QuoteLive for yourself...there's no one else
More worth living for
Begging hands and bleeding hearts will only cry out for more
Basically, do you agree with this little snatch of RUSH ANTHEM (rock on). The lyrics of this song
http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/rush/anthem.html were written by an Atheist, and portray his Atheist view on things. And you?
No, I don't agree with these lyrics; they sound like simplistic Randian bullshit to me. Ayn Rand may have been an atheist, but she was also in my opinion a nasty loon who wrote atrocious books filled with harmful nonsense. Another opinion: Rush sucks, and this song stinks.
Quote from: Recusant on November 23, 2011, 10:38:21 PM
No, I don't agree with these lyrics; they sound like simplistic Randian bullshit to me. Ayn Rand may have been an atheist, but she was also in my opinion a nasty loon who wrote atrocious books filled with harmful nonsense. Another opinion: Rush sucks, and this song stinks.
The main lyricist for Rush is drummer Neil Peart, and he cites Ayn Rand as an influence, although he has attempted to downplay this in interviews.
Rush is okay, mostly overrated IMO.
Quote from: Recusant on November 23, 2011, 10:38:21 PM
No, I don't agree with these lyrics; they sound like simplistic Randian bullshit to me. Ayn Rand may have been an atheist, but she was also in my opinion a nasty loon who wrote atrocious books filled with harmful nonsense.
Let me just say amen to that. You can add to that seriously self-deluded (tho that probably goes with loon) and her books were atrocious not just for the content but the writing style.
QuoteAnother opinion: Rush sucks, and this song stinks.
I don't know who Rush is, other than obviously a rock band, but I just can't help rolling my eyes when people complain about the neediness of others. As if anyone makes it entirely on their own, and isn't going to have their own hand out at some point, and probably be bitching just as loud if nobody fills it.
No, I don't agree, and it sounds to me like an immature, douchey egoist worldview.
Quote from: Recusant on November 23, 2011, 10:38:21 PM
No, I don't agree with these lyrics; they sound like simplistic Randian bullshit to me. Ayn Rand may have been an atheist, but she was also in my opinion a nasty loon who wrote atrocious books filled with harmful nonsense.
Yeah I think that too.
QuoteAnother opinion: Rush sucks, and this song stinks.
Now there's a load o' shit. Rush is one of the awsomest bands God ever created.
Incidentally, why don't any of you guys agree with this? Why not live for yourself?
Because I have those close to me to consider, that's why. It's as simple as that.
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on November 24, 2011, 12:32:07 AM
Because I have those close to me to consider, that's why. It's as simple as that.
But are you not higher than them? Animals eat or be eaten, and you and I are just animals. Without souls, noting separates us from slugs except appearance and intelligence.
Quote from: Ransom on November 24, 2011, 12:39:32 AMBut are you not higher than them? Animals eat or be eaten, and you and I are just animals. Without souls, noting separates us from slugs except appearance and intelligence.
So you think that slugs are capable of empathy? What indications do you have that that is the case?
Quote from: Recusant on November 24, 2011, 12:56:54 AM
Quote from: Ransom on November 24, 2011, 12:39:32 AMBut are you not higher than them? Animals eat or be eaten, and you and I are just animals. Without souls, noting separates us from slugs except appearance and intelligence.
So you think that slugs are capable of empathy? What indications do you have that that is the case?
OK, that was funny, I'll admit. Let's use, uh... Baboons. Actually, let's just say I didn't state all the differences between me and a slug, though maybe between Joe Biden and a slug. ;) :D
Quote from: Ransom on November 24, 2011, 12:28:45 AM
Incidentally, why don't any of you guys agree with this? Why not live for yourself?
It's bad social economics (not in the finance sense but in the social animal interaction sense)
Quote from: Ransom on November 24, 2011, 12:39:32 AM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on November 24, 2011, 12:32:07 AM
Because I have those close to me to consider, that's why. It's as simple as that.
But are you not higher than them? Animals eat or be eaten, and you and I are just animals. Without souls, noting separates us from slugs except appearance and intelligence.
Do chimps and dolphins have souls? They care for those close to them.
