cuchulain

Thought I would brooch the topic of Stoicism and Atheism and how they combine for me, for those who are curious as to my recent titular changes. 8 basic principles of stoicism: 1. Nature is rational. That is, nature can be rationally understood and operates on laws of existence, not all of which are known, but all of which can be known given time. 2. Law of reason. The universe is governed by the law of reason. Man can't actually escape its inexorable force, but he can, uniquely, follow the law deliberately. 3. Virtue, A life lived according to rational nature is virtuous. 4. Wisdom. Wisdom is the the root virtue. From it spring the cardinal virtues: insight, bravery, self-control, and justice. 5. Apathea, since passion is irrational, life should be waged as a battle against it. Intense feeling should be controlled. 6. Pleasure is not good, nor is it bad. It is only acceptable if it doesn't interfere with our quest for virtue. 7. Evil, poverty, illness, death, these things are not evil. 8. Duty, virtue should be sought not for pleasure but for duty. Some brief basics of stoicism are that stoics do not seek to control that which cannot be controlled. There are things within our control, but they are almost all internal, i.e. our reactions(or responses, for those who control their reactions), how we feel about things that happen to us, things of this nature. Things that are not in our control are how others feel about what we do, the weather, and just about anything else. I am oversimplifying, I am sure. I forget which stoic founder it was, but he was sitting at the side of the road when someone of importance asked him what he would like for a reward(he had done something which I also forget). The stoic responds, "please move over, your blocking the sun". Faults committed against us cannot touch us. I can neither be injured by any of them, for no one can fix on me what is ugly. When thou art troubled about anything, thou hast forgotten this [...] that a man's wrongful act is nothing to thee. Consider that everything is opinion, and opinion is in thy power. Take away then, when thou choosest, thy opinion, and like a mariner, who has doubled the promontory, thou wilt find calm, everything stable, and a waveless bay. The intellect is independent of the body. Everything is a matter of judgment. Every fault is in fact a false judgment, and proceeds from ignorance. Everything comes from Universal nature and in conformity with it's will. There is a mutual mixture and implication of everything within everything. "The whole is more important that it's parts"(Epictetus). Universal Reason gives form and energy to matter that is docile. We must always and everywhere distinguish the causal (reason) and the material. Human reason is a part of universal reason. These are some of the very basics of stoicism. Logic and reason are highly valued, as they seem to be highly valued amongst the Atheist community. Most of the quotes used are from Seneca the younger, some are from Marcus Aurelius. Gene Roddenberry stated that his primary motivation behind Vulcan philosophy was Stoicism, though he exaggerated it by removing emotion from Vulcans. Later this was rectified, and it was revealed that Vulcans feel even stronger than humans, they simply control it. Atheist philosophy for me is summed up with a simple statement. I don't believe in a divine power, or the supernatural. I certainly don't expect everyone(or anyone) to agree with my thoughts on these subjects. I don't control what any of you think, or feel, as a result of reading these simple statements. Just thought some people here might appreciate a slight amount of clarification as to what I believe. I don't control that either, btw. But I do control that I feel good sharing my thoughts with those who occupy this forum with me

I liked O'Reilly back when I was 19, but I have watched way too many youtube videos of him bashing those with another viewpoint without logical reason. To point, I don't think any reputable news source has ever published anything proving angels. They might publish opinion or puff pieces, but never actual hard facts proving angels exist. If they did, that would be Pulitzer stuff for sure, might even reach Nobel levels.

The opposite of harm is moral? So, then, you would support the government putting everyone on a diet based strictly on their scientific observations as to what people need nutritionally, perhaps by giving us all a daily amount of nutritious paste without any flavor or allergens? It would be the opposite of harm, especially if they included mandatory exercise with that program, but I do not think it something I would support.

