You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘Morality’ tag.
Anti-Citizen X lays waste to the idea that morality is divinely inspired. Shorter video – God is unnecessary for moral behaviour.
How can you be moral with god? The real question should be, how can you be moral with god.
We’ll see if we can make it short and quick for today’s Disservice. God has a lot of people who claim to speak for him and his will (see the mentally ill). It’s like certain people happen to have a holy transceiver installed and others, like myself most decidedly do not. I mean when I talk like my imaginary friend is watching over me - my friends make that “keep the freaky-delusional guy happy smile” while someone covertly calls for the nice men in white coats to come get me.
But if you’re wired for God it’s fine:
“Simply put, we did not come up with the idea of God. He came up with the idea of us.
God created you, and me, and all that the eye can see. According to this verse in Jeremiah, He knew us before we ever knew Him. He knew who we were, before our mother’s knew who we were. And depending on your interpretation of this verse and many others in the Bible, it might just be the case that God knows how our lives will pan out long before we know it. He may know the decisions we make before we make them. He may know that we’re going to be “a prophet to the nations.” He may know what our next job will be. Shoot, He may even know what our calling in life is.
Think about it…so many of us are trying to figure out our lives–where to go next, what to do next, who will be in our lives and the like. Maybe, God knows these things all along. And maybe, He wants to tell us that we’re set apart, [...]“
Like really, really? – This is some grade A, finely ground, delusional crap being finger-painted on the walls over there and it is *okay*? This isn’t reasoned argument, deep introspection or anything resembling rational thought. This is verbal wanking for jesus why it scares the piss out of me is because is soooooo chillingly prevalent in the blogosphere. Admittedly, it (the jebus-babble) serves as a excellent tell highlighting where the reality challenged are and delineating the rationality free zones, a meagre comfort in he towering shadow of blissfully ignorant religious stupidity.
I’m getting to the topic at hand soon, gentle readers, I just need to point out the crazy as I see it to in order to frame what the title of this post hints at namely, the neat concept of Eternal Sin (ba ba buuuuuuum!).
Jesus saves! Hold and accept jebus in your heart and you will enter heaven… blah blah blah…. Oh wait… you there the atheist looking type, you get to burn in hell *forever* why?? Here’s why :
- Mark 3:28-30: “Truly I tell you, people will be forgiven all their sins and all the blasphemies they utter. But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven, but is guilty of an eternal sin. He said this because they [the Pharisees] were saying, ‘He has an evil spirit’.”
- Matthew 12:30-32: “Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters. And so I tell you, people will be forgiven every sin and blasphemy. But the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.”
- Luke 12:8-10: “I tell you, whoever acknowledges me before men, the Son of Man will also acknowledge him before the angels of God. But he who disowns me before men will be disowned before the angels of God. And everyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven.
Oh shit, there I go, now I’ve done it. You see kind readers, I’ve been a bad atheist. No, I mean it, a really bad atheist. My irredeemable crime? – here it comes… *holds breath….tension so thick you can cut it with a bad cliche.*
I have said (and shall reiterate here) and meant the following statement:
“The holy ghost is fictional character at best and is a big poopy-head”
Whoa there, that wins me eternal damnation. Don’t you feel the kindness and the loving of the christian god? I know I do. What kind of horrible fucking being demands blind devotion or else its a permanent lake of fire vacation for you? Him and his brand of “Justice”" can go frack themselves sideways, thank you very much.
Eternal damnation is immoral in any case, especially when you hand get out hell free cards for everything else. Mass murderer? Repent and accept jebus, go to heaven. Serial rapist and child molester? Repent and accept jebus, go to heaven. Torture cats for fun? Repent and accept jebus, go to heaven.
Frack heaven and frack the despicable “morality” that supposedly gets you there. It’s topsy-turvy bullshit at its very best; I get to burn forever for calling a ghost “poopy” and Ted Bundy after finishing gnoshing on somone’s liver, once saved, is in heaven with his 72 and half virgins (or raisins, depending on translation).
