So annoyed was I at the attacks against the secular community by the pope when he visited the UK last week that I felt compelled to dig out and update my secular commandments. More info here:
[link]Basically it boils down to the fictitious reasoning that only religious people can be moral and good people because they have these rules they must follow in order to be considered a member of the community of faith in good standing.
We in the secular world have rules too, and if you break them you will be excommunicated from the community. In some instances it's because you've been thrown in jail and in others it's because people in your community and family will no longer speak to or trust you any more.
`ChewedKandi has certainly gone out of her way to keep the vector community on the right path. Always making sure that her talents are infinitely scalable, Sharon has put her bezier curves to excellent use, and firmly anchored herself as an inspirational leader. We're absolutely delighted to bestow the Deviousness Award for June 2013 to `ChewedKandi. Congratulations, Sharon! Read More
Sta.sh
But I appreciate your point- secularists aren't some kind of immoral league of ne'er-do-wells XD
[link]
you can critique mine, too
1. in my opinion, it's about HOW you debate, not where or when. If you're respectful and, if possible, even light and friendly about it, then debating should happen as often as possible. It's a much better way to erase ignorance. Of course, if the other person acts like a turd, drop it, but if they're respectful too, then it was probably helpful to everyone.
5. I DON'T BELIEVE IN RESPECT!!! \m/
6. NOT ALWAYS. I would say treat them just like you would treat any human being under the circumstances- if you are aware of the self-sacrifices they made or did not make, act accordingly. I am definitely going to remember my parents because they were very self-sacrificing and were wonderful parents, but in all honesty, I don't blame some kids for moving on and never looking back.
7. for any reason is a stretch. If there's a guy in your basement holding a gun to the head of your child and you have a knife, I would consider it understandable if you killed him. Same with self-defense.
(I really like #9, by the way.)
10. I don't understand this one... explain it to me?
11. I COMPLETELY DISAGREE. Desire is a beautiful and necessary part of the human experience- it is the step that precedes action, and action precedes experience, which is valuable! Desire WITHOUT action is kind of a negative thing, but the negativity stems from the lack of action, not the desire itself.
COME AT ME. ;D
1. The point of the first element is more about dealing with fantasy and the fantastical point of view we all have about the world. The wording though, that's the trick.
5. Respect is not comparable to critical thinking. They are modular of the correct composure.
6. Neglectful parents don't raise children. But note it says REMEMBER, not respect, not praise. It's about understanding your origins as much as paying tribute to those origins for good or bad.
7. No, I guess the world 'intend' should be stuffed into there. But there is no excuse for setting about to kill someone. I have a child and in that situation I would very quickly sacrifice myself in disabling the kidnapper as quickly as possible, perhaps even stabbing him. The difference is that once disabled I wouldn't wait for him to bleed to death.
10. This one is about saying "It's wrong, but not monstrous to lie to get someone out of jail; but it's is NOT OK to lie to put someone into jail."
11. It doesn't say desire is bad, or wanting new things, new ideas or even pleasure is a problem. The key to 11. is in the way one human being looks at another human being's property and envies it. Causing distress, jealousy and from this preoccupation with inequality breeds many social ills.
6. When you say "remember," you imply more than simply thinking about your origins.
7. There is NO excuse for setting about to kill someone? What if the person is about to commit mass genocide? Silly rabbit, absolutes are for kids!
10. Ah, I see! I agree with you there. Although I can, as always, imagine few exceptions where that wouldn't be true. MORAL RELATIVITY, MY BOY
11. yes, but read my first notation on this- the desire itself isn't the problem, it's the way one goes about it. number 11 says you should be happy with what you have, which is saying don't desire more.
6. That's a wording error you've brought in. But worth considering if the wording would be made to mean what it should to more people.
7. Kids are working their way through moral escapism OTOH a justification for immoral behaviour is not an excuse for refusing to deal with the consequences and by inviting moral relativism as an adult you abscond with the very notion that certain actions have these consequences. I consider relativism a stepping stone back to a more wise and discretionary absolute philosophy.
10. See 7. Although knowing that vile figures have been put behind bars for tax evasion; one could argue the case. But then you'd set yourself up as judge on cases that you may know know all the facts.
11. Happiness is not contentment (why has society become so dumbed down with it's English use) being happy that you have half a meal is possible, while desiring to have a full meal. Happiness doesn't have to distract one's ambition. right now though we don't modulate our design against what we really internally desire; but against what others around us have. It's a biological thing that may be cured in the future
7. it's not a justification for immoral behavior- in that case, it was the moral thing to do. It's moral, but only relative to the situation.
11. again, your wording implied something very different. And I have no problem with unhappiness or incontinence with one's current situation. I think it's a necessary part of life without which many people's lives wouldn't improve.
7. No, killing someone might be considered just, but it can never be considered moral. Justice is a matter of relative and more importantly, social consensus. While morality is principle and involves personal responsibility. So, you may kill someone in a just situation; but making reparations to their family or regretting needing to is a moral consequence. What bugs me about relative moral thinking is that is dissolves principle in favour of excusing and responsibility especially since human brains are awfully good at retrospective rationalisation.