Watch this video of this mother cat hugging her kitten. Does she care for her kitten? Does she have a soul?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vw4KVoEVcr0
Quote from: Squid on November 24, 2011, 01:42:29 AM
Quote from: Ransom on November 24, 2011, 12:28:45 AM
Incidentally, why don't any of you guys agree with this? Why not live for yourself?
It's bad social economics (not in the finance sense but in the social animal interaction sense)
This. I tend to take a bit of a structuralist point of view when it comes to society. We are inherently social creatures and, on the whole, we're better off being civil to one another than acting like wild savages. Context does matter, though. If I lived alone on an island there would be no "morality" in my actions and good and bad would be irrelevant.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on November 24, 2011, 01:46:41 AM
Quote from: Ransom on November 24, 2011, 12:39:32 AM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on November 24, 2011, 12:32:07 AM
Because I have those close to me to consider, that's why. It's as simple as that.
But are you not higher than them? Animals eat or be eaten, and you and I are just animals. Without souls, noting separates us from slugs except appearance and intelligence.
Do chimps and dolphins have souls? They care for those close to them.
Watch this video of this mother cat hugging her kitten. Does she care for her kitten? Does she have a soul?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vw4KVoEVcr0
And then there's this: Leopard and Baboon (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QkEex37su3s)
And this: Crow and Kitten (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-fAGzY9rnaA)
The more I learn about animals the more the whole concept of "soul" becomes irrelevant, and the more compassion and empathy seem universal, rather than particular to humans. In fact, it seems to me that the further one goes up the intelligence scale, the likelier these qualities become so dismissing them seems an attempt to reduce humanity to the insect level.
QuoteLive for yourself...there's no one else
More worth living for
Begging hands and bleeding hearts will only cry out for more
There can be someone else, but perhaps not for someone who thinks this way.
Humans are free to see the world in their own way, and to make of it what they can.
I value various things and if they didn't exist I'd be poorer, here's a few of them:
Wombats, The Parthenon, Sydney Harbour, Hat Head, (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/index.php?topic=6733.0) and Beth Orton.
I value the concept of fairness, in some world views I see beauty, others are ugly.
I could have values that allowed me to cheat and steal a beautiful house, but then I'd live in an ugly world.
Quote from: Ransom on November 24, 2011, 12:39:32 AM
But are you not higher than them? Animals eat or be eaten, and you and I are just animals. Without souls, noting separates us from slugs except appearance and intelligence.
I am an animal, one that's mostly escaped the oppressive tooth and claw existence.
Benevolence is now possible, I'm free to see beauty in, well not in a slug so much but snails are interesting.
Quote from: Squid on November 24, 2011, 01:42:29 AM
Quote from: Ransom on November 24, 2011, 12:28:45 AM
Incidentally, why don't any of you guys agree with this? Why not live for yourself?
It's bad social economics (not in the finance sense but in the social animal interaction sense)
This^
Social darwinism is just too simplistic. Humans are animals capable of complex social interactions.
Quote from: Ransom on November 24, 2011, 12:39:32 AM
But are you not higher than them? Animals eat or be eaten, and you and I are just animals. Without souls, noting separates us from slugs except appearance and intelligence.
Are you saying that I should treat everyone outside the circle of people I consider to be close as slugs?
(Not in the metaphorical sense, but as literal slugs)
I also think it's a bit presumptuous how you think that if there are souls, then only people would have them.
Also, this topic is deviating slightly, you think people would need a thing called a soul to be good in the general sense?
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on November 24, 2011, 02:55:11 AM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on November 24, 2011, 01:46:41 AM
Quote from: Ransom on November 24, 2011, 12:39:32 AM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on November 24, 2011, 12:32:07 AM
Because I have those close to me to consider, that's why. It's as simple as that.
But are you not higher than them? Animals eat or be eaten, and you and I are just animals. Without souls, noting separates us from slugs except appearance and intelligence.
Do chimps and dolphins have souls? They care for those close to them.
