Yes, this is another topic on atheism vs morality, but this is looking at it from another angle which I haven't seen here yet (maybe there is).

Most theists view atheists has animals not on leash, some here even call them Satanists, they're seen as people that will do any evil so long it satisfies their selfish desire. most theists will summarize atheists "morality" as:
"I will fu*ck you up if it profits me"

Let me at this juncture list the levels of morality in ascending order.

1. I will F you up because I can, it's fun (psychopathic).
2. I will F you up if it satisfies my desire for wealth, power, fame etc (Selfish).
3. I will F you up only if you F me up first (Revenge).
4. I will not F you up even if you F me up first but I will not be beneficial to you.
5. Not only will I not F you up even if you F me up first, I will be beneficial to you if the opportunity comes my way.
6. Not only will I not F you up even if you F me up first, I will go out of my way to help you if you need help.

Let me give an example to make this clear.

You are happily married to a gorgeous wife you loved dearly with two adorable kids and you have a good friend who you view as your BFF.

Well, it turns out your gorgeous wife and BFF have been having an affair for years and your adorable kids are actually not yours but your BFF's. Now, since the secret is out already, your wife(with the kids of course) moved in with your friend and they lived happily without feeling any remorse for what they've done, leaving you hanging.

As fate will have it, some months later, an opportunity comes your way in which you can choose any of three options (A, B or C).

If you choose A (Level 3)
- It will completely bankrupt your friend, and it will take years (if ever) to recover.
- It takes the very least amount of effort.
- It can not to traced back to you unless you decide to tell them (your friend and ex wife) to spite them.

If you choose B (Level 4)
- Choosing option B is letting the opportunity pass by ie not making use of the opportunity.

If you choose C (Level 5)
- It will make your friend rich.
- You will have to take some actions (nothing tedious) to make this work.
- They will not know you were the one that orchestrated their wealth, they will not even ever believe you if you tell them.

Now, how will an atheist justify not picking option A (revenge)?
How will he justify picking B or C (especially C)?

As a Spiritist, I can justify picking option C, how?
I believe in the law of cause and effect (sowing and reaping). I believe the Universe is set up in such a way that their is no way you will do evil and not have it come back to you sooner or later and likewise good.

So I can reason thus;
-My friend and ex wife had sowed a seed of bad and sooner or later they will reap the harvest.
-If I choose option A, I'm also sowing a bad seed and sooner or later I will also reap the harvest.
-If I choose option B, I am letting pass by a great opportunity to sow a good seed.
-If I choose option C, I will be sowing a good seed and I will reap the harvest sooner or later.

It may very well be that there is no such law as the law of sowing and reaping (I believe there is) but that is not the point here, the point is what kind of society would we have if large number of people believe this and live by it.

Are there reasons atheists can give to justify moving up the morality scale above from level 3 to 4, 5 and 6.

SAND MANDALA
In Tibet Buddhism, the monks produce a form of art called Sand Mandala. They use varying colored sand to produce highly detailed, beautiful and intricate geometric patterns.
They often spend days even weeks to produce this mandala because it takes a lot of skill and patience to produce.

After the Mandala is completed, they admirer it for some minutes, then they dismantle it without showing it off, taking a picture or video(as memorabilia). They do this to remind themselves of the impermanence nature of all things and not to get attached to anything.

MORAL MANDALA
Moral mandala is to be moral not because a God said so or for the fear of hell or the greed for heaven but to be moral for morality sake, to be moral because humans are capable of it and if humanity is to survive for long this is what we should all be doing.

The concept of moral mandala invites us to drop our selfish, business like, Fear -Greed morality for a selfless morality for humanity's sake.

A philosophical school of thought that has been using this concept of moral mandala since ancient Greece is Stoicism.
Stoics like Zeno, Seneca, Marcur Aurelius etc spent more than half of their life developing their morality and ethics even though they do not believe in afterlife or karma.

So what is the point of all the hardwork they put into developing and becoming a better human being if when they're dead it is over, they're deleted forever (the beautiful and highly detailed mandala is dismantled)?

To them, the individual self is the mandala and they thrive the create the individual self as a beautiful mandala as they possible can not for their sake (because the individual life will be over soon) but as an example for humanity, an example of the great moral state humanity can reach if we could just drop our selfishness.

