Results 1 to 17 of 17

Thread: Understanding Atheism: Marquis de Sade's 'Dialogue Between a Priest and a Dying Man'

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Turnus's Avatar il Flagello dei Buffoni
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    1,093

    Default Understanding Atheism: Marquis de Sade's 'Dialogue Between a Priest and a Dying Man'

    Seeing as S.I.N.'s outline of atheism sort of broke down, I thought I'd post this classic dialogue that outlines the main reasons for the disbelief in deities.

    Quote Originally Posted by Donatien Alphonse François, le Marquis de Sade, 1782
    PRIEST - Come to this the fatal hour when at last from the eyes of deluded man the scales must fall away, and be shown the cruel picture of his errors and his vices - say, my son, do you not repent the host of sins unto which you were led by weakness and human frailty?
    DYING MAN - Yes, my friend, I do repent.

    PRIEST - Rejoice then in these pangs of remorse, during the brief space remaining to you profit therefrom to obtain Heaven’s general absolution for your sins, and be mindful of it, only through the mediation of the Most Holy Sacrament of penance will you be granted it by the Eternal.

    DYING MAN - I do not understand you, any more than you have understood me.

    PRIEST - Eh?

    DYING MAN - I told you that I repented.

    PRIEST - I heard you say it.

    DYING MAN - Yes, but without understanding it.

    PRIEST - My interpretation -

    DYING MAN - Hold. I shall give you mine. By Nature created, created with very keen tastes, with very strong passions; placed on this earth for the sole purpose of yielding to them and satisfying them, and these effects of my creation being naught but necessities directly relating to Nature’s fundamental designs or, if you prefer, naught but essential derivatives proceeding from her intentions in my regard, all in accordance with her laws, I repent not having acknowledged her omnipotence as fully as I might have done, I am only sorry for the modest use I made of the faculties (criminal in your view, perfectly ordinary in mine) she gave me to serve her; I did sometimes resist her, I repent it. Misled by your absurd doctrines, with them for arms I mindlessly challenged the desires instilled in me by a much diviner inspiration, and thereof do I repent: I only plucked an occasional flower when I might have gathered an ample harvest of fruit - such are the just grounds for the regrets I have, do me the honor of considering me incapable of harboring any others.

    PRIEST - Lo! where your fallacies take you, to what pass are you brought by your sophistries! To created being you ascribe all the Creator’s power, and those unlucky penchants which have led you astray, ah! do you not see they are merely the products of corrupted nature, to which you attribute omnipotence?

    DYING MAN -Friend - it looks to me as though your dialectic were as false as your thinking. Pray straighten your arguing or else leave me to die in peace. What do you mean by Creator, and what do you mean by corrupted nature?

    PRIEST - The Creator is the master of the universe, ‘tis He who has wrought everything, everything created, and who maintains it all through the mere fact of His omnipotence.

    DYING MAN - An impressive figure indeed. Tell me now why this so very formidable fellow did nevertheless, as you would have it, create a corrupted nature?

    PRIEST - What glory would men ever have, had not God left them free will; and in the enjoyment thereof, what merit could come to them, were there not on earth the possibility of doing good and that of avoiding evil?

    DYING MAN - And so your god bungled his work deliberately, in order to tempt or test his creature - did he then not know, did he then not doubt what the result would be?

    PRIEST - He knew it undoubtedly but, once again, he wished to leave man the merit of choice.

    DYING MAN - And to what purpose, since from the outset he knew the course affairs would take and since, all-mighty as you tell me he is, he had but to make his creature choose as suited him?

    PRIEST - Who is there can penetrate God’s vast and infinite designs regarding man, and who can grasp all that makes up the universal scheme?

    DYING MAN - Anyone who simplifies matters, my friend, anyone, above all, who refrains from multiplying causes in order to confuse effects all the more. What need have you of a second difficulty when you are unable to resolve the first, and once it is possible that Nature may have all alone done what you attrubute to your god, why must you go looking for someone to be her overlord? The cause and explanation of what you do not understand may perhaps be the simplest thing in the world. Perfect your physics and you will understand Nature better, refine your reason, banish your prejudices and you’ll have no further need of your god.

    PRIEST - Wretched man! I took you for no worse than a Socinian - arms I had to combat you. But ‘tis clear you are an athiest, and seeing that your heart is shut to the authentic and innumerable proofs we receive every day of our lives of the Creator’s existence - I have no more to say to you. There is no restoring the blind to the light.

    DYING MAN - Softly, my friend, own that between the two, he who blindfolds himself must surely see less of the light than he who snatches the blindfold away from his eyes. You compose, you construct, you dream, you magnify and complicate; I sift, I simplify. You accumulate errors, pile one atop the other; I combat them all. Which one of us is blind?

    PRIEST - Then you do not believe in God at all?

    DYING MAN - No. And for one very sound reason: it is perfectly impossible to believe in what one does not understand. Between understanding and faith immediate connections must subsist; understanding is the very lifeblood of faith; where understanding has ceased, faith is dead; and when they who are in such a case proclaim they have faith, they deceive. You yourself, preacher, I defy you to believe in the god you predicate to me - you must fail because you cannot demonstrate him to me, because it is not in you to define him to me, because consequently you do not understand him - because as of the moment you do not understand him, you can no longer furnish me any reasonable argument concerning him, and because, in sum, anything beyond the limits and grasp of the human mind is either illusion or futility; and because your god having to be one or the other of the two, in the first instance I should be mad to believe in him, in the second a fool. My friend, prove to me that matter is inert and I will grant you a creator, prove to me that Nature does not suffice to herself and I’ll let you imagine her ruled by a higher force; until then, expect nothing from me, I bow to evidence only, and evidence I perceive only through my senses: my belief goes no farther than they, beyond that point my faith collapses. I believe in the sun because I see it, I conceive it as the focal center of all the inflammable matter in Nature, its periodic movement pleases but does not amaze me. ‘Tis a machanical operation, perhaps as simple as the workings of electricity, but which we are unable to understand. Need I bother more about it? when you have roofed everthing over with your god, will I be any the better off? and shall I still not have to make an effort at least as great to understand the artisan as to define his handiwork? By edifying your chimera it is thus no service you have rendered me, you have made me uneasy in my mind but you have not enlightened it, and instead of gratitude I owe you resentment. You god is a machine you fabricated in your passions’ behalf, you manipulated it to their liking; but the day it interfered with mine, I kicked it out of my way, deem it fitting that I did so; and now, at this moment when I sink and my soul stands in need of calm and philosophy, belabor it not with your riddles and your cant, which alarm but will not convince it, which will irritate without improving it; good friends and on the best terms have we ever been, this soul and I, so Nature wished it to be; as it is, so she expressly modeled it, for my soul is the result of the dispositions she formed in me pursuant to her own ends and needs; and as she has an equal need of vices and virtues, whenever she was pleased to move me to evil, she did so, whenever she wanted a good deed from me, she roused in me the desire to perform one, and even so I did as I was bid. Look nowhere but to her workings for the unique cause of our fickle human behavior, and in her laws hope to find no other springs than her will and her requirements.