Watch this video of this mother cat hugging her kitten. Does she care for her kitten? Does she have a soul?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vw4KVoEVcr0
And then there's this: Leopard and Baboon (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QkEex37su3s)
And this: Crow and Kitten (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-fAGzY9rnaA)
The more I learn about animals the more the whole concept of "soul" becomes irrelevant, and the more compassion and empathy seem universal, rather than particular to humans. In fact, it seems to me that the further one goes up the intelligence scale, the likelier these qualities become so dismissing them seems an attempt to reduce humanity to the insect level.
And this famous video of a herd of water buffalo overcoming their natural fear and saving a calf from a pride of lions (and a croc to boot!).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LU8DDYz68kM
The buffalo one is cool, but even though they overcame their natural fear, they're still doing what's instinctive to them. What's really interesting is when totally unrelated animals do that. One of my favourite examples is this hippo saving an antelope from a crocodile (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E51DyWl_q0c).
It would be interesting to know (which the video doesn't inform) whether these animals are females acting out their maternal instincts or in the case of males, though hormonally this would be rarer I guess - some sort of group (pride, pack, herd) instincts. For some odd reason, sort of adopt other animals of other species as their offspring. I would be skeptical to go so far as to say that they feel compassion, though.
Oxytocin, which is the hormone which affects both attachment and bonding (mostly in females), is higher in females. I they could test these animals after watching them do these things, then that might explain the behavior in some part, especially if they're going through a peak.
Sorry if I get carried away, this is a topic of rather intense interest to me :P
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on November 24, 2011, 05:10:37 AM
I would be skeptical to go so far as to say that they feel compassion, though.
Whereas I'm becoming more leery of claiming things like compassion and empathy as purely human, rather than the same things other animals experience, dressed up to flatter the ego. I heard something awhile ago that I really like -- humans are animals who are just smart enough to have convinced ourselves that we're not.
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on November 24, 2011, 06:08:23 AM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on November 24, 2011, 05:10:37 AM
I would be skeptical to go so far as to say that they feel compassion, though.
Whereas I'm becoming more leery of claiming things like compassion and empathy as purely human, rather than the same things other animals experience, dressed up to flatter the ego. I heard something awhile ago that I really like -- humans are animals who are just smart enough to have convinced ourselves that we're not.
I'm convinced that animals such as chimps and dolphins feel empathy similar to ours if not the same, I'm just not as much with others. Could be the same sort of empathy we feel, or some different form of empathy, I don't know. I'm basing this claim (though it's speculation on my part) on the differences in brain structure, parts and complexity.
Quotehumans are animals who are just smart enough to have convinced ourselves that we're not.
That's a good quote. I'm quite sure though that people who don't think they're very similar to other animals may be smart, but are ignorant ;)
Edited to add:
There's a documentary called The Human Animal (this is part one - The Language of the Body) (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3323021761394989726) which goes into the subject, for whoever's interested.
Quote from: Ransom on November 24, 2011, 12:28:45 AM
Incidentally, why don't any of you guys agree with this? Why not live for yourself?
Because we're not fucking wankers.
Quote from: Tank on November 24, 2011, 07:14:01 AM
Quote from: Ransom on November 24, 2011, 12:28:45 AM
Incidentally, why don't any of you guys agree with this? Why not live for yourself?
Because we're not fucking wankers.
I couldn't agree more. We do seem to get quite a few Christians coming onto this forum thinking that you can't behave in a civilised and altruistic way unless you believe in their god, without realising that morality and ethics are something quite separate from belief in a deity.
Quote from: Too Few Lions on November 24, 2011, 09:51:30 AM
Quote from: Tank on November 24, 2011, 07:14:01 AM
Quote from: Ransom on November 24, 2011, 12:28:45 AM
Incidentally, why don't any of you guys agree with this? Why not live for yourself?
Because we're not fucking wankers.
I couldn't agree more. We do seem to get quite a few Christians coming onto this forum thinking that you can't behave in a civilised and altruistic way unless you believe in their god, without realising that morality and ethics are something quite separate from belief in a deity.
Ugh, yes. They enter discussions with a preconceived notion that all atheists are selfish asshats with no common decency. (Nevermind how many Christians there are that are selfish asshats with no common decency...)
