Anyone got any good books on "useful" morality

[FrostByteParticipant 19005]

Ever5 wrote:

So I realize part of what is holding me back is my morality. I often have a conflict of morality, trying to do good but questioning what is “good”, what is the right way to perceive people and reality. Now I realize that morality is not universal and there are different ways of perceiving what is good and evil. So that’s my next quest.

A lot of people will recommend lots of different books. Read them all and make your own morality. In the end morality and MGTOW share one trait. You Go Your Own Way. My experience is it changes over time. Mellowing with age is a shift in your morality, core values, reaction to events and much more. Don’t expect it to be the same from decade to decade. That’s why life is a journey.

If you rescue a damsel in distress, all you will get is a distressed damsel.

[Ever5Participant 1008]

No I mean, if this is what ya’ll want to talk about. But I totally get it not. When someone calls themselves an Atheist, the majority of the time, they are actually Agnostic. Which, yeah, I had a teacher tell me that every time she met an atheist, upon further questioning, every single time, she’d find out that they were in fact not Atheist, but Agnostic.

Nothing wrong with being Agnostic, and that’s a completely valid assumption.

But to claim that one is an Atheist, is making the ‘claim’ that there is NO GOD. That’s what it is.
a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.

disbelieve – believes Not. Believes “not a god”.

And there’s nothing wrong with any of this. It’s just now I get it. Richard Dawkins is a marketing genius. That’s what he is. He took a word that had “controversy” behind it. He then sneaks in a new definition, which most people can relate to agnostic, not knowing. That’s probably a big chunk of people.

He created a new definition. And then if he’s the one behind the Agnostic-Atheist, which is “DOUBLE SPEAK”, just like George Orwells 1984, Peace = war, Slavery = Freedom, etc.

This guy is a marketing genius. And I can totally respect that. But, people are getting tricked and making up new definitions to old words. Which I think is very uncool and not healthy.

Truth has no place to live in the mind of a woman.

[Ever5Participant 1008]

FrostByte wrote:

Ever5 wrote:

So I realize part of what is holding me back is my morality. I often have a conflict of morality, trying to do good but questioning what is “good”, what is the right way to perceive people and reality. Now I realize that morality is not universal and there are different ways of perceiving what is good and evil. So that’s my next quest.

A lot of people will recommend lots of different books. Read them all and make your own morality. In the end morality and MGTOW share one trait. You Go Your Own Way. My experience is it changes over time. Mellowing with age is a shift in your morality, core values, reaction to events and much more. Don’t expect it to be the same from decade to decade. That’s why life is a journey.

Totally true. Just reading this book Beyond Good and Evil, it got me thinking to start questioning everything. Like I held a firm belief that Socrates was a good man. However, this book sparked the question. Was he now???

Just simply questioning my own beliefs is really helping me along the way. That’s really what it’s about. I’ve got to come up with my own morality. And then realizing there is no universal morality that all of mankind will agree on. like the socialism and capitalism argument. What is good in one’s eyes, is bad in the other.

One that hit me, I realize that my morality is my own. I’ve got to determine what that is, no one else can do that for me. And when I do determine what that is, there will always be others who see my values, my morality, as evil. There is no escaping that. I have to find what works for me. Once I saw that, it really seems to naturally be developing now.

The big trap was thinking that I could find a moral system that was “right”, that could not be disputed, that no one would argue or debunk.

None of us are equal, non of us have the same life circumstances. And so, our morality will never be universal.

Truth has no place to live in the mind of a woman.

[FrostByteParticipant 19005]

Ever5 wrote:

Just simply questioning my own beliefs is really helping me along the way.

Do that your whole life. In a healthy way.

If you rescue a damsel in distress, all you will get is a distressed damsel.

[X11Spectator 4520]

Ever5 wrote:

But to claim that one is an Atheist, is making the ‘claim’ that there is NO GOD. That’s what it is.

You sir are an idiot that just wants to be right.

You claim to be a student of religion. I seriously doubt that.