    PRIEST - And so whatever is in this world, is necessary.

    DYING MAN - Exactly.

    PRIEST - But is everything is necessary - then the whole is regulated.

    DYING MAN - I am not the one to deny it.

    PRIEST - And what can regulate the whole save it be an all-powerful and all-knowing hand?

    DYING MAN - Say, is it not necessary that gunpowder ignite when you set a spark to it?

    PRIEST - Yes.

    DYING MAN - And do you find any presence of wisdom in that?

    PRIEST - None.

    DYING MAN - It is then possible that things necessariliy come about without being determined by a superior intelligence, and possible hence that everything derive logically from a primary cause, without there being either reason or wisdom in that primary cause.

    PRIEST - What are you aiming at?

    DYING MAN - At proving to you that the world and all therein may be what it is and as you see it to be, without any wise and reasoning cause directing it, and that natural effects must have natural causes: natural causes sufficing, there is no need to invent any such unnatural ones as your god who himself, as I have told you already, would require to be explained and who would at the same time be the explanation of nothing; and that once ‘tis plain your god is superfluous, he is perfectly useless; that what is useless would greatly appear to be imaginary only, null and therefore non-existent; thus, to conclude that your god is a fiction I need no other argument than that which furnishes me the certitude of his inutility.

    PRIEST - At that rate there is no great need for me to talk to you about religion.

    DYING MAN - True, but why not anyhow? Nothing so much amuses me as this sign of the extent to which human beings have been carried away by fanaticism and stupidity; although the prodigious spectacle of folly we are facing here may be horrible, it is always interesting. Answer me honestly, and endeavor to set personal considerations aside: were I weak enough to fall victim to your silly theories concerning the fabulous existence of the being who renders religion necessary, under what form would you advise me to worship him? Would you have me adopt the daydreams of Confucius rather than the absurdities of Brahma, should I kneel before the great snake to which the blacks pray, invoke the Peruvian’s sun or Moses’ Lord of Hosts, to which Mohammedan sect should I rally, or which Christian heresy would be preferable in your view? Be careful how you reply.

    PRIEST - Can it be doubtful?

    DYING MAN - Then ‘tis egotistical.

    PRIEST - No, my son, ‘tis as much out of love for thee as for myself I urge thee to embrace my creed.

    DYING MAN - And I wonder how the one or the other of us can have much love for himself, to deign to listen to such degrading nonsense.

    PRIEST - But who can be mistaken about the miracles wrought by our Divine Redeemer?

    DYING MAN - He who sees in him anything else than the most vulgar of all tricksters and the most arrent of all imposters.

    PRIEST - O God, you hear him and your wrath thunders not forth!

    DYING MAN - No my friend, all is peace and quiet around us, because your god, be it from impotence or from reason or from whatever you please, is a being whose existence I shall momentarily concede out of condescension for you or, if you prefer, in order to accommodate myself to your sorry little perspective; because this god, I say, were he to exist, as you are mad enough to believe, could not have selected as means to persuade us, anything more ridiculous than those your Jesus incarnates.

    PRIEST - What! the prophecies, the miracles, the martyrs - are they not so many proofs?

    DYING MAN - How, so long as I abide by the rules of logic, how would you have me accept as proof anything which itself is lacking proof? Before a prophecy could constitute proof I should first have to be completely certain it was ever pronounced; the prophecies history tells us of belong to history and for me they can only have the force of other historical facts, whereof three out of four are exceedingly dubious; if to this I add the strong probability that they have been transmitted to us by not very objective historians, who recorded what they preferred to have us read, I shall be quite within my rights if I am Skeptical. And furthermore, who is there to assure me that this prophecy was not made after the fact, that it was not a strategem of everyday political scheming, like that which predicts a happy reign under a just king, or frost in wintertime? As for your miracles, I am not any readier to be taken in by such rubbish. All rascals have performed them, all fools have believed in them; before I’d be persuaded of the truth of a miracle I would have to be very sure the event so called by you was absolutely contrary to the laws of Nature, for only what is outside of Nature can pass for miraculous; and who is so deeply learned in Nature that he can affirm the precise point where it is infringed upon? Only two things are needed to accredit an alleged miracle, a mountebank and a few simpletons; tush, there’s the whole origin of your prodigies; all new adherents to a religious sect have wrought some; anf more extraordinary still, all have found imbeciles around to believe them. Your Jesus’ feats do not surpass those of Apollonius of Tyana, yet nobody thinks to take the latter for a god; and when we come to your martyrs, assuredly, these are the feeblest of all your arguments. To produce martyrs you need but to have enthusiasm on the one hand, resistance on the other; and so long as an opposed cause offers me as many of them as does yours, I shall never be sufficiently authorized to believe one better than the other, but rather very much inclined to consider all of them pitiable. Ah my friend! were it true that the god you preach did exist, would he need miracle, martyr, or prophecy to secure recognition? anf if, as you declare, the human heart were of his making, would he not have chosen it for the repository of his law? Then would this law, impartial for all mankind because eminating from a just god, then would it be found graved deep and writ clear in all men alike, and from one end of the world to the other, all men, having this delicate and sensitive organ in common, would also resemble eachother through the homage they would render the god whence they had got it; all would adore and serve him in one identical manner, and they would be as incapable of disregarding this god as of resisting the inward impulse to worship him. Instead of that, what do I behold throughout this world? As many gods as there are countries; as many different cults as there are different minds or different imaginations; and this swarm of opinions among which it physically impossible for me to choose, say now, is this a just god’s doing? Fie upon you, preacher, you outrage your god when you present him to me thus; rather let me deny him completely, for if he exists then I outrage him far less by my incredulity than do you through your blasphemies. Return to your senses, preacher, your Jesus is no better than Mohammed, Mohammed no better than Moses, and the three of them combined no better than Confucius, who did after all have some wise things to say while the others did naught but rave; in general, though, such people are all mere frauds: philosophers laughed at them, the mob believed them, and justice ought to have hanged them.