If the fear of god/the desire for heavenly brownie points is the only thing keeping some people from murdering, raping, stealing, and programming spambots, I am officially scared. Because it seems to be the implication. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Quote from: Fi on November 24, 2011, 10:16:36 AM
If the fear of god/the desire for heavenly brownie points is the only thing keeping some people from murdering, raping, stealing, and programming spambots, I am officially scared. Because it seems to be the implication. Correct me if I'm wrong.
you're right, and I'm officially a little worried too if the belief in a disapproving sky fairy is the only thing stopping some Christians from murdering, raping, stealing and generally acting in an antisocial and criminal way.
Quote from: Too Few Lions on November 24, 2011, 11:07:35 AM
Quote from: Fi on November 24, 2011, 10:16:36 AM
If the fear of god/the desire for heavenly brownie points is the only thing keeping some people from murdering, raping, stealing, and programming spambots, I am officially scared. Because it seems to be the implication. Correct me if I'm wrong.
you're right, and I'm officially a little worried too if the belief in a disapproving sky fairy is the only thing stopping some Christians from murdering, raping, stealing and generally acting in an antisocial and criminal way.
I wouldn't let this worry you 'cause it kinda balances out.
You wake up one day and there's no god, they say so on the news.
There'll be extra killing and mayhem from those freed from god's restraint.
But there'll be all those who kill for god who'll no longer have a reason.
Quote from: Ransom on November 24, 2011, 12:28:45 AM
Incidentally, why don't any of you guys agree with this? Why not live for yourself?
Oh, I do live for myself. However, I mostly manage not to do so at the expense of others.
Quote from: Fi on November 24, 2011, 10:16:36 AM
Quote from: Too Few Lions on November 24, 2011, 09:51:30 AM
Quote from: Tank on November 24, 2011, 07:14:01 AM
Quote from: Ransom on November 24, 2011, 12:28:45 AM
Incidentally, why don't any of you guys agree with this? Why not live for yourself?
Because we're not fucking wankers.
I couldn't agree more. We do seem to get quite a few Christians coming onto this forum thinking that you can't behave in a civilised and altruistic way unless you believe in their god, without realising that morality and ethics are something quite separate from belief in a deity.
If the fear of god/the desire for heavenly brownie points is the only thing keeping some people from murdering, raping, stealing, and programming spambots, I am officially scared. Because it seems to be the implication. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Yeah, so much so that I've become very preoccupied with sniffing and weeding those out. If I had the power, I would order a complete check on those...
Quote from: Tank on November 24, 2011, 07:14:01 AM
Quote from: Ransom on November 24, 2011, 12:28:45 AM
Incidentally, why don't any of you guys agree with this? Why not live for yourself?
Because we're not fucking wankers.
That's the best reply so far, in the least amount of words. I believe that qualifies for extra points.
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on November 24, 2011, 07:42:27 PM
Quote from: Tank on November 24, 2011, 07:14:01 AM
Quote from: Ransom on November 24, 2011, 12:28:45 AM
Incidentally, why don't any of you guys agree with this? Why not live for yourself?
Because we're not fucking wankers.
That's the best reply so far, in the least amount of words. I believe that qualifies for extra points.
Why thank you Miss Sandy ;D
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on November 24, 2011, 06:18:05 AM
I'm convinced that animals such as chimps and dolphins feel empathy similar to ours if not the same, I'm just not as much with others. Could be the same sort of empathy we feel, or some different form of empathy, I don't know. I'm basing this claim (though it's speculation on my part) on the differences in brain structure, parts and complexity.
I suspect most, if not all animals, exhibit empathetic qualities.
When I was young, I used to go hunting with my slug gun. My parents own a Kiwifruit orchard, so there were plenty of birds to shoot.
The wax-eyes were plentiful, choosing to live in groups
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2F8%2F88%2FSilvereye3.jpg%2F220px-Silvereye3.jpg&hash=c9349b7e22ea0d84d4d8d3f534ed6c02abbbad0a)
I would shoot many of them.
One day I noticed, although most flew away after taking a shot, a few stayed around, seemingly concerned for the one I shot.
Not long after I lost interest in killing birds and prefered to shoot at inanimate targets.
