Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...
Moderator: PoFo Agora Mods
@SolarCross Your knowledge of Buddhism is very limited, I see. There are many principles within Buddhism(and there are many different types) and most of them, coincidentally enough, line up with other religions. i.e. Don't steal. Do not be unfaithful to your spouse. Do not kill or harm living creatures. Do not lie., etc.
I am exposed to Theravada Buddhism on a daily basis, and it is not as you say it is(at least this version). Perhaps for the monks it is different(as it is with most people who are closer to fundamentalism) but for most people, it's not like that.
Local Localist wrote:I suppose this is related to my thread earlier in the year. I am not religious, but it seems to me that it is not possible to form a comprehensive or wholly coherent moral code without basing it off of that of a religion. Sure, you can act in a 'moral' way without adhering to a religion, but why are you behaving in that way, other than for aesthetic or practical reasons? I do not believe that you can actually be moral without some kind of religious framework to justify it.
Local Localist wrote:
I suppose this is related to my thread earlier in the year. I am not religious, but it seems to me that it is not possible to form a comprehensive or wholly coherent moral code without basing it off of that of a religion. Sure, you can act in a 'moral' way without adhering to a religion, but why are you behaving in that way, other than for aesthetic or practical reasons? I do not believe that you can actually be moral without some kind of religious framework to justify it.
Godstud wrote:@SolarCross Hmmm... OK. I'll buy that.
Still, as I mentioned, you don't need religion to have morality. All you need is a functional society.
Godstud wrote:@Julian658 My wife grew up with Buddhism and is a devout Buddhist. She has almost identical morality to mine. So please explain this.
I might remind you that Thailand was no colonized by any foreign power, so you can't explain this by mere "contact" with other religions.
Robert Urbanek wrote:Atheists are as moral or more moral than believers because of personality, not ethics. Atheists, at least in Western Europe and the U.S., have tended to be iconoclastic intellectuals who are less bent on aggressive behavior.
However, as the number of non-believers increases, the average atheist will be less intelligent as their ranks are joined by various libertines and hedonists whose rejection of religion is based on self-interest and not rigorous thinking. I have already encountered a couple of atheists on forums who were sloppy thinkers.
Robert Urbanek wrote: I have already encountered a couple of atheists on forums who were sloppy thinkers.It's very sloppy thinking to make a generalization like that based on belief, or lack thereof, in a deity. An ad hominem isn't an argument.
Julian658 wrote:Some of the new atheists are merely folks that are embittered and looking to bully fundamentalist believers. They often behave like a child with a new toy that is out of control. I prefer the old atheism.Atheism is Atheism. You two, @Robert Urbanek and @Julian658 are making broad generalizations based on ignorance and/or personal bias.
MacIntyre is not the only great exponent of virtue ethics who has argued recently that moral philosophy ought to be an historical and anthropological enterprise. Two others have been Charles Taylor and Bernard Williams. There is a passage where Williams reflects on the fact that he was the odd one out in this trio, because the other two were practising Roman Catholics. Williams commented,
‘ I used to find this a disquieting fact but no longer do. All three of us, I could say, accept the significant role of Christianity in understanding modern moral consciousness, and adopt the three possible views about how to move in relation to that: backward in it, forward in it, and out of it.
By ‘forward in it’, Williams refers to Taylor, and his view that much in what we nowadays think of as secular values are directly descended from Christianity, including the value we place on sincerity, the individual, and the sanctity of everyday life. And Taylor thinks that our modern moral imaginaries will be deepened and enriched if we more fully reflect on and acknowledge that Christian inheritance. By ‘out of it’, Williams refers to his own contrary (but not strictly contradictory) view that persistent Christian ideas are among the more disabling features of modern morality: the idea that morality should be opposed to self-interest, the idea of the moral will, and an overemphasis on intention in our thinking about responsibility. Williams saw much of merit in Nietzsche’s injunction to accept that God is dead, and undertake the almost unbearably hard work of rethinking our values in light of that fact.
Godstud wrote:I find that the people posting these threads are normally religious people trying imply that non-religious people lack morality. It is interesting that a non-religious person would bring this up. Is there a hidden agenda?
Blackjack, posting on the estranged parents forum:[…]
A really fucking retarded comparison but I guess w[…]
@blackjack21 , regarding my comments about the ([…]
At some point you have to admit this. Also this b[…]