This is why I admire the morality of Marcus Aurelius (a Stoic) more than the morality of mother Theresa (catholic). Marcus Aurelius is moral for humanity's sake while mother Theresa is (not sure) moral for heaven's sake.
And to be moral for humanity's sake is the purest kind of morality because it is devoid of self.

I sometimes wish I do not believe in afterlife or karma to access this selfless kind of morality, to be good because it's good for humanity and not for personal gain. So I tend to focus on the now happiness of the person recieving the good than the reciprocal effect of the good being done.

In conclusion, an atheist can not only be moral but has more access than a theist to a purer form of morality if he/she views his/her life as an opportunity to make a beautiful mandala for humanity's sake.

Whatever reason one finds for doing good doesn't matter . What matters is that we are good to those around us because at the end of the day it benefits us more, whether moral mandala or God.



Not many persons will bother to confirm first the motivation behind any act of kindness shown to them before showing gratitude.

It's more important to focus on the good in doing good and receiving it from whoever, than on the motive behind it. Any other thing is for the purist to debate on.

And it's your personal opinion that mother Theresa is what you described her to be . The thousands of people ,who benefited from her act of kindness, rate her differently and that's because they received real life saving help from her and not just the reason behind the help .

A good person is a good person wherever you find him.

Erm..

It's simply humans being whatever they choose to be.

Atheist or Theist, a crazy human is a crazy human. A murderous madperson will be just that, no matter the label he fancies to call himself.

Humans can do and be anything and everything. Crazy set of creatures that they... smh

triplechoice:
Whatever reason one finds for doing good doesn't matter . What matters is that we are good to those around us because at the end of the day it benefits us more, whether moral mandala or God.



Not many persons will bother to confirm first the motivation behind any act of kindness shown to them before showing gratitude.

It's more important to focus on the good in doing good and receiving it from whoever, than on the motive behind it. Any other thing is for the purist to debate on.

And it's your personal opinion that mother Theresa is what you described her to be . The thousands of people ,who benefited from her act of kindness, rate her differently and that's because they received real life saving help from her and not just the reason behind the help .

A good person is a good person wherever you find him.

Who defines what is good?
Thats the question

Lesbianism and homosexuality is now "good" in some countries.
Does that make it good here?

T

triplechoice:
Whatever reason one finds for doing good doesn't matter . What matters is that we are good to those around us because at the end of the day it benefits us more, whether moral mandala or God.



Not many persons will bother to confirm first the motivation behind any act of kindness shown to them before showing gratitude.

It's more important to focus on the good in doing good and receiving it from whoever, than on the motive behind it. Any other thing is for the purist to debate on.

And it's your personal opinion that mother Theresa is what you described her to be . The thousands of people ,who benefited from her act of kindness, rate her differently and that's because they received real life saving help from her and not just the reason behind the help .

A good person is a good person wherever you find him.

@bolded

Of course a rich man could build hospital and charity organisation with the wrong motive (maybe fame or political ambition) and people will still be better off with it than without it.
But it will be much better for the people to be the end rather than a mean to an end.

As a said earlier, I'm not sure about mother Teresa's intention.

correctguy101:


Erm..

It's simply humans being whatever they choose to be.

Atheist or Theist, a crazy human is a crazy human. A murderous madperson will be just that, no matter the label he fancies to call himself.

Humans can do and be anything and everything. Crazy set of creatures that they... smh

Exactly, but most people (especially theists) are hung up with the labels.

Blitzerz:


Who defines what is good?
Thats the question

Lesbianism and homosexuality is now "good" in some countries.
Does that make it good here?

T

Nobody defines good or bad, it is the effect from the action that does (whether it meets our ideal or not).

For example, we've the ideal of building a peaceful and loving society, now, we decide to make theft lawful, will the effect from making theft lawful meets/accomplish our ideal? No, therefore theft is bad.

Lesbianism and homosexuality is now "good" because the countries do not see any effect from it that undermines their ideal.

What effects do you think come from homosexuality that threaten our ideal to build a peaceful and loving society?

triplechoice:
Whatever reason one finds for doing good doesn't matter . What matters is that we are good to those around us because at the end of the day it benefits us more, whether moral mandala or God.



Not many persons will bother to confirm first the motivation behind any act of kindness shown to them before showing gratitude.

It's more important to focus on the good in doing good and receiving it from whoever, than on the motive behind it. Any other thing is for the purist to debate on.

And it's your personal opinion that mother Theresa is what you described her to be . The thousands of people ,who benefited from her act of kindness, rate her differently and that's because they received real life saving help from her and not just the reason behind the help .