This notion of eternal damnation, lets lump it into the correct category and call it religious morality, is fractally stupid. To the rational mind religious morality is bug-fuck nutz. It is also a maddening splinter punched into my cerebral-cortex as I witness the deluded start dropping these religious bags of spoor into a conversation not realizing the implications of their delusional shit-festooned beliefs.
And thus endeth the sermon. Have a good week folks.
As if you need another reason to hate the rotten edifice of christian religion…
For a group that so often harps on (and on and on) about having access to an – pardon me, “the” – objective moral standard, christians have some pretty outrageous double standards when it comes to ethical behaviour. What the christian god does, and is called all good/loving for, would be considered monstrous if done by anyone else.
Some believers may claim that god is a special case, that because of his infinite nature, the same rules don’t apply. Those rules are only for us mere mortals. It’s as if those who use this claim don’t really understand what ‘objective’ means.
If the morality of an action applies differently depending on context – whether Entity A does it or Entity B does it (god vs human), whether it was done in Time X or in Time Y (old testament era vs new testament era), etc. – then it is NOT an objective moral rule. It is a relative rule.
Anytime theists say something like “that was OLD testament, things are different now because of Jebus,” they are admitting that their “god given ethics” are really the worst kind of moral relativism with a little Hocus-Pocus sprinkled on top.
Alternatively, some christians say instead that nothing their god does could possibly be considered monstrous, and
the best thing any person could do is emulate the fantastic yummy goodness that is their deity, as much as is possible by us finite beings. My immediate reaction is to rant about the million and one things attributed to the christian god that are about as far from ‘good’ as one can get (examples 1 2 3). This will usually result in the believer switching to the first position addressed in this post (claiming relativism), or dodging the issue by pointing out some happy part of their text (which is dealt with here).
Despite these theistic tactics being flawed, they still distract from the actual topic at hand, allowing the believer to forget their arguments have been obliterated. Then the dance starts all over again.
So instead, today I would like to highlight a more fundamental part of christian dogma, one not so easily shrugged off. Here is yet another fantastic video from DarkMatter2525 showing what it would be like if firefighters “saved” people the same way Jebus does.
Inconsistent standards disqualify christianity from any claim to objectivity, while
burning/torturing/killing “not saving” non believers disqualifies it from any claim to morality. This “god” is nothing but an evil and fickle tyrant.
Ethics are what make people stand against tyranny. Saying “no” to the crowd is one of the most difficult challenges we face as social animals. Bradley Manning had the courage to make an ethical stand, we all possess similar characteristics, we just choose to dismiss these ethical impulses. When we do so, our the moral fabric of our society degrades.
“Washington, DC - Private Bradley Manning was just 22 years old when he allegedly leaked hundreds of thousands of US State Department cables and video evidence of war crimes to the whistle-blowing website WikiLeaks. For that act of courage that revealed to the world the true face of the American empire, he faces the prospect of spending the rest of his life in prison.”
Making an ethical stand always has consequences; I’m surprised Mr.Manning has not been executed yet for his actions. The international media, not heard in the US of course, is picking up the story and telling a significantly different narrative than what the White House would like you to believe.
“All one needs to know about American justice is that if he had murdered civilians and desecrated their corpses - if he had the moral capacity to commit war crimes, not the audacity to expose them - he’d be better off today.”
Not exactly good for the recruiting posters.
“Indeed, if Manning had merely murdered the nameless, faceless “other”, as his Army colleagues on the notorious Afghan “Kill Team” did, he would not have had his right to a speedy trial blatantly violated. If Manning had intentionally killed unarmed civilians, posed for pictures with their dead bodies and slashed their fingers off as souvenirs, he would not have had his guilt publicly pronounced by his own commander-in-chief, President Barack Obama, months before he so much as saw the inside of a military court. If he had killed poor foreigners instead of exposing their deaths, he might even stand a chance of getting out of prison while still a young man.”
