Worldview...Everyone Has One

[quatona]

Here is what I see from the answers. Everyone, Christian and otherwise, think being an individual is the most important aspect of life at all times.

I don´t think that such a statement was part of or implied by my answers, and in fact I don´t hold the opinion you ascribe to "everyone".

 

[jpcedotal]

My deepest desire is to live in a world in which every individual is a source of some creative value. Not "king rulers", but talented and wise people.


eudaimonia,

Mark

What about those who do not want to have creative value? This country is full of people who just want to get a check and play...no responsibilities, no consequences. And they want you and I to pay for this.

Do we breed this out of people? Give them a "get off your butt" pill? Stop supporting them and let the children of these folks suffer?

 

[jpcedotal]

I don´t think that such a statement was part of or implied by my answers, and in fact I don´t hold the opinion you ascribe to "everyone".

It goes back to "I think therefore I am"...where there are no wrong answers, only answers that pertain or do not pertain to the person being questioned.

Gotta do some work now, so I will try to respond as some as possible.

 

[quatona]

It goes back to "I think therefore I am"...where there are no wrong answers, only answers that pertain or do not pertain to the person being questioned.

Firstly I don´t subscribe to "I think therefore I am", and secondly I do not see how such a conclusion as "I think therefore I am" or the idea that there are only answers that pertain to the person being questioned imply the notion that individuality is the "most important aspect of life of all times".
It might be a good idea to work from the actual responses you get rather than imposing other ideas upon them and assuming that this is what the person said or meant.

 

[Eudaimonist]

...

 

[quatona]

1: origin of man (I do not want to argue evolution, the science)

As I said: evolution theory is the currently best explanation available.

2: reasons for the evil or hate crimes and thoughts in the world

Limited resources.
Fear.
Lack of education.

3: what needs to be done so everyone can live peaceably.

1. Abstain from fighting.
2. Getting access to our negative emotions in order not to be victim to them.
3. Education.

 

[Eudaimonist]

What about those who do not want to have creative value? This country is full of people who just want to get a check and play...no responsibilities, no consequences. And they want you and I to pay for this.

What I desire for them is an eagerness to develop their creative talents, to be mindful of the consequences of their actions on themselves and others, and a reluctance to shift responsibilities for their lives onto other people, especially in the form of taxes.

Do you see that Libertarian icon next to my atheist icon? Guess what level of taxes I would consider ideal.

Do we breed this out of people?

No, I don't think we are necessarily born with this. There could be many reasons for this, including bad parenting and poor cultural values.

Give them a "get off your butt" pill?

If only.

Stop supporting them and let the children of these folks suffer?

Possibly. Perhaps something could be done for the children, but I don't think there are any easy answers.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[jpcedotal]

Firstly I don´t subscribe to "I think therefore I am", and secondly I do not see how such a conclusion as "I think therefore I am" or the idea that there are only answers that pertain to the person being questioned imply the notion that individuality is the "most important aspect of life of all times".
It might be a good idea to work from the actual responses you get rather than imposing other ideas upon them and assuming that this is what the person said or meant.

I am really not trying to fight with you.

Where are you coming from then since apparently all I can do is offend you.
Is there anything concrete in your life besides "No God"?
Do you want people to ultimately to get along?
Do you care for the welfare of others even if it compromises your own personal belief system?
Do you have a personal belief system?

So far, all you are doing is attacking me.

 

[jayem]

Limited resources.
Fear.
Lack of education.

Agree. I'd expand Fear by mentioning tribalism. Which we have inherited as part of our evolution from hominids that lived in extended family groups or clans. Fear/suspicion/hostility towards non-tribe members had survival value back then, but in the large and diverse societies that Homo sapiens has developed, it's a fundamental cause of problems and conflict.

1. Abstain from fighting.
2. Getting access to our negative emotions in order not to be victim to them.
3. Education.

Related to the above, I'd add in further evolution. The items you mention help us control and mitigate our tribal nature, but to eliminate it would require evolving away from it. Theoretically, if we continue to live in diverse societies, cooperative, less tribalistic behaviors would be selected for. Theoretically, anyway. Though it would take a long, long time.

 

[jpcedotal]

Agree. I'd expand Fear by mentioning tribalism. Which we have inherited as part of our evolution from hominids that lived in extended family groups or clans. Fear/suspicion/hostility towards non-tribe members had survival value back then, but in the large and diverse societies that Homo sapiens has developed, it's a fundamental cause of problems and conflict.