A good person is a good person wherever you find him.

This is my position as well. I find I am less bothered by why people do good things than that they do it at all. Your motivations for doing good will not make you superior or inferior to some other person who has a different motivation.

Blitzerz:


Who defines what is good?
Thats the question

Lesbianism and homosexuality is now "good" in some countries.
Does that make it good here?

T

Sexual actions between 2 or more consenting adults are (generally) good irrespective of their sexual orientation may be because of that magic word CONSENT.

LordReed:


This is my position as well. I find I am less bothered by why people do good things than that they do it at all.Your motivations for doing good will not make you superior or inferior to some other person who has a different motivation.

Exactly .

justlove91:


@bolded

Of course a rich man could build hospital and charity organisation with the wrong motive (maybe fame or political ambition) and people will still be better off with it than without it.
But it will be much better for the people to be the end rather than a mean to an end.

As a said earlier, I'm not sure about mother Teresa's intention.

Please be clear about the bolded .

triplechoice:

Please be clear about the bolded .

What I mean by that in the context of the example is that the rich man ought to build the hospital or charity organisation simply for the improved health and living condition the people will get, that is making the people the end.
Rather than taking those actions as a stepping stone on the way to his end (political power or fame), that is making the people the means to an end.

LordReed:


This is my position as well. I find I am less bothered by why people do good things than that they do it at all. Your motivations for doing good will not make you superior or inferior to some other person who has a different motivation.

This is not about feeling superior or inferior, it's about making the good an end in itself and not as a means to an end.

Would you rather give money to a hungry beggar on the street because you don't him to go hungry (at least for the moment) or would you rather give because, then you can post it on your page and it will boost your fame and followers?
Of course, either way the beggar will not go hungry but which motive do you think he would prefer it rather be?

justlove91:


This is not about feeling superior or inferior, it's about making the good an end in itself and not as a means to an end.

Would you rather give money to a hungry beggar on the street because you don't him to go hungry (at least for the moment) or would you rather give because, then you can post it on your page and it will boost your fame and followers?
Of course, either way the beggar will not go hungry but which motive do you think he would prefer it rather be?

The more pertinent question is would the beggar care about why I gave the money? Of course not.

triplechoice:

Exactly .

You see, motive is very important because if a good is used as a means to an end and the end is not realised, people tend to destroy the good. Let me give two examples.

These happened to two of my friends.

1. The laptop charger of a friend got spoilt so it became stressful to charge her laptop because she has to wait for others to finish charging and the light was not stable.
This guy offered (she didn't ask him to) to buy her a charger with the intention that through that she will agree to his advances.
When the guy got rejected again after buying the charger, he angrily collected the charger back and destroyed it to spite her.

2. She was out on the street, it was about to rain. A guy offered to give her a lift but with the intention of getting her number. After driving for some minutes, it starts to rain, one thing lead to another, he asked for her number, she declined, and can you guess what the guy did? He dropped her on the road while it was still raining.

Those guys used the "good" as a means to an end but when the end was not achieved they destroyed the good.

LordReed:


The more pertinent question is would the beggar care about why I gave the money? Of course not.

He would not care but he wound prefer you had treated him as a person.

And it is more than that, see my reply to triplechoice above

LordReed:


Sexual actions between 2 or more consenting adults are (generally) good irrespective of their sexual orientation may be because of that magic word CONSENT.

But years ago it wasnt good.
Neither was it moral.
Likewise, one day, killing will be good.
So long as Consent is there.

Blitzerz:


But years ago it wasnt good.
Neither was it moral.
Likewise, one day, killing will be good.
So long as Consent is there.

Which year was that? It has always being the case except for prudes like you.

The government legally kills people with our passive consent, all those people who are executed by hanging, I don't hear you complaining about that.

justlove91:


He would not care but he wound prefer you had treated him as a person.

And it is more than that, see my reply to triplechoice above

How would he know I didn't treat him like a person after I gave him succor?

justlove91:


Nobody defines good or bad,

False.
If so, the word wont even be in the dictionary

justlove91:


it is the effect from the action that does (whether it meets our ideal or not).

For example, we've the ideal of building a peaceful and loving society, now, we decide to make theft lawful, will the effect from making theft lawful meets/accomplish our ideal? No, therefore theft is bad.