    PRIEST - Alas, justice dealt only too harshly with one of the four.

    DYING MAN - If he alone got what he deserved it was he who deserved it most richly; seditious, turbulent, calumniating, dishonest, libertine, a clumsy buffoon, and very mischievous; he had the art of overawing common folk and stirring up the rabble; and hencecame in line for punishment in a kingdom where the state of affairs was what it was in Jerusalem then. They were very wise indeed to get rid of him, and this perhaps is one case in which my extremely lenient and also extremely tolerant maxims are able to allow the severity of Themis; I excuse any misbehavior save that which may endanger the government one lives under, kings and their majesties are the only thing I respect; and whoever does not love his country and his king were better dead than alive.

    PRIEST - But you do surely believe something awaits us after this life, you must at some time or another have sought to pierce the dark shadows enshrouding our mortal fate, and what other theory could have satisfied your anxious spirit, than that of the numberless woes that betide him who has lived wickedly, and an eternity of rewards for him whose life has been good?

    DYING MAN - What other, my friend? that of nothingness, it has never held terrors for me, in it I see naught but what is consoling and unpretentious; all other theories are of pride’s composition, this one alone is of reason’s. Moreover, ‘tis neither dreadful nor absolute, this nothingness. Before my eyes have I not the example of Nature’s perpetual generations and regenerations? Nothing perishes in the world, my friend, nothing is lost; man today, worm tomorrow, the day after tomorrow a fly; is it not to keep steadily on existing? And what entitles me to be rewarded for virtues which are in me through no fault of my own, or again punished for crimes wherefore the ultimate responsibility is not mine? how are you to put your alleged god’s goodness into tune with this system, and can he have wished to create me in order to reap pleasure from punishing me, and that solely on account of a choice he does not leave me free will to determine?

    PRIEST - You are free.

    DYING MAN - Yes, in terms of your prejudices; but reason puts them to rout, and the theory of human freedom was never devised except to fabricate that of grace, which was to aquire such importance in your reveries. What man on earth, seeing the scaffold a step beyond the crime, would commit it were he free not to commit it? We are the pawns of an irresistable force, and never for an instant is it within our power to do anything but make the best of our lot and forge ahead along the path that has been traced for us. There is not a single virtue which is not necessary to Nature and conversely not a single crime which she does not need and it is in the perfect balance she maintains between the one and the other that her immense science consists; but can we be guilty for adding our weight to this side or that when it is she who tosses us onto the scales? no more so than the hornet who thrusts his dart into your skin.

    PRIEST - Then we should not shrink from the worst of all crimes.

    DYING MAN - I say nothing of the kind. Let the evil deed be proscribed by law, let justice smite the criminal, that will be deterrent enough; but if by misfortune we do commit it even so, let’s not cry over spilled milk; remorse is inefficacious, since it does not stay us from crime, futile since it does not repair it, therefore it is absurd to beat one’s breast, more absurd still to dread being punished in another world if we have been lucky to escape it in this. God forbid that this be construed as encouragement to crime, no, we should avoid it as much as we can, but one must learn to shun it through reason and not through false fears which lead to naught and whose effects are so quickly overcome in any moderately steadfast soul. Reason, sir - yes, our reason alone should warn us that harm done our fellows can never bring happiness to us; and our heart, that contributing to their felicity is the greatest joy Nature has accorded us on earth; the entirety of human morals is contained in this one phrase: Render others as happy as one desires oneself to be, and never inflict more pain upon them than one would like to receive at their hands. There you are, my friend, those are the only principles we should observe, and you need neither god nor religion to appreciate and subscribe to them, you need only have a good heart. But I feel my strength ebbing away; preacher, put away your prejudices, unbend, be a man, be human, without fear and without hope forget your gods and your religions too: they are none of them good for anything but to set man at odds with man, and the mere name of these horrors has caused greater loss of life on earth than all other wars and all other plagues combined. Renounce the idea of another world; there is none, but do not renounce the pleasure of being happy and of making for happiness in this. Nature offers you no other way of doubling your existence, of extending it. - My friend, lewd pleasures were ever dearer to me than anything else, I have idolized tham all my life and my wish has been to end it in their bosom; my end draws near, six women lovelier than the light of day are waiting in the chamber adjoining, I have reserved them for this moment, partake of the feast with me, following my example embrace them instead of the vain sophistries of superstition, under their caresses strive for a little while to forget your hypocritical beliefs.

    NOTE
    The dying man rang, the women entered; and after he had been a little while in their arms the preacher became one whom Nature had corrupted, all because he had not succeeded in explaining what a corrupt nature is.
    Taken from http://www.sade-ecrivain.com/Dialogu...Dying-Man.html

    Any thoughts?
    Force Diplomacy Modifications for Rise of Persia 2.11 Beta and Roma Surrectum 1.5a.
    Member of S.I.N.
    Under the patronage of Obi Wan Asterix

  2. #2
    Zenith Darksea's Avatar Ορθοδοξία ή θάνατος!
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    4,659

    Default Re: Understanding Atheism: Marquis de Sade's 'Dialogue Between a Priest and a Dying Man'

    That would be the Marquis de Sade who was the extreme sado-masochistic pervert, would it? The one who was turned in to the authorities by his mother in law and whose various crimes included poisoning prostitutes and sexually abusing his staff?

    The man seems rather eloquent for one who is dying. Of course the wonderful thing about dialogues, as Plato also realised, is that you can write your opponent's argument for him. Generally I'd be a little wary of accepting the writings of a man whose name is the derivation of the word 'sadism'.