War brings a different set of rules to the table, but we in the West would like to think that we possess some noble spirit that sets us apart from the rest. Yo-ho, it is they who are savages, the brutes who kill indiscriminately. What bullocks.
“This isn’t really a head-scratching development. While killing unarmed civilians for sport may not be officially sanctioned policy, it doesn’t threaten the functioning of the war machine as much as a soldier standing up and refusing to be complicit in mass murder. From the perspective of a Washington establishment much more concerned with maintaining hegemony than its humanity, the former – murder – is much less troubling a precedent than the latter.
And so the US government is making an example of Manning, lest any other cogs in the machine start thinking about listening to their consciences instead of their commanders.”
The mirroring of foreign policy onto this case bears further investigation. The bullshite you here about the domino theory and the various red-scares starts with the implicit assumption that the “threat of a good-example” must be quashed at all costs. The illegal terrorist war waged by the United States on Nicaragua is a prime example of a country using resources for its people instead of the multinationals. Raises the poor a few steps out of abject poverty is the “good example” that must be utterly destroyed so “stability” can be restored. Stability being shorthand for globalized corporate control. Focusing on the individual case of Mr.Manning we can observe the same pattern.
Manning’s actions speak of a human conscience, a sense that what was going on was horribly wrong and it needed to stop. Acting on his conscience as a decent human being, Manning took action. Having people empathically relate to official enemies is a big no no in the armed forces, you might start questioning the rational, as such, of what you’re doing there and that, gentle readers, is not allowed.
“Had Manning – instead of exposing the crime – been the one pulling the trigger in the US Apache helicopter that in 2007 murdered at least a dozen unarmed people in Baghdad, he wouldn’t be facing any legal consequences for his actions. Had Manning authorised a 2009 missile strike in Yemen that killed 14 women and 21 children, instead of releasing the State Department cable that acknowledges responsibility for the killings, we wouldn’t even know his name.
But Manning didn’t kill anybody. Rather, he was outraged by the killing he saw all around him and angered at the complicity of his higher-ups who weren’t prepared to do a damn thing about. So, the system having failed to ensure accountability, Manning took it upon himself to share the inconvenient facts his government was withholding from the world.
“I prefer a painful truth over any blissful fantasy”, he explained in a chat with hacker-turned-informant Adrian Lamo. As an Army intelligence analyst, Manning witnessed firsthand the American empire in action – and it changed him. “I don’t believe in good guys versus bad guys anymore”, he lamented, “only a plethora of states acting in self-interest”.
Transparency, accountability, responsibility are all hallmarks of a functioning democracy. The people of a democracy have the right to know what is being done in their name.
“Confronted with the reality of institutional evil, Manning risked his career - and his freedom – in order to expose everything from mass murder and child rape in Afghanistan to US support for brutal dictators across North Africa and the Middle East. His actions were heroic, and Amnesty International has even credited them as the spark for with jump-starting the Arab Spring. And yet a president who proclaims his commitment to transparency while on the campaign trail is determined to go down as the one whose administration mentally tortured, prosecuted and jailed the most famous whistle-blower in half-a-century.”
Officially we want heroes from war, but what we really get are ‘made-men’ who, with the consent of the state, parrot the institutional truths back to the public to keep them in the dark. Outside of the borders of the USA, the notion of ‘defending freedom’ has a much different definition, one much closer to the harsh truth that Bradly Manning chose to share.
Manning said,”I prefer a painful truth over any blissful fantasy”. – Perhaps if the American public could share a similar sentiment democracy might begin to flourish once again in the USA.
Do you still think there are absolute morals? QS may persuade you otherwise as he tackles the arguments for god based on the existence of morality. As a side benefit he also does a wonderful job of explaining the is/ought problem. Grab a coffee as this vid weights in at 17 minutes, but I assure you it is 17 minutes well spent if you value intellectual edification.