Who decides?
This part of your submission calls for a need to revisit history.
When the early civilizations were building the foundations of government, they didnt just decide.
They consulted spirituality.
From Rome, to Egypt, Babylon etc

They didnt just decide.
The earliest british laws were gotten from the bible etc.

justlove91:

Lesbianism and homosexuality is now "good" because the countries do not see any effect from it that undermines their ideal.


What effects do you think come from homosexuality that threaten our ideal to build a peaceful and loving society?

Here is how I will answer this;

If a man gives you consent to take his life,
Will you go ahead?

If you cant then you are pretending based on the above

LordReed:


Which year was that? It has always being the case except for prudes like you.

The government legally kills people with our passive consent, all those people who are executed by hanging, I don't hear you complaining about that.

So you havent heard people against killing and death sentence?
That shows you only listen to yourself

For the homosexuality,
Use your google.
Homosexuality was decriminalized as recent as 2003 even in part of USA.
It used to be criminal even in America.

LordReed:


This is my position as well. I find I am less bothered by why people do good things than that they do it at all. Your motivations for doing good will not make you superior or inferior to some other person who has a different motivation.

Interesting. You should probably have this same disposition when people believe or serve God, whether because of fear or love. Motive is very important in some cases though.

Nice one on morality for its own sake. Also I now know about the sand mandala, thanks.

On Marcus Aurelius, we can't factually talk about his level of morality.

All we have is his journal - Mediation - more like a musing to himself, trying to clarify and deepen his ideals.

On Mother Theresa of Calcutta, the depth of dirt that woman went in bringing relief to many, even with heaven as the prize, many won't do it. Motive is best known by the doer.

Also, the Stoics aren't atheist. In mediation, Marcus Aurelius, often makes mention of the divine. Often rendered as gods, God, nature. Also, after reading the Meditation the take away won't be that he doesn't believe in an afterlife. Same in the Discourse of Epictetus, Same with the letters of Seneca.


With Love.

justlove91:
Yes, this is another topic on atheism vs morality, but this is looking at it from another angle which I haven't seen here yet (maybe there is).

Most theists view atheists has animals not on leash, some here even call them Satanists, they're seen as people that will do any evil so long it satisfies their selfish desire. most theists will summarize atheists "morality" as:
"I will fu*ck you up if it profits me"

Let me at this juncture list the levels of morality in ascending order.

1. I will F you up because I can, it's fun (psychopathic).
2. I will F you up if it satisfies my desire for wealth, power, fame etc (Selfish).
3. I will F you up only if you F me up first (Revenge).
4. I will not F you up even if you F me up first but I will not be beneficial to you.
5. Not only will I not F you up even if you F me up first, I will be beneficial to you if the opportunity comes my way.
6. Not only will I not F you up even if you F me up first, I will go out of my way to help you if you need help.

Let me give an example to make this clear.

You are happily married to a gorgeous wife you loved dearly with two adorable kids and you have a good friend who you view as your BFF.

Well, it turns out your gorgeous wife and BFF have been having an affair for years and your adorable kids are actually not yours but your BFF's. Now, since the secret is out already, your wife(with the kids of course) moved in with your friend and they lived happily without feeling any remorse for what they've done, leaving you hanging.

As fate will have it, some months later, an opportunity comes your way in which you can choose any of three options (A, B or C).

If you choose A (Level 3)
- It will completely bankrupt your friend, and it will take years (if ever) to recover.
- It takes the very least amount of effort.
- It can not to traced back to you unless you decide to tell them (your friend and ex wife) to spite them.

If you choose B (Level 4)
- Choosing option B is letting the opportunity pass by ie not making use of the opportunity.

If you choose C (Level 5)
- It will make your friend rich.
- You will have to take some actions (nothing tedious) to make this work.
- They will not know you were the one that orchestrated their wealth, they will not even ever believe you if you tell them.

Now, how will an atheist justify not picking option A (revenge)?
How will he justify picking B or C (especially C)?

As a Spiritist, I can justify picking option C, how?
I believe in the law of cause and effect (sowing and reaping). I believe the Universe is set up in such a way that their is no way you will do evil and not have it come back to you sooner or later and likewise good.

So I can reason thus;
-My friend and ex wife had sowed a seed of bad and sooner or later they will reap the harvest.
-If I choose option A, I'm also sowing a bad seed and sooner or later I will also reap the harvest.
-If I choose option B, I am letting pass by a great opportunity to sow a good seed.
-If I choose option C, I will be sowing a good seed and I will reap the harvest sooner or later.

