Philosophy Now Forum

commonsense wrote: ↑Sat Jun 06, 2020 9:22 pm

gaffo wrote: ↑Sat Jun 06, 2020 9:04 pm

commonsense wrote: ↑Sat Jun 06, 2020 3:20 pm

An atheist’s conscience wouldn’t require observation of religious rules.

not so Sir. an atheist should know the rule of Judaism/Kosher - and etc, before judging a Jew's actions.

their "rules" are a part of their culture (not their conscience) - if their rule conflicted with thier conscience, they would (if a good person AND not a coward - would act in toward their conscience, and throw out the rule) - and a smart athiest will educated himself about Judaism (which i personally have for 30 yr now - and an Athiest too BTW)..............just saying an dumb pigheaded Athiest shouting from the roof of his trailer home about the evils of Jews and Jewish Rules.............while knowing nothing of Judaism - is a full bore foolish dick.

BTW the Torah is not the greatest Jewish work (yes i know blasphemy! - nor did moses write it -yes burn me, i am a heretic per Judasim!..........

Amos, Job and Jonah are the the three greatest works of the Old Testament - offer more wisdom by order of 10 than the lesser not quite crap (after you remove the politics - "jews have the land because those living there before us were evil and only worthy of death/replacement by us" torah

I am not claiming that an atheist has no reason to be educated about religion. I am only saying that whatever rules an atheist’s conscience would have him follow, those rules would not be based purely on religious principles.

Shalom!

and vise versa via religious principles for Jews/Muslims...etc should likewise not overule the conscience of their beleivers! when in confict.

gaffo wrote: ↑Sat Jun 06, 2020 9:45 pm

commonsense wrote: ↑Sat Jun 06, 2020 9:22 pm

gaffo wrote: ↑Sat Jun 06, 2020 9:04 pm

not so Sir. an atheist should know the rule of Judaism/Kosher - and etc, before judging a Jew's actions.

their "rules" are a part of their culture (not their conscience) - if their rule conflicted with thier conscience, they would (if a good person AND not a coward - would act in toward their conscience, and throw out the rule) - and a smart athiest will educated himself about Judaism (which i personally have for 30 yr now - and an Athiest too BTW)..............just saying an dumb pigheaded Athiest shouting from the roof of his trailer home about the evils of Jews and Jewish Rules.............while knowing nothing of Judaism - is a full bore foolish dick.

BTW the Torah is not the greatest Jewish work (yes i know blasphemy! - nor did moses write it -yes burn me, i am a heretic per Judasim!..........

Amos, Job and Jonah are the the three greatest works of the Old Testament - offer more wisdom by order of 10 than the lesser not quite crap (after you remove the politics - "jews have the land because those living there before us were evil and only worthy of death/replacement by us" torah

I am not claiming that an atheist has no reason to be educated about religion. I am only saying that whatever rules an atheist’s conscience would have him follow, those rules would not be based purely on religious principles.

Shalom!

and vise versa via religious principles for Jews/Muslims...etc should likewise not overule the conscience of their beleivers! when in confict.

I can agree to that.

commonsense wrote: ↑Sat Jun 06, 2020 9:15 pm

gaffo wrote: ↑Sat Jun 06, 2020 8:41 pm

commonsense wrote: ↑Fri Jun 05, 2020 6:58 pm Consider this: there are Muslims and Jews who avoid eating pork because their religion says so and their conscience dictates that they adhere to religious rules. An atheist’s conscience wouldn’t require observance of such rules.

not so black and white.

consider this, if the Jew or Muslim was found in the down and out, and a Christian offered then pork stew - would they deny it out of religious observances, or eat the stew out of the spirit of charity (stranger offering stew to the Jew in need).

I think the Jew or Muslim would eat pork and subsequently feel remorseful. They might rationalize that their religion would permit them to eat pork in order to survive. But they would recognize their rationalization for what it was: an excuse to break the rules, and thusly feel uncomfortable anyway about breaking those rules.

Exactly! and to honour the stranger offering bread to the the down and out, they would affirm the conscience, and say to themselve "i know YHWH/Allah mandates to not eat pork, but he also mandates to honour the stranger. and so would accept the charity, eat the port and make amends via prayer later.