Self definition is ultimately the most important, friend. I can definitely understand wanting to clarify in a forum such as this, however, where people tend to use your title in responses, and often use your title in the way THEY think it should be, rather than you do. I changed my title to stoic atheist, since that is what I define myself as, and sometimes others have used my title in their responses, usually incorrectly, in my opinion.

Mmmmmm....flesh.....

I guess crap is crap, no matter from who it emerges. I should insert here that it is merely my opinion that the bible is crap, so as not to offend those who are too politically correct. I am equally sure that my opinion is crap to them.

Well I was going to offer to teach you enlightenment, Johnathan, for the low, LOW price of $19.99...but it sounds like you just aren't interested(joke, in case someone thinks I legitimately am offering this and tries to report it)

Well as I said, fraud stories are a form of false testimony. I mean, the church considers testifying telling your story, and even that makes these stories false testimony(mostly). I liked the movie "The Perfect Storm", but still take it with a grain of salt, you know? I offered the opinion on another site that I dislike Christian movies like "God's not Dead" because they portray things in such a slanted light, and another atheist responded that they liked movies like "Bruce Almighty" and named a few more that I hadn't considered. I wonder, does Christian fiction violate the commandment against false testimony? I mean, obviously the movies add that disclaimer that the events portrayed aren't real, etc...but is it still testimony by the Christian definition?

I have heard that one as well, though not as often in matters spiritual or religious. Yet it is one that I rarely fall for personally because I am more skeptical of the new than the old. Almost seems backwards, doesn't it?

I have heard those before, Umbraedeus. Especially the Druid lie. That's always an amusing one to look back on. What matters when comes the wisdom, if it is wisdom? People(myself included at times) seem to think that age adds wisdom. In the realm of Wicca, I have had Gardner Wiccans get very hostile to me when I related their history as I knew it, and I wasn't rubbing it in their face or anything, simply telling them my understanding and asking for clarification. Johnathan, clearly you haven't BEEN to my heaven, or you would know there is no greener grass. Why not convert?(that's a joke, btw, since humor doesn't often translate well online)

I recently watched "The Perfect Storm", also based on a true story. What I had to wonder at the end was, how did they have any clue whatsoever as to how the crew of a lost ship behaved towards each other? The few transmissions they received throughout the storm, allegedly, were so broken up they couldn't even identify the ship. All hands were lost. Nobody survived to tell the tale. Then I realized the caveat, based. This could easily mean the names were the same but the story was made up. This is something that a lot of people in the movie industry take full advantage of, I think, to tell whatever story they want to tell without any actual facts to back up their claims. I guess, another case of someone said so, in the end?

Ah....but prayer is only harmless as therapy if it does not replace an actual therapy that is necessary, yes? A believer might think prayer is all they need, when in reality antibiotics might actually save their lives. True about Acetaminophen though, being bad for the liver. But only if not taken properly, or if the patient has a liver condition, usually.

Belief in something without regard to truth or fact is something I personally consider silly. That is simply my choice. I echo Johnathan in that I would not choose to impose my ideas or thoughts on others, after all...I could be wrong, and if it were me wrong choosing for someone else, then I would be responsible instead of them.

The idea of conscience is interesting. I understand the premise, but to me it does not seem like an outside and separate entity, you know? Merely a reflections of what a person already knows, perhaps underlying the surface of everyday thought. I tend to think self preservation is the first moral imperative, although there are clearly exceptions to this "rule", and I use the term rule loosely. But then, you have stated that you believe morals to be objective, and I disagree there. Maybe there is a fundamental difference of opinion on this subject.

Or perhaps self preservation is the first and primary moral action?

I can certainly understand not being able to collect accurate data, mererdog. When someone wants to hide the truth, it often comes out anyway. But when large groups of people want to hide the truth, it somehow vanishes.