It may very well be that there is no such law as the law of sowing and reaping (I believe there is) but that is not the point here, the point is what kind of society would we have if large number of people believe this and live by it.

Are there reasons atheists can give to justify moving up the morality scale above from level 3 to 4, 5 and 6.

SAND MANDALA
In Tibet Buddhism, the monks produce a form of art called Sand Mandala. They use varying colored sand to produce highly detailed, beautiful and intricate geometric patterns.
They often spend days even weeks to produce this mandala because it takes a lot of skill and patience to produce.

After the Mandala is completed, they admirer it for some minutes, then they dismantle it without showing it off, taking a picture or video(as memorabilia). They do this to remind themselves of the impermanence nature of all things and not to get attached to anything.

MORAL MANDALA
Moral mandala is to be moral not because a God said so or for the fear of hell or the greed for heaven but to be moral for morality sake, to be moral because humans are capable of it and if humanity is to survive for long this is what we should all be doing.

The concept of moral mandala invites us to drop our selfish, business like, Fear -Greed morality for a selfless morality for humanity's sake.

A philosophical school of thought that has been using this concept of moral mandala since ancient Greece is Stoicism.
Stoics like Zeno, Seneca, Marcur Aurelius etc spent more than half of their life developing their morality and ethics even though they do not believe in afterlife or karma.

So what is the point of all the hardwork they put into developing and becoming a better human being if when they're dead it is over, they're deleted forever (the beautiful and highly detailed mandala is dismantled)?

To them, the individual self is the mandala and they thrive the create the individual self as a beautiful mandala as they possible can not for their sake (because the individual life will be over soon) but as an example for humanity, an example of the great moral state humanity can reach if we could just drop our selfishness.

This is why I admire the morality of Marcus Aurelius (a Stoic) more than the morality of mother Theresa (catholic). Marcus Aurelius is moral for humanity's sake while mother Theresa is (not sure) moral for heaven's sake.
And to be moral for humanity's sake is the purest kind of morality because it is devoid of self.

I sometimes wish I do not believe in afterlife or karma to access this selfless kind of morality, to be good because it's good for humanity and not for personal gain. So I tend to focus on the now happiness of the person recieving the good than the reciprocal effect of the good being done.

In conclusion, an atheist can not only be moral but has more access than a theist to a purer form of morality if he/she views his/her life as an opportunity to make a beautiful mandala for humanity's sake.

LordReed:


How would he know I didn't treat him like a person after I gave him succor?

Why are we even discussing this, it is a no brainer that the intention that prompted a giving is as important as what was given.

Let's assume your business is failing, which of these friends would you accept help from (assuming you know their intentions).

1. Sees it as an opportunity he can later use to boast in your face that he was the one that saved you from bankruptcy.
2. Wanted to help because he valued your friendship and doesn't want to see you bankrupt.

Blitzerz:



So you havent heard people against killing and death sentence?
That shows you only listen to yourself

For the homosexuality,
Use your google.
Homosexuality was decriminalized as recent as 2003 even in part of USA.
It used to be criminal even in America.

I know there are people against the death sentence I was talking about you specifically since it was you who brought up consent in regards to killing and I showed you there is already consent with regards to killing.

Your error is you think something being legal or illegal makes it good or bad. Those 2 concept pairs are not always synonymous.

Nice one on morality for its own sake. Also I now know about the sand mandala, thanks.

On Marcus Aurelius, we can't factually talk about his level of morality.

All we have is his journal - Meditation - more like a musing to himself, trying to clarify and deepen his ideals.

On Mother Theresa of Calcutta, the depth of dirt that woman went in bringing relief to many, even with heaven as the prize, many won't do it. Motive is best known by the doer.

Also, the Stoics aren't atheists. In meditation, Marcus Aurelius, often makes mention of the divine. Often rendered as gods, God, nature. Also, after reading the Meditation the take away won't be that he doesn't believe in an afterlife. Same in the Discourse of Epictetus, Same with the letters of Seneca.

Are there moral atheists, moral even according to the standards of christian morality? Yes they are.

Though I won't go as far as looking at who has a purer motive. I will rather compare on a one to one basis.

Which in fact, my comparison will be limited, because I can't see what one's motive is. My assessment may be tainted by my personal lens.