  3. #3
    Turnus's Avatar il Flagello dei Buffoni
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    1,093

    Default Re: Understanding Atheism: Marquis de Sade's 'Dialogue Between a Priest and a Dying Man'

    Quote Originally Posted by Zenith Darksea
    That would be the Marquis de Sade who was the extreme sado-masochistic pervert, would it? The one who was turned in to the authorities by his mother in law and whose various crimes included poisoning prostitutes and sexually abusing his staff?
    Indeed this is his work, but that has nothing to do with what is actually written in the dialogue. It is only 'sadist' in the word's most literal definition.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zenith Darksea
    Of course the wonderful thing about dialogues, as Plato also realised, is that you can write your opponent's argument for him.
    I posted it as a guide to the underlying arguments of atheism (written in an eloquent yet easily accessible format), not as a definitive debate between a theist and an atheist. And furthermore, I despise Plato.
    Last edited by Turnus; June 05, 2006 at 06:53 AM.
    Force Diplomacy Modifications for Rise of Persia 2.11 Beta and Roma Surrectum 1.5a.
    Member of S.I.N.
    Under the patronage of Obi Wan Asterix

  4. #4
    Garbarsardar's Avatar Et Slot i et slot
    Patrician Tribune Citizen Magistrate Administrator Emeritus

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    20,608

    Default Re: Understanding Atheism: Marquis de Sade's 'Dialogue Between a Priest and a Dying M

    Quote Originally Posted by Zenith Darksea
    That would be the Marquis de Sade who was the extreme sado-masochistic pervert, would it? The one who was turned in to the authorities by his mother in law and whose various crimes included poisoning prostitutes and sexually abusing his staff?

    The man seems rather eloquent for one who is dying. Of course the wonderful thing about dialogues, as Plato also realised, is that you can write your opponent's argument for him. Generally I'd be a little wary of accepting the writings of a man whose name is the derivation of the word 'sadism'.
    That would a person who has never read any book of Sade before, right? And if you believe that a philosopher's life should be exemplary I suggest you try and explain Kiergegard, Vittgenstein and Nietzche.

    Why don't you try to address the argument and not the person? Isn't that the definition of ad hominem? Actually in this, one of the many philosophical inserts in his novels, Sade is much less vehement towards the church then say, Voltaire.

  5. #5
    Zenith Darksea's Avatar Ορθοδοξία ή θάνατος!
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    4,659

    Default Re: Understanding Atheism: Marquis de Sade's 'Dialogue Between a Priest and a Dying Man'

    Well, I'll admit I haven't read his works, but you can hardly deny that what I said was true.

    I don't really think that an ad hominem attack (although again I'd point out that nothing that I said was actually slanderous) is totally irrelevant here, especially for a man that was declared on more than one occasion to be insane (and I don't think that the old Marquis would mind, having died two hundred years ago). Secondly I'd say that I don't believe that all philosophers are virtuous, and I never said that those three whom you mention were exemplary philosophers anyway.

    Anyway, since you're so keen that I do so, I shall actually address the argument presented here, bearing in mind my earlier comments. Now alas my time is limited, so I shall have to restrict myself to examining the dying man's conclusions. He seems to believe in short that reasoning is enough to render a moral worldview, and that since reasoning can lead us to morality, we have no need of God. Of course, leaving aside the fact that the truth of divinity does not rely upon whether we think it necessary, I'd like to bring our old Marquis' lifestyle into the matter. Now a reasoning man such as de Sade can apparently see that we should treat our fellow man well. Would that explain his extremely violent works such as the 120 Days of Sodom and his own rather viscious acts, some of which I mentioned above, and of which there are many more? Presumably, considering his great capacity for cruel thought and action, the Marquis was not a very reasonable man.

    Can nature alone teach us morality? Only a very contradictory one. This dying man seems to believe us that nature teaches us to act justly to others and satisfy our own desires (as he demonstrates through his reservation of the women). Therein however lies the contradiction - nature shows us that an animal's (and a man's) basic instinct is to take what it wants without consideration of others, and we can see a simple example of this in the minds of young children. The lion will eat the antelope, the owl will hunt the mouse and the eagle will snatch eggs from the nest. If anything, nature teaches us to be as selfish and immoral as the Marquis de Sade was.

    Can reasoning alone lift us out of the Marquis' great dilemma? Not really - who's to say what reasoning is correct? From the perspective of the thief, nature's lesson could well be interpreted as one of selfishness and disregarding others. From the perspective of the tyrant, nature's lesson could well be interpreted as one of the need for authority and rigid discipline. From the perspective of the Stoic, nature's lesson would be another thing again.

    Nature is one thing, but nature teaches us nothing. When nature is used as the source of morality, everything depends on man's interpretation, and when interpretation relies purely on perspective (in this case the perspective of a thoroughly despicable sort of man), then there can be no absolute morality. Man is not capable of complete understanding, and man alone will never conceive of an absolute morality purely through his own observations.

    Where then does this leave man? Without the concept of the supernatural then, man has no morality. If we wish for morality, we need to conceive of the divine. And if we do not conceive of the divine, then there is nothing to stop us taking a lesson from nature and becoming the sort of venal, depraved and sadistic man that the Marquis de Sade was.

    Furthermore, God's existence depends no more on man's 'requirement' for it than my existence depends on your requirement for it. If God exists, then there is no amount of smooth-talking that will get around the fact.

    EDIT - And just how would a dying man be capable of having an orgy anyway?

  6. #6
    Garbarsardar's Avatar Et Slot i et slot
    Patrician Tribune Citizen Magistrate Administrator Emeritus

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    20,608

    Default Re: Understanding Atheism: Marquis de Sade's 'Dialogue Between a Priest and a Dying M

    Quote Originally Posted by Zenith Darksea, emphasis and comments in green by me
    Well, I'll admit I haven't read his works, but you can hardly deny that what I said was true.

    I don't really think that an ad hominem attack (although again I'd point out that nothing that I said was actually slanderous) is totally irrelevant here, especially for a man that was declared on more than one occasion to be insane (and I don't think that the old Marquis would mind, having died two hundred years ago). Secondly I'd say that I don't believe that all philosophers are virtuous, and I never said that those three whom you mention were exemplary philosophers anyway.

