing, provided the circumstances left only that option. I also feel that there would be certain circumstances in which being mean would be right. Just cause I can think of them doesn't mean they don't exist.
"Without god, why be good?" seems to me to be the same as asking "Why not rob them, they're blind". I also never thought god wanted you to be a brown-noser. I suppose there's no "thou shalt not kiss ass" commandment, and he does want you to please him above everything else. I guess it is better to be good to make a petty, vengeful guy happy, than to be nice without worrying about him. He'd make you pay for not trying to please him, or so it seems.
I am going to look into the research on the correlation between religiosity and morals/crime/violence/life span/living conditions/education. I have a strong feeling that the less religious a person/city/country is the higher the morals/life span/living conditions/education and the lower crime/violence is. It will be up next week. Until then,
crites evidentia logica.
What is the benefit of being good? There are 4 evolutionary reasons for altruistic behaviour (helping others even to the point of hindering yourself).
Firstly, there's Relatives. A person you are related to has a higher chance of sharing similar genes to you, and so it would be beneficial to those genes that you help our family.
Second is Reciprocation. If you reward good, you'll be rewarded for your good acts. Reciprocation is a 2 way street, if you don't do good acts, you wont be rewarded, and if you do bad acts, you will be punished.
Third, Reputation. By doing altruistic things, you are known for those acts, and are more likely to be rewarded, if only because you are likely to reciprocate it.
Lastly, there's Ego. Large, obvious acts of altruism can be used as a way of saying "Hey, look at me, I can afford to give you my food, cause I'm that good. I can head the charge, cause I'm brave." This technically isn't altruism, as the reason isn't selfless, but the word fits better than most.
These can easily explain why we have a conscience. This doesn't explain how we determine our morals. A lot of it is easy, and obvious. An application of the Golden rule (which is attributed to religion, but can be traced back otherwise) is all we need for most of our morals. We don't kill because we wouldn't like someone to kill us. Immanuel Kant was right on the money when he said: "act only on that maxim whereby thou canst at the same time will that it should become a universal law." Understand? I didn't get it at first either, but what it means is that you should act in a way that you would want everyone to act at the same time. Be nice to others, because you want everyone to be nice to others. Don't be violent, because you don't want everyone to be violent.
Morals are, and always have been, relative. Relative to the circumstances, to the people, to society as a whole. I feel that everyone should be morally correct killing, provided the circumstances left only that option. I also feel that there would be certain circumstances in which being mean would be right. Just cause I can think of them doesn't mean they don't exist.
"Without god, why be good?" seems to me to be the same as asking "Why not rob them, they're blind". I also never thought god wanted you to be a brown-noser. I suppose there's no "thou shalt not kiss ass" commandment, and he does want you to please him above everything else. I guess it is better to be good to make a petty, vengeful guy happy, than to be nice without worrying about him. He'd make you pay for not trying to please him, or so it seems.
I am going to look into the research on the correlation between religiosity and morals/crime/violence/life span/living conditions/education. I have a strong feeling that the less religious a person/city/country is the higher the morals/life span/living conditions/education and the lower crime/violence is. It will be up next week. Until then,
crites evidentia logica.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)