IMO, i think your opinion of what they would do is a reasonable one, and so we are in agreement.


thanks for the reasoned reply.

commonsense wrote: ↑Sat Jun 06, 2020 3:09 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sat Jun 06, 2020 12:40 am
Because unlike you I do not see that everyone has their own individual consciences.

And whilst you hold this belief, then it 'has to' be true, right, and correct, for you?

Drop the sarcasm.

What sarcasm?

There was and is absolutely NO sarcasm intended.

commonsense wrote: ↑Sat Jun 06, 2020 3:09 pm When you said that you “do not see...” you said as much as you don’t believe...

This could not be further from thee Truth.

To me, to believe or to disbelieve something is very different from seeing or not seeing something.

I can very easily and very simply see, or not see, something but still be OPEN to that not being correct. But, if I am to believe, or disbelieve, something, then that has to be correct, to me.

commonsense wrote: ↑Sat Jun 06, 2020 3:09 pm So, whilst you do not see, it has to be correct for you, eh?

Yes, as far as I can see/tell this is correct. But this certainly does not mean that it is correct. Whereas, if I were to believe it is correct, which I do not, then it would have to be correct.

From what I have seen/experienced, then 'what I am saying' is correct, but it is not necessarily so.

commonsense wrote: ↑Sat Jun 06, 2020 3:20 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sat Jun 06, 2020 12:46 am

commonsense wrote: ↑Fri Jun 05, 2020 6:58 pm An atheist’s conscience wouldn’t require observance of such rules.

But a so called "atheist's" "conscience" would require observance of rules, correct?

An atheist’s conscience wouldn’t require observation of religious rules.

Well that would be and is rather obvious, and would not need saying, from my perspective. But, my question was not in relation to what you said here in any way at all. My question was and is; A so called "atheist's" "conscience" would require observance of rules, correct?

commonsense wrote: ↑Sat Jun 06, 2020 3:20 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sat Jun 06, 2020 12:46 am By the way, to me there are NO rules in Life, and as such there are NO laws. Obviously, of course, other than those human being made up rules and laws. There is, however, one Lore, which Conscience, Itself, dictates, and which if followed, then we would all already be live in peace and harmony together. But this is for another discussion.

That would be utopia.

gaffo wrote: ↑Sat Jun 06, 2020 7:48 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sun May 31, 2020 2:04 am

commonsense wrote: ↑Sun May 31, 2020 12:22 am

Those who have no shame, have no conscience.

Or, do they actually have a Conscience, but they just choose to ignore It?

commonsence is right here:

Those who have no shame, have no conscience

Hitler/Pol Pot/all Pychopaths have no shame, and cannot fell it, because they killed their conscience (they were born with a conscience and were normal kids like all other kids - but sometime before adulthood - they did not have their "moral genes" activated (child abuse is the usual reason

So, to you, ALL children are born with a conscience (yet unknown if that conscience is the same for EVERY new born or different, to you), but somehow so called "moral genes" are activated in some children but not all children at sometime before they turn into adults. Now, how can child abuse stop or prevent a gene from being activated? Are not ALL humans born with genes? How are genes supposedly within a human body and not yet so called "activated"?

Also, do new born human beings have shame?

If yes, then what could they possibly be shamed about?

But if no, then, according to you and the one called "commonsense", no new born has a conscience.

gaffo wrote: ↑Sat Jun 06, 2020 7:48 pm - result is one of two: either the genes are activated anyway, and the kid grows up internalizing his/her experience and has a low self asteem and self destructive - or the genes are not activated, and the kid becomes a monster with a false self esteem, and at war with all other - loving to kill and destroy all outside of themselves (they are just tranfurning their self hate toward all others)..........its a "fight for flight" response to the world after being abused as a kid.

folks like Marilin Monro/many "Rockers"/etc were "flight" and became their own self enemy.

assholes like Pol Pot, Stalin, and Hitler were "fight" in thier response to the same abuse - and made the rest of us pay the price of their abuse. they hate themselves but are too cowardly to face it,and instead hate all others instead. we call these folks assholes. Trump of course is one of these.