    Anyway, since you're so keen that I do so, I shall actually address the argument presented here, bearing in mind my earlier comments. Now alas my time is limited, so I shall have to restrict myself to examining the dying man's(The fact that he is dying is somewhat relevant to the argument?-Garb.) conclusions. He seems to believe in short that reasoning is enough to render a moral worldview, and that since reasoning can lead us to morality, we have no need of God. Of course, leaving aside the fact that the truth of divinity does not rely upon whether we think it necessary, I'd like to bring our old Marquis' lifestyle into the matter. Now a reasoning man such as de Sade can apparently see that we should treat our fellow man well. Would that explain his extremely violent works such as the 120 Days of Sodom(which you admitted not having read-Garb.) and his own rather viscious acts(this is again addressing the argument and not the person, right?-Garb.), some of which I mentioned above, and of which there are many more? Presumably, considering his great capacity for cruel thought(which you know from his books which you have not read-Garb.) and action, the Marquis was not a very reasonable man.

    From here and on things do get better-Garb.:

    Can nature alone teach us morality? Only a very contradictory one. This dying man seems to believe us that nature teaches us to act justly to others and satisfy our own desires (as he demonstrates through his reservation of the women). Therein however lies the contradiction - nature shows us that an animal's (and a man's) basic instinct is to take what it wants without consideration of others, and we can see a simple example of this in the minds of young children. The lion will eat the antelope, the owl will hunt the mouse and the eagle will snatch eggs from the nest. If anything, nature teaches us to be as selfish and immoral as the Marquis de Sade was.

    Can reasoning alone lift us out of the Marquis' great dilemma? Not really - who's to say what reasoning is correct? From the perspective of the thief, nature's lesson could well be interpreted as one of selfishness and disregarding others. From the perspective of the tyrant, nature's lesson could well be interpreted as one of the need for authority and rigid discipline. From the perspective of the Stoic, nature's lesson would be another thing again.

    Nature is one thing, but nature teaches us nothing. When nature is used as the source of morality, everything depends on man's interpretation, and when interpretation relies purely on perspective (in this case the perspective of a thoroughly despicable sort of man), then there can be no absolute morality. Man is not capable of complete understanding, and man alone will never conceive of an absolute morality purely through his own observations.

    Where then does this leave man? Without the concept of the supernatural then, man has no morality. If we wish for morality, we need to conceive of the divine. And if we do not conceive of the divine, then there is nothing to stop us taking a lesson from nature and becoming the sort of venal, depraved and sadistic man that the Marquis de Sade was.

    Furthermore, God's existence depends no more on man's 'requirement' for it than my existence depends on your requirement for it. If God exists, then there is no amount of smooth-talking that will get around the fact.

    EDIT - And just how would a dying man be capable of having an orgy anyway?
    Well, it's poor old Divine Command Theory (DCT) again (read more here ) :

    The divine command theory (DCT) of ethics holds that an act is either moral or immoral solely because God either commands us to do it or prohibits us from doing it, respectively. On DCT the only thing that makes an act morally wrong is that God prohibits doing it, and all that it means to say that torture is wrong is that God prohibits torture. DCT is wildly implausible for reasons best illustrated by the Euthyphro dilemma, which is based on a discussion of what it means for an act to be holy in Plato's Euthyphro. Substituting "moral wrongness" for "holiness" raises the dilemma: Is torture wrong because God prohibits it, or does God prohibit torture because it is already wrong?

    While DCT takes the the first route, Euthyphro takes the last one: If a good God prohibits torture he does so because torture is intrinsicly wrong, not merely because he declares torture to be wrong by fiat. But if torture is intrinsicly wrong, then it is wrong regardless of whether or not God exists. Either certain acts are wrong regardless of anyone's opinions or commands (including God's), or else all that we mean by "torture is wrong" is "God prohibits torture." Rather than grounding the objectivity of ethics, DCT completely undermines it by insisting that God's commands (like those of individuals or societies) do not require justification in terms of any external principles.

    DCT is thus a kind moral relativism: what's right or wrong is what one's God (like one's self or one's society) says is right or wrong--and there are no moral standards apart from this. Yet if God said that 2+2=100, 2+2=100 would nonetheless be false because 2+2=4 is true regardless of what God says. The same point holds for moral propositions like "inflicting unnecessary suffering solely for fun is wrong." If that proposition is true, then it is true regardless of whether God commands or prohibits inflicting such suffering.

    If there is no standard of "being morally right" apart from God's commands, then God could literally command us to do anything and it would be right for us to do it by definition. Whatever God commands becomes the standard of moral rightness, and there are no moral values external to God to constrain what he would or would not command. So if God commanded one person to rape another, DCT entails that that rape would be moral because "doing the right thing" is logically equivalent to "doing what God commands." A highly implausible implication is that it is impossible to even imagine God commanding a wrong act. What counts as moral or immoral behavior on DCT is completely subjective--dependent upon God's fiat--and thus arbitrary.

    While some retort that goodness flows from God's nature, this merely changes the form of the dilemma: Is compassion good because it is a part of God's nature, or is compassion a part of God's nature because it is already good? The first option produces problems parallel to those for DCT. If malice were a part of God's nature, for instance, it is doubtful that malice would automatically be good. If there are any objective moral standards at all, then a god can be either good or evil, and the assessment of a god's character would depend upon appealing to standards independent of any god's commands, opinions, statements, nature, or character.

    For me the crux of the matter lies in the "Abhorrent commands". I'm refering to actions commanded or sanctioned by God which involved the murder rape or extermination of people like the Hittites and the Amorites, the Canaanites and the Jebusites (Deuteronomy 20:17) and also demands as the one towards Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac (Genesis 20:1-19), or the inspiration for the praise of the dashing of the children of the Babylonians against the rocks (Psalms 137:8-9).

    One could say that since God cannot will but the moral those acts are indeed moral, thus sanctioning genocide infanticide and murder.

    The second way would be to qualify:
    either the origins of those actions, in that case dismissing them as ahistorical which in turn would generate insurmountable problems with the historicity of all Biblical sources:
    or leave room for interpretation of the specific commands under particular exhonerating cirgumstances. The later option creates a novel criterion for morality, outside the will of God, presumably possesed and used according to the will of the interpreters. This would establish an ethical measure or criterion outside God's sphere of command, which is contrary to all Theological theory.


    or as Tim Gorski puts it:

    But I'm afraid the situation is much, much worse even than that. Four hundred years before Jesus Christ is supposed to have been born, Socrates asked "whether the pious or holy is beloved by the gods because it is holy, or holy because it is beloved of the gods." Socrates also observed that the gods--plural-- argued and disagreed about right and wrong as much as human beings. He got around this by supposing that that which all the gods approved was the good, and that which they all objected to was the evil, and that all else was neither good nor evil. He might just as well have considered the problem of a single god-- like that of the Christian Bible--who's inconsistent about what is beloved. But, as we know only too well, there simply is no honest way out of contradictions like that.