Related to the above, I'd add in further evolution. The items you mention help us control and mitigate our tribal nature, but to eliminate it would require evolving away from it. Theoretically, if we continue to live in diverse societies, cooperative, less tribalistic behaviors would be selected for. Theoretically, anyway. Though it would take a long, long time.

Would that include more government control or less? Or maybe more now and slowly wean society off of it?

 

[Danhalen]

Thank you for your honest response. Mankind just is. That sure takes the morality out of it, for sure.

You are welcome for the response, and I thank you in turn. I do wish to point that your question was not a moral one. Morality comes into play when you ask why I ought to do something instead of another. You asked a question about what I believe is wrong with humankind (why we have the capacity to commit bad acts). That is a meta-ethical question which does not deal with morality but deals with reasons for being moral and/or what is morality. The broader the question the more apt you are to get caught in the meta-realm no matter the subject.

Now, in response to your querry of why humankind has the capacity to commit bad acts I will posit that humankind also has the capacity to commit good acts. To agree more with your statement of what I am saying, humankind acts. The morality of each act is considered on an individual basis. The act of one does not necessarily shade the act of another. So it's really weird to ask me what is wrong with evil humans when I look up and see someone feeding a homeless child.

 

[CoderHead]

So mankind is just spiraling to self-destruction. We have the natural ability to stop this, but not the ...initiative?,know-how?,desire?what?

Not all of us agree that we should live our lives for the good of the human race as a whole. We all have different desires and I personally cannot account for all of them. All I know is that I want to be content in life while causing other people no harm. That means not being a burden on other people, not taking the things from other people that make them content, and not ending any lives through my action or inaction. Don't you think we'd be better off with a view like that? Maybe I'm naive.

Isn't man's deepest desire to be king ruler over all, to be the one everyone seeks for knowledge or understanding or sex or touchdowns or money or freedom or ....?

Absolutely not! The people who desire to be "king of the world" are the dangerous ones. I don't desire power or glory, I desire happiness. It's very simple and you're complicating it by injecting these hypotheticals.

"I think therefore I am" Isn't this the basis of everything secular?

No. That's one person's way of verbalizing his view on existence. I don't have to subscribe to that. I am what I am. It's inconsequential if that happens to be a soul, a computer program, or an amoeba on the back of a giant turtle. I live my life in the pursuit of happiness and then I die. I have one chance to do it right, so I try to make every moment count.

I mean, even atheist have morality, right?

Yes, and in the case of atheists it has nothing to do with a deity. We treat other people the way we do because we personally feel it's right. Morality is subjective though. Not every atheist holds the same morals, just as not every Christian does.

Animals do not know right and wrong, but humans do.

Right and wrong are concepts formed by societal agreements as to what benefits the advancement of that society. Our governmental laws aren't handed down by a deity, but drafted, revised, and voted on by elected representatives said to be "of and for the people." Two people may not agree on what is right and wrong, but if the majority do then it becomes right and wrong for that society. Hence different laws in different cultures.

Is there anything concrete in your life besides "No God"?
Do you want people to ultimately to get along?
Do you care for the welfare of others even if it compromises your own personal belief system?
Do you have a personal belief system?

All I have is my family, my friends, and myself in this life.
Absolutely! And that's why I live the way I do.
The welfare of others and my own happiness is the core of my belief system.

 

[jayem]

Would that include more government control or less? Or maybe more now and slowly wean society off of it?

Certainly no more government control. IMO, it's not an issue of government. It should be through voluntary efforts of individuals. As quatona noted, education is a one factor. If we understand human psychology, we can better deal with its less savory aspects. We can try to rear our children to be compassionate and cooperative. And, as a society, we can promote role models who are altruistic. It's far better to create a society that rewards behaviors that make life better for everyone, than to impose a police state that controls everything punitively.

 

[jpcedotal]

Not all of us agree that we should live our lives for the good of the human race as a whole. We all have different desires and I personally cannot account for all of them. All I know is that I want to be content in life while causing other people no harm. That means not being a burden on other people, not taking the things from other people that make them content, and not ending any lives through my action or inaction. Don't you think we'd be better off with a view like that? Maybe I'm naive.

Absolutely not! The people who desire to be "king of the world" are the dangerous ones. I don't desire power or glory, I desire happiness. It's very simple and you're complicating it by injecting these hypotheticals.