Okay, we now know your view on this. But until you clarify the questions I asked above and clear up your contradictions, then there is a much simpler non-contradictory view, which is self-explanatory and much easier to accept and understand.

gaffo wrote: ↑Sat Jun 06, 2020 8:03 pm

commonsense wrote: ↑Sun May 31, 2020 12:50 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sun May 31, 2020 2:04 am

Or, do they actually have a Conscience, but they just choose to ignore It?

No.

concise and to the point.

kudos

And could be arguably WRONG, that is; If one was OPEN to discussing this further.

gaffo wrote: ↑Sat Jun 06, 2020 8:29 pm

Age wrote: ↑Fri Jun 05, 2020 10:05 am

commonsense wrote: ↑Thu Jun 04, 2020 6:32 pm

Bazinga! I have been conflating conscience with functioning conscience. Better would have been: conscience without its purpose cannot be a functioning conscience.

Functional or not, the purpose of conscience is to guide humans to do the right thing. Certainly, not everyone follows their conscience.

I do not know an adult human being who always follows the(ir) Conscience.

So, we agree that (the) Conscience guides human beings to do the right thing, and that that is Its actual purpose.

Do we also agree that there is just one Conscience? Or do you say that every human being has their very own individual different conscience?

I know you did not ask me, but would like to answer.

most folks follow their conscience,

When you write and say, "most folks follow their conscience", do you mean 'always', or, 'just sometimes'?

gaffo wrote: ↑Sat Jun 06, 2020 8:29 pm the 1-percent (psychopaths - Pot/etc) do not (they had a conscience 20 yrs prior, but killed it by age of 18 or so - they act outside of any conscience, in fact they act in self interest alone (being in "fight" (the world) mode).

Is this with:
ALL people ALWAYS?
ALL people some times?
Some people ALWAYS? Or,
Some people some times?

Or, some thing else?

gaffo wrote: ↑Sat Jun 06, 2020 8:29 pm the rest of us - the 99 percent follow and have the same conscience, as all social animals on Earth.

If the "rest of us" means human beings, then do the rest of us, human beings, follow the 'same' conscience, as say lions? Lions are social animals correct?

gaffo wrote: ↑Sat Jun 06, 2020 8:29 pm there is only one conscience, which is an instinct for empathy, in order to foster the collective's chance of survival in a hostal world made up of Lions, crockadiles and Hyenas.

To me, you seem to be contradicting your own 'self' here.

gaffo wrote: ↑Sat Jun 06, 2020 8:48 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sat Jun 06, 2020 12:46 am
By the way, to me there are NO rules in Life, and as such there are NO laws. Obviously, of course, other than those human being made up rules and laws. There is, however, one Lore, which Conscience, Itself, dictates, and which if followed, then we would all already be live in peace and harmony together. But this is for another discussion.

Tell me more, if willing, i like your mindset here and may be your first disciple.

"Gospel of gaffo disciple of Age".................

"age" is just a username used for a human being writing this. This human being is absolutely NOTHING to be a disciple of. This human being is NOT more nor less than any other human being. This human being has just had different past life experiences than ALL and EVERY other human being.

One definition of the word 'abuse', is misuse. But to know if some thing is being misused, then its purpose, or use in Life, must be known. So, in order to abuse, or misuse, any thing, the purpose of that thing must first be known. Therefore to know if one is abusing a human being, the purpose of a human being must first be known. Like you were suggesting, and which I agree with, child abuse is a cause for why ALL adults do wrong. That is CERTAINLY NOT an excuse. Child abuse is just the reason WHY. When there is absolutely NO child abuse at all, then we will ALL be living in peace and harmony.

To enforce rules, punishment is used (and needed?). If children were not abused, then they would not grow up doing wrong. If human beings were not doing wrong, then rules would not be needed at all. But there still exists a Conscience, which is telling us what is 'right in Life'. If, and WHEN, we start following this 'right way', which obviously is what would be accepted and agreed with by EVERY one anyway, then we would ALL one way. There is one instinctual KNOWING of what is right in Life, this agreed upon by ALL way or KNOWING is one instinctively KNOWN Lore. That is; Do not abuse any thing.