    So let's just consider a strictly theoretical situation. Just for the sake of argument, let's suppose there's a God, and that He, She, or It is the absolute standard of morality. Is right and wrong then simply no more than this God's say-so? Or is what is right loved by this God and what is wrong hated by this God because of what right and wrong are in themselves?

    In the first instance, if good and evil are no more than the product of the will of a divine power, and if that will is truly free, then such a God could, with a thought, cause what we consider to be the most repugnant and heinous criminal act to become the highest virtue. Now the further question would arise, of course, as to whether if this happened we would know it. Why? Because of "the moral law within us," as the philosopher Immanuel Kant put it, or "the work of the law written in our hearts," as "Saint Paul" acknowledged ( Romans 2: 15). If morality is the say-so of a God, then presumably, like the gravitational effects of a massive body, any change in His (or Her or Its) will would cause our own consciences to be instantaneously altered. I've never heard of this happening, though.

    At any rate, if there is a God, and if this God's will determines what is right and wrong, then this supposed God's being all-good is no more than His (or Her or Its) being all-powerful. Is that an absolute morality? I don't think so. Rather, it's a morality that's completely relative to His (or Her or Its) desire. In a word--well, three actually--it's *might makes right*. It's another version of the law of the jungle. How's that for an admirable system of morality?

    The only uncertainty remaining is whether it's more or less pathetic than the alternative situation of a God who is Himself (or Herself or Itself) subject to a logically anterior or prior standard of morality. That would be the case in the second instance of things that are good being beloved by God because they're good, because, of course, that puts God on the same level with human beings. It makes Him (or Her or It) irrelevant.

    Well, we know He--or She or It--is irrelevant. That's why we're revolted by such Biblical stories as that of Yahweh asking Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac as a burnt offering--as if an all-good God could be pleased by a criminal act. Did Abraham really think he was flattering Yahweh to agree to do such a thing? It's curious that this same God is also supposed to have issued orders of mass extermination, orders that "The Good Book" tells us were actually carried out with less hesitation than Abraham had in preparing to kill his own son.

    Well, so much for theistic "absolute morality." It's anything but. http://www.infidels.org/library/maga.../5moral95.html

  7. #7

    Default Re: Understanding Atheism: Marquis de Sade's 'Dialogue Between a Priest and a Dying M

    zenith, following such a flat approach somebody might conclude that your own object of studies in the university is about a bunch of drunkard and inhuman perverted pedophiles and homosexuals greeks, superstitious racists and phallocrats, each one of those drugging 10 slaves bonded with chains, in his service.....right?


    -and if u seek for violence, pervertions and immorality u really dont need to go as far as reading de sade, since the OT has too much of it


    btw i guess there can be many approaches to atheism and too many reasons of disbeliefs to deities and nobodies is ultimate....unlike the church which has only one reason to believe in "god" and one ultimate dogma
    ...but innocence was lost long ago

  8. #8
    Mylae's Avatar Memento Mori
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ferrara, Italy
    Posts
    970

    Default Re: Understanding Atheism: Marquis de Sade's 'Dialogue Between a Priest and a Dying Man'

    well, i like the sade quotation.

    If some of you could read the Sade's books - i mean all of them - this does not mean that you are pervert or so, expecially if you don't stop to the sexual explicit contest but to the philosophical considerations that follows it.

    sade's books - i've read different books of him - are totally permeated by an atheist and sad wiev of the world's order, in which Evil is triumphant and yet demonstrate to be not only so, but also that evil is right. Is a fought against the personal inhibitions and a contemporary warning in elencating the possible excesses.

    Sade is not an evil man: you should know that he was condamned to death "in effigie" for having committed anal sex - nowadays this sounds at least funcy.

    in Juliette Sade make a charachter to say "what i call Evil is really a great Good [...] Evil is necessary to the vicious organization of this sad universe".

    now, what Sade disbelieve is not only god and christianity: is the same artificial moral values, that present themselves to be eterne and natural whereas they are human and variable: this means that the sociaty could change, because if exist no morality, then the moral order of the society could have no sense, end base it not on Evil as some stupid commentator could think, but on the Force; is the strongest that has in his power to do what he could do, and the sade's typical charachters are a proof of it: middle-aged, noble, rich and pervert that could kill anybody because they use the evil force of their stronger social position.
    is exactly what happens still today, with some variation.
    what is the conclusion: in La philosophie dans le boudoir, he start the "initiatiòn" of a young girl to the sex's mysteries and finish with the exortation to the franch people to be republican and kill the king, (Français, encore un effort si vous voulez être républicains) to build a new society.
    the description of it is somehow complex and resent a lot of sexism and so, but the theoretical basis are not totally wrong.
    Extravagant developer of Invasio Barbarorum: Flagellum Dei; Developer of Paeninsula Italica
    Creator of the XV-Century Machiavello Total War Mod (2.0) for M2TW



    Honorabilis Gaius Baltar est mihi patronum.

  9. #9
    Irishman's Avatar Let me out of my mind
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    2,850

    Default Re: Understanding Atheism: Marquis de Sade's 'Dialogue Between a Priest and a Dying Man'

    Where then does this leave man? Without the concept of the supernatural then, man has no morality. If we wish for morality, we need to conceive of the divine. And if we do not conceive of the divine, then there is nothing to stop us taking a lesson from nature and becoming
    So to you, we are all just sadists being held back by fear of hell? I know that I subscribe to Abe Lincon's view, when I do good I feel good, when I do bad I feel bad, that is my religion.

    There are plenty of non-supernatural moral codes (certain sects of budhism-those not affected by Hinduism) that give superior ways of life than the "We cant do this or God will smite us" approach.
    The flow of time is always cruel... its speed seems different for each person, but no one can change it... A thing that does not change with time is a memory of younger days...