No. That's one person's way of verbalizing his view on existence. I don't have to subscribe to that. I am what I am. It's inconsequential if that happens to be a soul, a computer program, or an amoeba on the back of a giant turtle. I live my life in the pursuit of happiness and then I die. I have one chance to do it right, so I try to make every moment count.

Yes, and in the case of atheists it has nothing to do with a deity. We treat other people the way we do because we personally feel it's right. Morality is subjective though. Not every atheist holds the same morals, just as not every Christian does.

Right and wrong are concepts formed by societal agreements as to what benefits the advancement of that society. Our governmental laws aren't handed down by a deity, but drafted, revised, and voted on by elected representatives said to be "of and for the people." Two people may not agree on what is right and wrong, but if the majority do then it becomes right and wrong for that society. Hence different laws in different cultures.

All I have is my family, my friends, and myself in this life.
Absolutely! And that's why I live the way I do.
The welfare of others and my own happiness is the core of my belief system.

Thank you for responding. My main "goal" of this thread is to get a grasp of the train of thought that does not include a God.

To be happy, one must lend a hand for both individuals and society as a whole as long as one's own personal worldview does not interfere another's worldview. Is that close?

What if the person or society is doing everything possible to interfere into your own personal life? Do you still help just for the sake of mankind as a whole?

 

[jpcedotal]

Certainly no more government control. IMO, it's not an issue of government. It should be through voluntary efforts of individuals. As quatona noted, education is a one factor. If we understand human psychology, we can better deal with its less savory aspects. We can try to rear our children to be compassionate and cooperative. And, as a society, we can promote role models who are altruistic. It's far better to create a society that rewards behaviors that make life better for everyone, than to impose a police state that controls everything punitively.

Who decides what behaviors need to be rewarded? Should there be punishment for behaviors that do not make life better?

Was the mega-media worship of Michael Jackson after his death someone who should have been promoted as a role model?

What about Darwin? Did he do more positive or more negative for society based simply off of the public reaction to him from both sides?

What about those individuals who are considered roles models of one group but enemies of mankind to another? How do we decide?

Can education include both Creationism and Evolution and let the individual decide which is correct in a public school system? If one has no place in schools, shouldn't both be eliminated in order to keep the peace?

 

[exotic walrus]

What about Darwin? Did he do more positive or more negative for society based simply off of the public reaction to him from both sides?

Outside the US/UK and a couple of others most of the developed nations don't have two sides with Darwin.

 

[jpcedotal]

So far, and please correct me if I am wrong, the common thought is:

-Do what makes you happy as long as your pursuit of happiness does not interfere with another person's own pursuit for happiness.

-Help others in his/her own pursuit.....(finish sentence please)

 

[jpcedotal]

Outside the US/UK and a couple of others most of the developed nations don't have two sides with Darwin.

Fair enough, so.....what do we do with this group of folks who will never accept Evolution as fact. Wait for them to die off and try to "educate" their offspring to accept Evolution by starting in elementary schools? Does not the parents have the right to teach their kids another belief without penalty?

 

[quatona]

I am really not trying to fight with you.

I wasn´t assuming you were.
What gives you the idea that there´s a fight or bad feelings?

Where are you coming from then since apparently all I can do is offend you.

You haven´t offended me. You have misconceptions about me, and I am patiently trying to correct them.

Is there anything concrete in your life besides "No God"?

"No god" isn´t concrete, and it would be about the least significant statement for my life. Everything that´s not is irrelevant for my worldview.

Do you want people to ultimately to get along?

I want to get along with people. I don´t know what "ultimately" might mean in this context.

Do you care for the welfare of others even if it compromises your own personal belief system?

Since the well-being of others and a welfare state are elements of my personal convictions they don´t and can´t compromise my "personal belief system".

Do you have a personal belief system?

Sure I have convictions, but these can´t be approached or covered via the loaded OP questions.

So far, all you are doing is attacking me.

I don´t know that I am attacking you. I am trying to correct youn when you tell me what my positions are or should be. If you perceive criticism of your assumptions about me as an "attack" I think you might be a bit to thin-skinned for a discussion like this.
As far as I am concerned: No offense taken, no offense intended. No hard feelings.
Btw. have you read my post #46 which gave straightforward answers to your question - or did it come across as an attack as well?

 

[exotic walrus]

Fair enough, so.....what do we do with this group of folks who will never accept Evolution as fact. Wait for them to die off and try to "educate" their offspring to accept Evolution by starting in elementary schools? Does not the parents have the right to teach their kids another belief without penalty?

Most of the world teach all belief systems through education programs and people are free to also enforce their views upon their children.