With regards to the concept of the soul and it being the source of things such as consciousness, empathy, personality or memories, there is no evidence to back up this claim.
I think of the soul as a highlevel conceptual model grouping other concepts together. Consciousness, empathy, personality and memories are all just highlevel concepts themselves.
These concepts allow us in our simplistic ways to understand highly complex systems.
To the average person the detailed view is almost meaningless. Firing synapsis, chemical reactions, brain structure, genetics, social, cultural, parental, peer, nutritional, situational influences all combining to influence our soul and its conceptual building blocks.
Nutritionists, Psychologists, Biologists, Sociologists are all make progress in our further understandings of the root cause of certain behavioural traits.
Theologists however continue to adhere to the metaphysical soul and suggest that it is influenced by all of the above but still exists as a seperate entity.
This is the magical thing about theology, as long as they stay in the conceptual realm promoting certain concepts as metaphysical then they can never be proven wrong, they always have an answer for everything. Never a need to research and discover.
Quote from: Tank on November 24, 2011, 07:49:44 PM
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on November 24, 2011, 07:42:27 PM
Quote from: Tank on November 24, 2011, 07:14:01 AM
Because we're not fucking wankers.
That's the best reply so far, in the least amount of words. I believe that qualifies for extra points.
Why thank you Miss Sandy ;D
I love conciseness. If I had my way, political speeches would be confined to haiku.
Quote from: StevilTheologists however continue to adhere to the metaphysical soul and suggest that it is influenced by all of the above but still exists as a seperate entity.
This is the magical thing about theology, as long as they stay in the conceptual realm promoting certain concepts as metaphysical then they can never be proven wrong, they always have an answer for everything. Never a need to research and discover.
I agree with this, and with the part I snipped for the sake of brevity. I think theologists operate on a need for certainty, and specialness, which I can understand in a way but for me the research and discover are the fun parts.
Quote from: Stevil on November 24, 2011, 09:29:19 PM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on November 24, 2011, 06:18:05 AM
I'm convinced that animals such as chimps and dolphins feel empathy similar to ours if not the same, I'm just not as much with others. Could be the same sort of empathy we feel, or some different form of empathy, I don't know. I'm basing this claim (though it's speculation on my part) on the differences in brain structure, parts and complexity.
I suspect most, if not all animals, exhibit empathetic qualities.
When I was young, I used to go hunting with my slug gun. My parents own a Kiwifruit orchard, so there were plenty of birds to shoot.
The wax-eyes were plentiful, choosing to live in groups
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2F8%2F88%2FSilvereye3.jpg%2F220px-Silvereye3.jpg&hash=c9349b7e22ea0d84d4d8d3f534ed6c02abbbad0a)
I would shoot many of them.
One day I noticed, although most flew away after taking a shot, a few stayed around, seemingly concerned for the one I shot.
Not long after I lost interest in killing birds and prefered to shoot at inanimate targets.
Firstly let me say that I don't know if other animals have human-like empathy I'm just speculating, but "
seemingly concerned for the one I shot" isn't necessarily an indicator of
is concerned. But I don't know. Maybe it really is empathy. Or just curiosity, or feelings of protectiveness that made them stick around to check up on the bird.
In humans, for instance, there are people who can be altruistic, but lack genuine empathy, such as those on the autistic spectrum. Others, such as psychopaths don't have empathy and a weird sort of more selfish "altruism", if they have that at all. Some of the most common causes of this is the lack of mirror neurons in autistics and an under developed or lesioned temporal front lobe in psychopaths.
The temporal frontal lobe is a more sophisticated evolutionary occurence, which is why I'm slightly skeptical as to if animals other than humans, have the same type of empathy.
Rush makes some great music. "No one else worth living for" ... perhaps, that's debateable. But the OP's actual mistake is assuming that this song is addressing faith, or its lack. The song is addressing the social pressures to altruism, which is an entirely different thing.