Life, and living itself, would obviously be better, if absolutely EVERY thing was treated as it was meant to be. That is; NOT being abused, but being used as it has evolved or created to be used.

Obviously there is an instinctual KNOWING, within, to not abuse/misuse things, as this would go completely against what they are for. Some people, however, will 'try to' "justify" what they do. But, if and when this one Lore, which Conscience dictates and tells us is right, is followed, then we will see and experience the outcome.

There is far more that can be said, which will all be self-explanatory, by providing what is needed to back up and support each and every point into One True understanding.

Age wrote: ↑Sun Jun 07, 2020 7:38 am

commonsense wrote: ↑Sat Jun 06, 2020 3:09 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sat Jun 06, 2020 12:40 am
Because unlike you I do not see that everyone has their own individual consciences.

And whilst you hold this belief, then it 'has to' be true, right, and correct, for you?

Drop the sarcasm.

What sarcasm?

There was and is absolutely NO sarcasm intended.

commonsense wrote: ↑Sat Jun 06, 2020 3:09 pm When you said that you “do not see...” you said as much as you don’t believe...

This could not be further from thee Truth.

To me, to believe or to disbelieve something is very different from seeing or not seeing something.

I can very easily and very simply see, or not see, something but still be OPEN to that not being correct. But, if I am to believe, or disbelieve, something, then that has to be correct, to me.

commonsense wrote: ↑Sat Jun 06, 2020 3:09 pm So, whilst you do not see, it has to be correct for you, eh?

Yes, as far as I can see/tell this is correct. But this certainly does not mean that it is correct. Whereas, if I were to believe it is correct, which I do not, then it would have to be correct.

From what I have seen/experienced, then 'what I am saying' is correct, but it is not necessarily so.

Thanks for clarifying. I should have seen that you were being straightforward and sincere. I apologize for that.

I’ll restate my position:

Whether born with it or acquired, whether followed, lost or ignored, conscience guides human action by anticipation or application of shame, and the depraved either don’t have one or don’t listen to it.

commonsense wrote: ↑Sat Jun 06, 2020 9:02 pm

gaffo wrote: ↑Sat Jun 06, 2020 8:08 pm

commonsense wrote: ↑Wed Jun 03, 2020 5:16 pm

It is my view that this is absolutely true because it is impossible to be otherwise. I thought that this was obvious.

To ignore conscience is to defeat the very purpose of the thing. Conscience without its purpose cannot be conscience.

I don't understand, but welcome understanding. can you clarify for the thick-minded (me)?

I see now that it could’ve been helpful if I had captured 1 or 2 more posts going back. So, I’ll try to clarify here.

“It is my view...”: I was trying to say that it’s a fact that, no, people do not simply ignore their conscience—that’s just not possible because to ignore conscience is to kill conscience, hence their is no conscience to be ignored. I was claiming that you can’t ignore what you’ve already killed. This claim is easily defeated, but that’s what I said.

“To ignore conscience...”: I should have said that to ignore conscience is to disregard the purpose, which is to guide us to do the right thing, and without its purpose, a conscience cannot be a functioning conscience.

Remember if Conscience was functioning, properly and correctly, that is; being listened to and followed, then ALL human beings would be living in peace and harmony now, in the days of when this is being written. To me, ALL human beings are not yet living in peace and harmony, when this is written. However, to me, Conscience is still functioning perfectly well. Human beings just do not listen to It, thus nor follow It, yet.

When one is listening to and following Conscience, then they are teaching what is right in Life. Teaching children what is right in Life IS 'what is right in Life'. Teaching children 'what is right in Life' is the purpose of being an adult human being.

Not teaching children 'what is right in Life' or teaching them 'what is wrong in Life', as though it is the right thing, IS 'what is wrong in Life' as well as being child abuse. When children are not being abused, and thus are being taught to do 'what is right in Life', and when they are doing 'what is right in Life', then we will ALL be creating and achieving what we ALL Truly wanted anyway. That is: To live in peace and harmony together, as One.

Our One Conscience is directing us to living this way, and thus leading us ALL in this right direction. But only if we listen to It.