    Under the perspicacious and benevolent patronage of the great and honorable Rez and a member of S.I.N


    He who joyfully marches to music rank and file, has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would surely suffice. This disgrace to civilization should be done away with at once. Heroism at command, how violently I hate all this, how despicable and ignoble war is; I would rather be torn to shreds than be a part of so base an action. It is my conviction that killing under the cloak of war is nothing but an act of murder.

  10. #10
    Zenith Darksea's Avatar Ορθοδοξία ή θάνατος!
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    4,659

    Default Re: Understanding Atheism: Marquis de Sade's 'Dialogue Between a Priest and a Dying Man'

    Quote Originally Posted by Irishman
    So to you, we are all just sadists being held back by fear of hell?
    Well I didn't actually say that everyone is a sadist. What I said is that there is no definite lesson in nature to prevent us from being sadists. One man could just as easily be a sadist and another man not a sadist while both claimed that they drew their morality from nature. Now, I did say that nature is more likely to teach us to be self-serving than selfless, but the fact that there is no certainty as to which lesson man will draw demonstrates my point exactly. If man is left to himself to determine morality, you'll get a lot of different possibilities thrown up.

    Quote Originally Posted by Irishman
    "We cant do this or God will smite us"
    That's not technically the basis of Christian morality. It is more the case that God has demonstrated to us what is right and wrong, and we must either accept what is right or reject it. It's not a case of simply saying, "We can't do this because God will smite us." It's a case of saying, "God has revealed to us that this is wrong. Since it is wrong, we must not do it." As only God exists outside the realm of created nature (and so does not abide by the same limitations of thought as man), only God can reveal to us what is right. And whatever Apostate may say about the Orthodox (and none of us is perfect, I'll freely admit), we at least do not believe in 'Hell' as a place of vindictive retribution (unlike some others), but rather a place that man brings himself too through rejection of his God (and through rejection of God, rejection of morality). But hell is a different matter.

    Of course I'm well acquainted with our old friend Plato. Is something holy because the gods love it, or do the gods love it because it is holy? The problem with this approach is that once again it reduces the divine to the level of the mortal and makes incorrect assumptions due to man's limitations of reasoning. God is a mysterious figure, and we are not capable of comprehending His whole nature (if we were capable of that sort of thing, then we'd be able to come to an absolute morality on our own, which we can't; even atheists must admit that they did not come to their own moral assumptions on their own, but rather from their culture, their parents, their friends etc. etc.). All we know is that there are certain absolutes in the universe, and divine morality is one of them.

  11. #11
    Irishman's Avatar Let me out of my mind
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    2,850

    Default Re: Understanding Atheism: Marquis de Sade's 'Dialogue Between a Priest and a Dying Man'

    That's not technically the basis of Christian morality. It is more the case that God has demonstrated to us what is right and wrong, and we must either accept what is right or reject it. It's not a case of simply saying, "We can't do this because God will smite us." It's a case of saying, "God has revealed to us that this is wrong. Since it is wrong, we must not do it." As only God exists outside the realm of created nature (and so does not abide by the same limitations of thought as man), only God can reveal to us what is right. And whatever Apostate may say about the Orthodox (and none of us is perfect, I'll freely admit), we at least do not believe in 'Hell' as a place of vindictive retribution (unlike some others), but rather a place that man brings himself too through rejection of his God (and through rejection of God, rejection of morality). But hell is a different matter.
    I agree (to an extent), but there are many moral codes in the world that were not shaped by christianity that advocate many of the same values and ethics. I would argue that these values are intuitively engrained in our psyche, that we know right and wrong. This is evident in most cultures, the problem is when one finds a person with no respect for other's welfare. These people though, are simply breaking the laws of the people, there is nothing wrong with our more basic instincts, but they tend to be thought of as immoral because they are harmful to others. This can be explained by the natural logical thought, do unto others as you would have them do unto you. This may be present in the christian
    teachings but in no way is limited to them.

    The problem with using the bible as a strict moral code is that is calls things immoral that have no such argument against them. Homosecuality, premarital sex (though stupid), wearing clothes of two different materials, priests shaving, these "immoral" actions have no basis in logical thought. If you took the bible out of the equation, none of these things would be wrong, simply some would be less wise than others. It is these rules that give me my issues with the bible, as there is nothing wrong with them.


    All we know is that there are certain absolutes in the universe, and divine morality is one of them.
    Why, you have not shown me any reason that a divinity needs to exist to show us the way. Philosiphers have come up with equal (if not better) moral codes that have no inclusion of a fictional "santa claus".
    The flow of time is always cruel... its speed seems different for each person, but no one can change it... A thing that does not change with time is a memory of younger days...

    Under the perspicacious and benevolent patronage of the great and honorable Rez and a member of S.I.N


    He who joyfully marches to music rank and file, has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would surely suffice. This disgrace to civilization should be done away with at once. Heroism at command, how violently I hate all this, how despicable and ignoble war is; I would rather be torn to shreds than be a part of so base an action. It is my conviction that killing under the cloak of war is nothing but an act of murder.

  12. #12
    Zenith Darksea's Avatar Ορθοδοξία ή θάνατος!
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    4,659

    Default Re: Understanding Atheism: Marquis de Sade's 'Dialogue Between a Priest and a Dying Man'

    I see where you're coming from with this. I'd be careful when taking examples from Leviticus, because the Old Testament (and that book in particular) are not really used to give Christian morality a foundation anymore (as it says in the New Testament, that age has passed away and been fulfilled by Christ etc.), and because Leviticus was a handbook for priests in the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem (something that I guess neither of us is). But anyway, that's largely by the by.

    I can understand that you don't know why these examples are perceived as sinful by most Christians. One possible reason is that they are somehow connected to divine mysteries, but I'm not sure that that explanation is very helpful here. What you seem to be saying is that you can see a consistent logical basis for a large amount of Christian morality, but you don't see how it connects to those examples of sin. Well firstly, I'd ask how you know that there is nothing wrong with them. You would, I imagine, reply that they didn't harm anyone else - in other words the basis of your morality would be to question whether or not something is harmful to another person (or similar). Of course as we've said, that's only the basis of your morality. Yet imagine a person who would have as the basis of his morality the tenet that 'good' actions are actions that are harmful to others. What is there between them? To each person, they are respectively good and bad; in other words they are just floating concepts.