QuoteKnow your place in life is where you want to be
Don't let them tell you that you owe it all to me
Keep on looking forward...no use in looking 'round
Hold your head above the ground and they won't bring you down
[Chorus:]
Anthem of the heart and anthem of the mind
A funeral dirge for eyes gone blind
We marvel after those who sought
The wonders of the world, wonders of the world
Wonders of the world they wrought
Live for yourself...there's no one else
More worth living for
Begging hands and bleeding hearts will only cry out for more
[Chorus]
Well, I know they've always told you
Selfishness was wrong
Yet it was for me, not you, I came to write this song
[Chorus]
Wrought
Wrought
The equation of altruism with religion is fallacious, anyway.
Quote from: Tank on November 24, 2011, 07:14:01 AM
Quote from: Ransom on November 24, 2011, 12:28:45 AM
Incidentally, why don't any of you guys agree with this? Why not live for yourself?
Because we're not fucking wankers.
This made me lol enough to cause my husband to ask what was so funny.
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on November 25, 2011, 11:59:37 PM
Quote from: Tank on November 24, 2011, 07:14:01 AM
Quote from: Ransom on November 24, 2011, 12:28:45 AM
Incidentally, why don't any of you guys agree with this? Why not live for yourself?
Because we're not fucking wankers.
This made me lol enough to cause my husband to ask what was so funny.
Did it make him giggle to?
Quote from: Ransom on November 23, 2011, 10:23:24 PM
QuoteLive for yourself...there's no one else
More worth living for
Begging hands and bleeding hearts will only cry out for more
Basically, do you agree with this little snatch of RUSH ANTHEM (rock on). The lyrics of this song
http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/rush/anthem.html were written by an Atheist, and portray his Atheist view on things. And you?
No
Quote from: Tank on November 26, 2011, 08:55:32 AM
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on November 25, 2011, 11:59:37 PM
Quote from: Tank on November 24, 2011, 07:14:01 AM
Quote from: Ransom on November 24, 2011, 12:28:45 AM
Incidentally, why don't any of you guys agree with this? Why not live for yourself?
Because we're not fucking wankers.
This made me lol enough to cause my husband to ask what was so funny.
Did it make him giggle to?
Haha, it did. And then he said "I love how British this forum of yours, is."
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on November 26, 2011, 02:13:08 PM
Quote from: Tank on November 26, 2011, 08:55:32 AM
Did it make him giggle to?
Haha, it did. And then he said "I love how British this forum of yours, is."
It does classy up the place.
Stop fawning on the Brits, don't you know they're all so, so, so, oh I'll let Otto tell you.
QuoteOtto: You know your problem? You don't like winners. (http://www.imdb.com/character/ch0008270/quotes)
Archie: Winners?
Otto: Yeah. Winners.
Archie: Winners, like North Vietnam?
Otto: Shut up. We didn't lose Vietnam. It was a tie!
Archie: [going into a cowboy-like drawl] I'm tellin' ya baby, they kicked your little ass there. Boy, they whooped yer hide REAL GOOD.
Otto: You pompous, stuck-up, snot-nosed, English, giant, twerp, scumbag, fuck-face, dickhead, asshole.
Archie: How very interesting. You're a true vulgarian, aren't you?
Otto: You are the vulgarian, you fuck.
QuoteOtto: I'm here because I'm bored. Bored hanging around this God-awful city. Shoving George's ugly pic... Talking to a lot of snotty, stuck up, intellectual British faggots. Jesus they're uptight they get rigor mortis in the prime of life in this country, standing there with their hair clenched.
Otto: [finds a letter from Archie to Wanda] Just, counting the seconds to the weekends so they can all dress up like ballerinas and whip themselves into a frenzy at the flat at 4. 2B St.
Otto: [recovering] To be honest I hate them. I mean pretending they're so fucking lawyer.
Otto: [recovering again] superior, so fucking superior with those phony accents.
I seriously considered becoming evil - which is where an undeluded (and undiluted) ethic of egoism leads - but I couldn't bring myself to do it for three reasons:
1. My daughters, sister and cousin/best friend would turn against me.
2. I'm too compassionate to be ruthless.
3. I hate bullies too much to take up their methods.
You'll notice there aren't any moral principles cited. I don't have any moral principles in the normal sense. But the above would be enough, under extreme conditions, to launch me into the deeds of a hero, albeit an inept one. :-\
The flaw in Ayn Rand's rhetoric (not really her thought, just the way she presented it sometimes) was that she liked to say her philosophy was as follows:
Metaphysics: Reality
Epistemology: Reason
Ethics: Self-Interest
Politics: Capitalism
The above is misleading. Her idea of an ethic of self-interest was to uphold not only her own self-interest but yours too. Thus the principles of justice and liberty were always counter-weights against ruthlessness. (Justice and liberty are what you end up promoting if you uphold the self-interest of any and every rational being, rather than merely your own.)