With Love.

justlove91:
Yes, this is another topic on atheism vs morality, but this is looking at it from another angle which I haven't seen here yet (maybe there is).

Most theists view atheists has animals not on leash, some here even call them Satanists, they're seen as people that will do any evil so long it satisfies their selfish desire. most theists will summarize atheists "morality" as:
"I will fu*ck you up if it profits me"

Let me at this juncture list the levels of morality in ascending order.

1. I will F you up because I can, it's fun (psychopathic).
2. I will F you up if it satisfies my desire for wealth, power, fame etc (Selfish).
3. I will F you up only if you F me up first (Revenge).
4. I will not F you up even if you F me up first but I will not be beneficial to you.
5. Not only will I not F you up even if you F me up first, I will be beneficial to you if the opportunity comes my way.
6. Not only will I not F you up even if you F me up first, I will go out of my way to help you if you need help.

Let me give an example to make this clear.

You are happily married to a gorgeous wife you loved dearly with two adorable kids and you have a good friend who you view as your BFF.

Well, it turns out your gorgeous wife and BFF have been having an affair for years and your adorable kids are actually not yours but your BFF's. Now, since the secret is out already, your wife(with the kids of course) moved in with your friend and they lived happily without feeling any remorse for what they've done, leaving you hanging.

As fate will have it, some months later, an opportunity comes your way in which you can choose any of three options (A, B or C).

If you choose A (Level 3)
- It will completely bankrupt your friend, and it will take years (if ever) to recover.
- It takes the very least amount of effort.
- It can not to traced back to you unless you decide to tell them (your friend and ex wife) to spite them.

If you choose B (Level 4)
- Choosing option B is letting the opportunity pass by ie not making use of the opportunity.

If you choose C (Level 5)
- It will make your friend rich.
- You will have to take some actions (nothing tedious) to make this work.
- They will not know you were the one that orchestrated their wealth, they will not even ever believe you if you tell them.

Now, how will an atheist justify not picking option A (revenge)?
How will he justify picking B or C (especially C)?

As a Spiritist, I can justify picking option C, how?
I believe in the law of cause and effect (sowing and reaping). I believe the Universe is set up in such a way that their is no way you will do evil and not have it come back to you sooner or later and likewise good.

So I can reason thus;
-My friend and ex wife had sowed a seed of bad and sooner or later they will reap the harvest.
-If I choose option A, I'm also sowing a bad seed and sooner or later I will also reap the harvest.
-If I choose option B, I am letting pass by a great opportunity to sow a good seed.
-If I choose option C, I will be sowing a good seed and I will reap the harvest sooner or later.

It may very well be that there is no such law as the law of sowing and reaping (I believe there is) but that is not the point here, the point is what kind of society would we have if large number of people believe this and live by it.

Are there reasons atheists can give to justify moving up the morality scale above from level 3 to 4, 5 and 6.

SAND MANDALA
In Tibet Buddhism, the monks produce a form of art called Sand Mandala. They use varying colored sand to produce highly detailed, beautiful and intricate geometric patterns.
They often spend days even weeks to produce this mandala because it takes a lot of skill and patience to produce.

After the Mandala is completed, they admirer it for some minutes, then they dismantle it without showing it off, taking a picture or video(as memorabilia). They do this to remind themselves of the impermanence nature of all things and not to get attached to anything.

MORAL MANDALA
Moral mandala is to be moral not because a God said so or for the fear of hell or the greed for heaven but to be moral for morality sake, to be moral because humans are capable of it and if humanity is to survive for long this is what we should all be doing.

The concept of moral mandala invites us to drop our selfish, business like, Fear -Greed morality for a selfless morality for humanity's sake.

A philosophical school of thought that has been using this concept of moral mandala since ancient Greece is Stoicism.
Stoics like Zeno, Seneca, Marcur Aurelius etc spent more than half of their life developing their morality and ethics even though they do not believe in afterlife or karma.

So what is the point of all the hardwork they put into developing and becoming a better human being if when they're dead it is over, they're deleted forever (the beautiful and highly detailed mandala is dismantled)?

To them, the individual self is the mandala and they thrive the create the individual self as a beautiful mandala as they possible can not for their sake (because the individual life will be over soon) but as an example for humanity, an example of the great moral state humanity can reach if we could just drop our selfishness.