[Ever5Participant 1008]

Dude, I’m just telling you what’s up. This Richard Dawkins dude, played a big trick, all in the name of making money. He’s a marketing Genius, and I can totally respect that.

He took a word that had controversy already attached to it, that word being Atheism. He did this to get people to listen to him. Controversy is basically free marketing, it’s a good strategy and one that is used quite often.

He then changed the definition to that of Agnostic. That’s what happened. Now people who have always questioned everything and simply claimed they did not know, which is pretty common. They got pulled into the controvery, listened to Richard Dawkins new definition of Atheism and proclaimed, ooo wow, I’m an atheist.

I mean, I get it. It’s not a big deal. It’s another sad example of how the English language has gotten polluted but it’s happened over the years to lots of words, even the word liberal now means something profoundly different than the original definition.

This is just what happens. He made a smart move. He got rich off of it. I can totally respect that.

Truth has no place to live in the mind of a woman.

[FrostByteParticipant 19005]

X11 wrote:

You sir are an idiot that just wants to be right.

Calling a brother an idiot. Is that necessary? You can disagree and it would be respected.

If you rescue a damsel in distress, all you will get is a distressed damsel.

[AutoliteParticipant]

Ever5 wrote:

Ever5

Participant
279

Dude, I’m just telling you what’s up. This Richard Dawkins dude, played a big trick, all in the name of making money. He’s a marketing Genius, and I can totally respect that.

I suggest you watch the Dawkins video again. You’ve likely missed the gist of his explanation. Dawkins uses the term “technical Agnostic” to describe Atheism in the same sense that I describe my Atheism as being a “reasonable” certainty. Both Dawkins and myself are refraining from claiming “absolute” certainly for the reason that I had previously given.

Being Atheist means that we are saying that the likelihood of there being a god is as probable (or even less probable IMO) as a teapot being in orbit around the sun. Technically not impossible but can be claimed with ‘reasonable’ certainty to be extremely unlikely.

And by ‘reasonable’ certainty I mean an infinitesimally small c~~~-hair away from being absolutely certain…

[X11Spectator 4520]

There are enough people here that tell ever5 what they think and believe and not believe.

He prefers to ignore the position of people he can engage directly and brings what he thinks Dawkins thinks.

Just trolling for attention I guess or just does not understand the basics of argumentation and intellectual honesty.

When ever5 has some evidence e for whatever his god concept is I may become a believer.

In fact he is very obscure on what his position is, why is that?

[AutoliteParticipant]

FrostByte wrote:

Calling a brother an idiot. Is that necessary? You can disagree and it would be respected.

I’m thinking this forum maybe needs it’s own lexicon. Members are being bashed for calling those who make stupid comments “stupid” and for saying someone is “full of s~~~” when they’re full of s~~~.

I’m open for replacement terms and forum friendly synonyms for words like “stupid”, “idiot” and “retarded” if it will make others happy.

Perhaps we can start right now. Someone please give me a MGTOW.com acceptable phrase (with KM approval of course) which actually means “You’re full of s~~~”! I’d be willing to try and adapt to a ‘feelz’ focused forum if that’s the direction we need to be heading…

[X11Spectator 4520]

Yeah and members can call guys wet pussies, and threaten them with imaginary violence by their imaginary god but that’s OK.

[AutoliteParticipant]

X11 wrote:

Yeah and members can call guys wet pussies, and threaten them with imaginary violence by their imaginary god but that’s OK.

‘One step at a time’ my friend, let’s just take it ‘one step at a time’.

As proponents of reality we’re obviously a small minority here on this forum. We need to appreciate that and play it accordingly…

[X11Spectator 4520]

You must have kids, your patience and understanding shows.

[Ever5Participant 1008]

yeah guys. DOUBLE SPEAK, and you FELL FOR IT. That’s what happened, and now you are emotionally invested in a new defintion of a word created by a marketing genius. You got fooled and you got played, just like the other millions of A-Holes who now proclaim they are Atheist when in fact they are Agnostic.

Attack me all you want. That’s what happened.

You’ve all demonstrated that you are in fact not Atheist, but Agnostic.