Where she went truly off course was her belief that she could derive self-interest using reason alone; I.e., objectively. This was nonsense and is always nonsense whenever anyone attempts it. Objectivity can derive needs from the perspective of suvival - but needs aren't the sum total of self-interest. There are also wants, hopes, fears, preferences - in a word, "values," and values cannot be derived objectively, for they arise out of nothing other than subjectivity. She eventually did what is always done by people who attempt what she was attempting - she began trying to defend rationally, objectively, her purely subjective wants, hopes, fears, and preferences. Psychologists call this "rationalizing." It leads to making nonsensical excuses for ruthless or self-sabotaging behavior, when the real reason you're doing the thing is because you want to, or you fear the alternative. Rand's notion of a moral obligation to smoke cigarettes is a classic example.
There was a poster who used to frequent here named Medusa. She considered herself a Satanist and your "code" sounds somewhat similiar to hers.
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on November 27, 2011, 11:54:22 AM
There was a poster who used to frequent here named Medusa. She considered herself a Satanist and your "code" sounds somewhat similiar to hers.
Yes! I noticed her on a few threads. I hope she comes back. She and I would likely be compatible on a number of fronts.
It's actually the goody-goody aspects of the Church of Satan that turn me off, odd as that may sound - or at least their goody-goody public face. For example, they tend to present themselves as passionately (instead of merely prudently) law-abiding. They tend to speak of children in worshipful tones, whereas many children are brats and many others would become brats if their parents allowed them to. On the other hand, they staunchly defend animal rights, and there I agree with them whole-heartedly, because I want animals to be happy.
Also, their elitism and misanthropy are ridiculous, when you consider that none of the public ones are anywhere near the top of the politico-economic food chain, nor are any of the public ones Olympic athletes or winners of the Nobel Prize. If you're going to act like you're better than the rest of us then you need to actually be better than the rest of us. But if we probe, we discover their elitism and misanthropy are centered largely on their conviction that atheists (which all of the public ones profess to be) are the cream of the crop of humanity while theists are so putrid as to be inferior to any gibbon or orangutan in the vicinity.
Finally, their insistence that a human is "just another animal" is only to be taken seriously if we agree likewise that Michael Jordan is "just another basketball player." I agree the difference between humans and other creatures is one of degree rather than kind, but that difference of degree is so extreme in some instances that any phrase like "just another" is ridiculous. Again, the difference is one of degree rather than kind. Nevertheless, I don't see any gibbons building rockets to the moon nor any orangutans tracking the speed of neutrinos, nor can either creature drive a car, read a book or learn arithmetic. We have powers that never existed before we brought them forth unto the universe. Taken collectively we are like gods compared to all else that frequents jungle or sea. I say this knowing full well that taken individually and dropped all alone into the Amazon River some morning, many of us would be dead before nightfall, a meal for reptiles and insects. This is another reason why elitism and misanthropy are ridiculous. Alone most humans can accomplish almost nothing. It is in the collective that we find our supremacy among the beasts.
Quote from: Pharaoh Cat on November 27, 2011, 01:39:40 PM
Yes! I noticed her on a few threads. I hope she comes back.
I hope she's OK, I wouldn't be brave or optomistic enough to do what she had planned.
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on November 27, 2011, 11:54:22 AM
There was a poster who used to frequent here named Medusa. She considered herself a Satanist and your "code" sounds somewhat similiar to hers.
Laveyan Satanists I've conversed with do follow a code of self assertion, but from what I've seen this doesn't often show itself as a selfish / evil outlook - in fact quite the opposite. Not even Satanists are this selfish because there's just no overall personal gain in it. We'd have more to fear from the ideas of Ransom than any Satanist.