What are the percentages, mererdog? What percentage of drunk drivers get in accidents vs the percentage of sober drivers? Because most people drive sober, so I don't know that more sober drivers equates a higher per capita, or that it doesn't. So far as the question of morality, here is another, for those who say the person who drives does indeed have responsibility, due to the ability to understand their actions as risky. God created everything just the way it is, yet isn't held responsible for anything bad, even though he had the ability to foresee exactly what would happen. Isn't he in the same boat as the drunk driver, if not worse?(worse, considering he has perfect knowledge, whereas the drunk is impaired at best?)

So then, it requires knowledge and conscientious behavior? Honestly, every single time a person gets behind the wheel, they assume a risk. It should be understood that, through no fault of your own, an accident or mechanical failure could(and often does) occur. Understanding this, we have knowledge every time we get behind the wheel that anyone driving with us could be killed. So I ask, is it immoral to place any passenger in mortal danger, even if the percentage chance is 1%? This is only one example of course, the example that my professor postulated. My primary question is: If I take an action that COULD be negative to others, is it immoral? Another example: If I put up a trap in my yard and then put up a sign that says my yard is dangerous and so you enter at your own risk. Now, reasonably, I could expect people to read the sign, and so say that it shouldn't be immoral, or place anyone in danger. What about the exceptions, though? There will be someone who cannot read come along, and maybe they get killed in my trap. Was it immoral for me to place the trap in the first place, even though I exercised what I believed to be reasonable precautions? Assuming I had some good reason in my own mind for placing the trap, of course.

I have often thought about that lately, mererdog. Driving with kids in the car is putting kids at risk, even sober, even paying attention, even if you get good driving certificates and are as careful as possible, it's still possible that someone else will slam in to the vehicle you are operating and you won't be able to avoid it. Or that there will be an unforseen mechanical failure that will flip the vehicle, explode it, or cause you to crash into someone. In that scenario, you are not only placing your life at risk but also the kids, and anyone else in your path. And most people consider it immoral to place kids' lives in danger. What percentage of risk becomes acceptable, I wonder?

I don't think of it as a silly question Pete. A lot of Wicca has appeared sexist to me, but that may be just me and those I have been around who are Wiccan. I haven't heard any non sexist titles as yet, though I don't have a vast amount of experience in the subject.

A question, purely speculative: If I took an action that I knew COULD have negative consequences for other people, would I be responsible if that action DID have those negative consequences? A slight amount of background. I had a professor of philosophy who argued that drunk driving was not immoral because the person didn't choose the negative consequence. I disagree with that, but thought I would ask for outside perspective.

Understood, mererdog, no offense intended with the capitalization, just didn't know. Concrete is useful in situations, Dan. But in others, the ability to be flexible rules.

Do you seek concrete answers to our moral decisions, Mererdog? I don't think my morality is concrete.

Not always. Sometimes, though. Sometimes, I do something that I think is right, but still feel guilty for it. I think that comes from outside influences. But for the most part, if what I do doesn't make me feel guilty, I don't feel like it was the wrong thing to do. Sometimes I assume, but I regularly try to examine my assumptions for error, though I fully admit I probably miss some.

Because what I do suits my thoughts and desires as they fit into my idea of the society I live in. I don't go around hitting other people or stealing from them or doing other things that might enter my mind because I can understand rationally that if everyone did so, society wouldn't function as well as it does. Some of my thoughts on morality come from other places, other people that is, or groups, like the church. That is because I was brought up with those ideas. I don't follow ALL the ideas of the church because as I have grown as a human I have come to consider them myself, and TRY to be independently thinking about them. Ultimately, thought, how I tell what I do is right is comparison with what I feel is wrong. I think it's all an internal consideration by each of us. The guy down the street thinks it's right to take things out of the dumpster on a regular basis, and I see him down here daily digging through the trash. Another guy in town just got pinched for knocking off his neighbors house for drugs. Probably, they think they are right to do what they do. I can use compassion to understand that I wouldn't like it if someone walked up to me and slapped me in the face for no apparent reason, and so I try to apply that same principle to myself, if that makes sense. I am certain that at times I fail, but I try.