Either way, Atheist, Agnostic, Theis, or Gnostic, or whatever. I really don’t care. Just stop confusing the english language. But I totally get it. You got played, and now you are emotionally invested in this scheme, a marketing scheme, created by Richard Dawkins.

that’s like rule number one in pulling a con. You get the other individual to take small steps in the wrong direction, then they just will not let go, because no one wants to look in the mirror and say “Damn, I am a fool’.

Fool: One who is easily tricked.

Truth has no place to live in the mind of a woman.

[Ever5Participant 1008]

and this whole thing about god, no god. I don’t care, it makes no difference to me.

In my beliefs “Atheism”, is actually a normal “phase” in an individuals development over the period of many lifetimes and is as temporary as any other religion. It’s just a phase. But when I say Atheism, I’m talking about someone who believes, has a strong conviction, that there is NO GOD.

Whether you believe in God or Not, I don’t care and I don’t see a purpose in trying to prove the existence of God to another human being. it’s not important.

What I’m bringing up as that you are calling yourself an Atheist, but upon reading your discussion, your beliefs, you are in fact Agnostic. Same with this Richard Dawkins dude, He’s agnostic. And I like Agnostics, I can totally relate to agnostic people. Nothing wrong with being Agnostic.

My issue is when Agnostics call themselves Atheist when they are not Atheist. It’s the confusing of the English Language is what I find annoying. If your an Atheist, then say your an Atheist. But if you are not an Atheist are in fact Agnostic, then call youself Agnostic and quit trying to ride the controversial “trendy” I’m an Atheist train.

Even this Richard Dawkins dude. He said it in that video. he’s not an atheist, he’s agnostic. By the very definition, how he explained his perspective, that’s “AGNOSTIC”. Not Atheism.

Truth has no place to live in the mind of a woman.

[AutoliteParticipant]

Ever5 wrote:

yeah guys. DOUBLE SPEAK, and you FELL FOR IT. That’s what happened, and now you are emotionally invested in a new defintion of a word created by a marketing genius. You got fooled and you got played, just like the other millions of A-Holes who now proclaim they are Atheist when in fact they are Agnostic.

Attack me all you want. That’s what happened.

You’ve all demonstrated that you are in fact not Atheist, but Agnostic.

Either way, Atheist, Agnostic, Theis, or Gnostic, or whatever. I really don’t care. Just stop confusing the english language. But I totally get it. You got played, and now you are emotionally invested in this scheme, a marketing scheme, created by Richard Dawkins.

that’s like rule number one in pulling a con. You get the other individual to take small steps in the wrong direction, then they just will not let go, because no one wants to look in the mirror and say “Damn, I am a fool’.

Fool: One who is easily tricked.

Well, let’s try this again. Do you understand the difference between the phrases “reasonable certainty” and “absolute certainty”? Do you know what the word “intangible” means???

[AutoliteParticipant]

X11 wrote:

You must have kids, your patience and understanding shows.

No actually. No kids. But in my professional career as a mid-level supervisor I had to deal daily with insufferable retards both below and above me. It was a challenge to say the least…

[Ever5Participant 1008]

dude… I’m done. Reasonable certainty, and absolute certainty.

Plenty of religious people who go to church every single week only Reasonably Certain… Well it’s better than being wrong and going to hell, they say…

Another mind numbing ploy, I’m guessing by this Richard Dawkins a.k.a. Marketing Genius.

Reasonably certain, yeah I highly doubt there’s a god but it’s “possible”. That’s called being Agnostic.

Truth has no place to live in the mind of a woman.

[surfdude12Participant 4103]

“Agnostic-Athiest”? Sounds like “She-Male”

[Ever5Participant 1008]

exactly, it’s double speak, more examples of the english language being polluted.

He hey guys, I’m a Muslim-Buddhist. I drive a chevy-ford voltzwagon. Hey guys, anyone going to the peace-war rally? It’s gonna be really rad-sad dude-chick.

Truth has no place to live in the mind of a woman.

[Author]

Posts