Human beings, however, have to have free will as this is how they learn best. Human beings best learn from their mistakes. Human beings have been, since their inception, left to their own accord to do whatever they want, make mistakes, and thus learn from those mistakes. When they ACCEPT full responsibility for their behaviors by TAKING full responsibility, by listening to 'what is actually right in Life' and changing their ways, then they will be the ones who actually create the world that they Truly want for themselves. They will do this by themselves.

Knowing Thy True Self helps in achieving what we ALL Truly want. Obviously one has to Truly know thy self to KNOW what they Truly want.

commonsense wrote: ↑Sun Jun 07, 2020 4:29 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sun Jun 07, 2020 7:38 am

commonsense wrote: ↑Sat Jun 06, 2020 3:09 pm

Drop the sarcasm.

What sarcasm?

There was and is absolutely NO sarcasm intended.

commonsense wrote: ↑Sat Jun 06, 2020 3:09 pm When you said that you “do not see...” you said as much as you don’t believe...

This could not be further from thee Truth.

To me, to believe or to disbelieve something is very different from seeing or not seeing something.

I can very easily and very simply see, or not see, something but still be OPEN to that not being correct. But, if I am to believe, or disbelieve, something, then that has to be correct, to me.

commonsense wrote: ↑Sat Jun 06, 2020 3:09 pm So, whilst you do not see, it has to be correct for you, eh?

Yes, as far as I can see/tell this is correct. But this certainly does not mean that it is correct. Whereas, if I were to believe it is correct, which I do not, then it would have to be correct.

From what I have seen/experienced, then 'what I am saying' is correct, but it is not necessarily so.

Thanks for clarifying. I should have seen that you were being straightforward and sincere. I apologize for that.

I do not think it is the case that you "should have seen" what I was actually saying and actually meaning. Some of us are obviously not the best and clearest communicators, as evidenced by my words. Through just the written word, without visual clues from face-to-face contact of what is being said, it is much harder to fully grasp and understand the True intent and meaning behind the words being said. I think it is only through clarification, without assumptions, fully understanding another can be and is truly gained.

By the way, if I recall correctly, I have not written a word, in this forum, that is not been straightforward, literal, and sincere. I attempt to speak this way always in this forum.

commonsense wrote: ↑Sun Jun 07, 2020 4:41 pm I’ll restate my position:

Whether born with it or acquired, whether followed, lost or ignored, conscience guides human action by anticipation or application of shame, and the depraved either don’t have one or don’t listen to it.

I view this a little bit differently. To me, Conscience Itself does not do the shaming. Conscience just directs, dictates, tells us, or guides us to what is right and what is wrong in Life. If a person feels shame, then that is another matter, which is just the result of their emotions. The purpose of 'emotions' is to feel, internally. Some people have learned to ignore or block their emotions, without necessarily ignoring or blocking Conscience Itself.

To me, the purpose of;

'Conscience', is to tell, instruct, and/or show what are the right things in Life from the wrong things in Life, unemotionally, unreservedly, unbiased, unabated, and unabashedly.

'Emotion', is to feel, internally, about things.

'Thought', is just what we individual think about things.

'Knowing', is just 'that' what we can ALL agree on and accept.

Age wrote: ↑Sun Jun 07, 2020 11:46 pm

commonsense wrote: ↑Sun Jun 07, 2020 4:41 pm I’ll restate my position:

Whether born with it or acquired, whether followed, lost or ignored, conscience guides human action by anticipation or application of shame, and the depraved either don’t have one or don’t listen to it.

I view this a little bit differently. To me, Conscience Itself does not do the shaming. Conscience just directs, dictates, tells us, or guides us to what is right and what is wrong in Life. If a person feels shame, then that is another matter, which is just the result of their emotions. The purpose of 'emotions' is to feel, internally. Some people have learned to ignore or block their emotions, without necessarily ignoring or blocking Conscience Itself.

To me, the purpose of;

'Conscience', is to tell, instruct, and/or show what are the right things in Life from the wrong things in Life, unemotionally, unreservedly, unbiased, unabated, and unabashedly.

'Emotion', is to feel, internally, about things.

'Thought', is just what we individual think about things.

'Knowing', is just 'that' what we can ALL agree on and accept.

Well put.