Satanists really aren't that different from most other Atheists - we all have a social conscience, it's just that Satanists wrap it up as part of their personal gain.
From my brief looking up LaVeyan Satanism, it just looks like an atheistic branch that became a religion, with codified humanistic beliefs, religious rituals and formed communities.
One thing I like about them is that, while calling themselves "gods" (though not in the way that the religious use the word), they focus more on empowering themselves. It's interesting.
Quote from: Scissorlegs on November 27, 2011, 07:09:32 PM
We'd have more to fear from the ideas of Ransom than any Satanist.
I agree. I'm wary of fear-based drives, and some of the people that it acts on. Some just aren't mature enough to do something without wanting some external incentive, such as the reward of heaven or the avoidance of hell. Others don't seem to be mentally robust enough to deal with a godless world without the ultimate judge (and trust me, even being an atheist, I can really sympathise with the idea of an ultimate judge ;) ), an existence based on the strict rules of an leading tyrannical authority. God forbid people should have to figure out and take the consequences for something themselves!
I don't know exactly what Ransom's case is.
What can I say? Fearful people frighten me. They do stupid things ::)
I'm not an Atheist but even I think that it's a completely wrong way of depicting them. Most of the Atheist I know want to better all human kind all over the world, not just build themselves a shiny tall pedestal. Actually, that sounds more like something a corrupt Christian would do, and there are too many of those out there. As for Ayn Rand, no offense to anyone who idolizes her, but she was a sick and pathetic person who dearly needed mental help.
Quote from: not your typical... on November 30, 2011, 09:31:22 PMAyn Rand...pathetic person who dearly needed mental help.
/\ ---- This...
Quote from: Ransom on November 23, 2011, 10:23:24 PM
QuoteLive for yourself...there's no one else
More worth living for
Begging hands and bleeding hearts will only cry out for more
Basically, do you agree with this little snatch of RUSH ANTHEM (rock on). The lyrics of this song
http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/rush/anthem.html were written by an Atheist, and portray his Atheist view on things. And you?
I don't know how you jumped to the conclusion that this statement portrays the lyricist's atheist view. The verse you quoted says nothing about a lack of belief in a deity.
Rather, it seems to be reminiscent of some sort of far right leaning mantra. In fact, I couldn't help but be reminded of the recent GOP debates after reading these lines. You know, the GOP – the party of God and country that loves to cut social programs and espouses the importance of pulling one's self up by his bootstraps?
Don't agree with the lyrics. Also, they don't reflect atheism, they reflect the kind of Western individualist, meritocratic dirge you find in self-help books.
Compassion and selflessness have nothing to do with cheesy religious spirituality or even with right and wrong: they're a practical necessity for living. Put simply, the way we treat others is reflective of the way we treat ourselves, and vice versa. You cannot disregard others, fail to find anything to admire about them, fail to care for them and forgive them for their faults and weaknesses, and expect to remain above that harsh judgement yourself. Your whole sense of identity will fall victim to its own unforgiving puritanism, and you will end up just as self-loathing as you are misanthropic.
It is better to die for the Emperor then to live for yourself!
...what? Oh, wrong forum, sorry.
But one a more serious note, I only need to read this: "Live for yourself...there's no one else", and headdesk. Simply because it's utter BS. Of course, if you interpite to mean that "there is no sky daddy", it's still pure bull shite.
We. Are. Not. Alone! you have a thing called "neck" attached to your head, use it to look around, and stop being an arse....(<---to who ever actaully thinks like these lyrics depict....)
Quote from: history_geek on December 06, 2011, 09:20:24 PM
But one a more serious note, I only need to read this: "Live for yourself...there's no one else", and headdesk. Simply because it's utter BS. Of course, if you interpite to mean that "there is no sky daddy", it's still pure bull shite.
We. Are. Not. Alone! you have a thing called "neck" attached to your head, use it to look around, and stop being an arse....(<---to who ever actaully thinks like these lyrics depict....)
Couldn't agree more, HG. The song in and of itself makes any self-respecting human being want to faceplam, let alone how terrible it must be for the atheist who are persecuted because of it.