This is why I admire the morality of Marcus Aurelius (a Stoic) more than the morality of mother Theresa (catholic). Marcus Aurelius is moral for humanity's sake while mother Theresa is (not sure) moral for heaven's sake.
And to be moral for humanity's sake is the purest kind of morality because it is devoid of self.

I sometimes wish I do not believe in afterlife or karma to access this selfless kind of morality, to be good because it's good for humanity and not for personal gain. So I tend to focus on the now happiness of the person recieving the good than the reciprocal effect of the good being done.

In conclusion, an atheist can not only be moral but has more access than a theist to a purer form of morality if he/she views his/her life as an opportunity to make a beautiful mandala for humanity's sake.

justlove91:


Why are we even discussing this, it is a no brainer that the intention that prompted a giving is as important as what was given.

Let's assume your business is failing, which of these friends would you accept help from (assuming you know their intentions).

1. Sees it as an opportunity he can later use to boast in your face that he was the one that saved you from bankruptcy.
2. Wanted to help because he valued your friendship and doesn't want to see you bankrupt.

How am I supposed to know this before I make a choice? I will read their minds?

Also what I prefer is irrelevant to the question which is does the good being done change because of the doer's motivations?

Blitzerz:


False.
If so, the word wont even be in the dictionary





Who decides?
This part of your submission calls for a need to revisit history.
When the early civilizations were building the foundations of government, they didnt just decide.
They consulted spirituality.
From Rome, to Egypt, Babylon etc

They didnt just decide.
The earliest british laws were gotten from the bible etc.



Here is how I will answer this;

If a man gives you [b]consent to take his life,
Will you go ahead?[/b]

If you cant then you are pretending based on the above

So they consulted the bible before they abolish slavery??

@bolded
Remember in my reply to you, I didn't mention consent but effect.
To answer your question, have you heard of Euthanasia? In case you haven't Euthanasia refers to the practice of intentionally ending the life of a person or animal to relieve suffering, typically in cases of severe illness, pain, or incurable conditions.

LordReed:


I know there are people against the death sentence I was talking about you specifically since it was you who brought up consent in regards to killing and I showed you there is already consent with regards to killing.

Your error is you think something being legal or illegal makes it good or bad. Those 2 concept pairs are not always synonymous.

I forgot this earlier,
POC:
You cant give consent over another adults life.

Also,
I am not confusing legal with good.
I only want to point out to you that one of the basis for deciding illegal things is morality.
From the early societies till now.

justlove91:


So they consulted the bible before they abolish slavery??

Google who championed the abolition of slavery.?

justlove91:

@bolded
Remember in my reply to you, I didn't mention consent but effect.
To answer your question, have you heard of Euthanasia? In case you haven't Euthanasia refers to the practice of intentionally ending the life of a person or animal to relieve suffering, typically in cases of severe illness, pain, or incurable conditions.

So let me ask you.
Is euthanasia good?
Or bad?
Also is abortion after sex good or evil?

Answer for yourself.

Anjinsan:

Nice one on morality for its own sake. Also I now know about the sand mandala, thanks.

On Marcus Aurelius, we can't factually talk about his level of morality.

All we have is his journal - Mediation - more like a musing to himself, trying to clarify and deepen his ideals.

On Mother Theresa of Calcutta, the depth of dirt that woman went in bringing relief to many, even with heaven as the prize, many won't do it. Motive is best known by the doer.

Also, the Stoics aren't atheist. In mediation, Marcus Aurelius, often makes mention of the divine. Often rendered as gods, God, nature. Also, after reading the Meditation the take away won't be that he doesn't believe in an afterlife. Same in the Discourse of Epictetus, Same with the letters of Seneca.


With Love.

But you agree the god of the stoic is not the same as religious god. Their god is more of an Einstein god and like you rightly mentioned they sometimes refer to it is nature.

And I don't undermine the work done by mother Teresa for humanity.

Blitzerz:

I forgot this earlier,
POC:
You cant give consent over another adults life.

Also,
I am not confusing legal with good.
I only want to point out to you that one of the basis for deciding illegal things is morality.
From the early societies till now.

But by participating in society you give consent to be ruled by the laws of the society which includes that death penalty.

No it is not. The basis for law is an attempt to impose order so that society doesn't descend into chaos. What we find is both morality and law seem to achieve the seem ends in certain matters but that doesn't mean they are the same nor does it mean one is the basis for the other.

You can't compare the complexities of interaction in more modern societies with earlier ones. Traffic laws for instance have nothing to do with morality.