    Now, how does this link back into the original point? Divine morality, it would seem, is not just a question of whether or not something is harmful to others. This is a part of it - clearly in Christian morality (whatever the fundamentalists would have you believe), to harm another is to sin, but it is not just because it is harmful that it is sin. There is somehow a divine law (perhaps embodied and revealed by God) that the concept of harm transgresses; however, harm is not the only potential transgressor. In the case of shaving of priests' beards, it was presumably disallowed for Jewish priests not because beards were seen as holy, but because shaving was seen as vain, and priests should try their best to avoid vanity, for vanity transgresses this divine law.

    Ultimately, it is a web within a web, and not fully comprehensible to a man in his ordinary state. As an Orthodox Christian, I believe that we cannot fully comprehend morality for ourselves until we have found unification with God (theosis, as the Greeks put it).

    EDIT -
    Quote Originally Posted by Irishman
    Why, you have not shown me any reason that a divinity needs to exist to show us the way. Philosiphers have come up with equal (if not better) moral codes that have no inclusion of a fictional "santa claus".
    Who is to tell you that philosophers have found 'better' moral codes? Yourself? Me? The guy down the street? From my point of view (and maybe his), they are not better codes. So where does that leave moral absolutism?

  13. #13
    Irishman's Avatar Let me out of my mind
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    2,850

    Default Re: Understanding Atheism: Marquis de Sade's 'Dialogue Between a Priest and a Dying Man'

    I can understand that you don't know why these examples are perceived as sinful by most Christians. One possible reason is that they are somehow connected to divine mysteries, but I'm not sure that that explanation is very helpful here. What you seem to be saying is that you can see a consistent logical basis for a large amount of Christian morality, but you don't see how it connects to those examples of sin. Well firstly, I'd ask how you know that there is nothing wrong with them. You would, I imagine, reply that they didn't harm anyone else - in other words the basis of your morality would be to question whether or not something is harmful to another person (or similar). Of course as we've said, that's only the basis of your morality. Yet imagine a person who would have as the basis of his morality the tenet that 'good' actions are actions that are harmful to others. What is there between them? To each person, they are respectively good and bad; in other words they are just floating concepts.
    I see, but your argument can be used agaist the concept of morality itself. If you look at morals in the absence of God, they are dictated by the majority of the population. But you may argue that there could be civilizations that are based on immoralities, and I agree. But there are religions that argue different points than what the bible says is moral, so by your understanding of morality, since they are following a divine code too, they must be moral.

    May I for a moment ask you, is it all right to stone adulterous women, or homosexuals? Is it right for muslims to kill christians that wont convert? These things are all in their respective religious documents and are all supposedly the "word of God". Since there is no way to prove if god even exists, and certainly no way to prove that your belief system is correct, and you cannot even prove to me that the book you use as the word of god was not just written by some imaginative looney, you cannot impose your beliefs on others as the one way.
    The flow of time is always cruel... its speed seems different for each person, but no one can change it... A thing that does not change with time is a memory of younger days...

    Under the perspicacious and benevolent patronage of the great and honorable Rez and a member of S.I.N


    He who joyfully marches to music rank and file, has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would surely suffice. This disgrace to civilization should be done away with at once. Heroism at command, how violently I hate all this, how despicable and ignoble war is; I would rather be torn to shreds than be a part of so base an action. It is my conviction that killing under the cloak of war is nothing but an act of murder.

  14. #14
    Zenith Darksea's Avatar Ορθοδοξία ή θάνατος!
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    4,659

    Default Re: Understanding Atheism: Marquis de Sade's 'Dialogue Between a Priest and a Dying Man'

    Quote Originally Posted by Irishman
    since they are following a divine code too
    That's debatable, and has been debated many, many times. Obviously from my point of view other religions aren't following a divine code. I shan't get into that whole matter here, because it would take far too long and bring us off topic. To return to the concept - there can only be one divine morality. Various groups of people may claim to represent this, but this does not change the fact that there is only one.

    Of course it's wrong to do all of those things, as we are shown in the New Testament. If you'd like to discuss whether or not Christianity can be verified as the 'true' religion, then that could better be done in a different thread. But like I say, a multiplicity of religions does not mean that there is a multiplicity of divine moralities. What causes the 'incorrect' religions I don't know. No doubt it is just an extension of what we have both agreed on, that individuals will make their own morality (proving that man alone is incapable of finding the correct morality, as the Marquis seems to have believed that he could). But no matter how many religions there are, if there is a single divine morality, whatever man says will not change it.

    Now the problem you assert is that it's impossible to say what is the true divine morality. Does this mean then that you accept that man is incapable of locating a moral absolute on his own?

  15. #15
    Irishman's Avatar Let me out of my mind
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    2,850

    Default Re: Understanding Atheism: Marquis de Sade's 'Dialogue Between a Priest and a Dying Man'

    Now the problem you assert is that it's impossible to say what is the true divine morality. Does this mean then that you accept that man is incapable of locating a moral absolute on his own?
    No, I am asserting that there is no such thing as a moral absolute. There is no black and white, clean cut answer to what is good or not. Since you cannot prove the true moral code (or even the existance of one) you are still just a person (rather arbitrarily) choosing a common moral code as truth. The problem is, even these books and doctrines were written and influenced by man, but I see no difference in believing in your own morality or choosing to follow another organised religion. They are both written by humans and none are perfect. To say that there is a divine will, you must assert the existence of a divinity (a topic for the aptly named thread) and the fact that you understand what it wants. We have no book that is the word of god, indisputably at least. I still see morals as being a subjective guidence to ones life. If, however, they happen to go against the accepted moral values of the times, then they are considered criminal or wrong.

    My point is, there is no right or wrong in nature, just survival. Our minds seem to think that there has to be something stopping this, to keep a calm on society, but the truth is, the natural instincts in our body were put there by evolution, and thousands of years of dependancy on others has given us altruism.
    The flow of time is always cruel... its speed seems different for each person, but no one can change it... A thing that does not change with time is a memory of younger days...

    Under the perspicacious and benevolent patronage of the great and honorable Rez and a member of S.I.N


    He who joyfully marches to music rank and file, has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would surely suffice. This disgrace to civilization should be done away with at once. Heroism at command, how violently I hate all this, how despicable and ignoble war is; I would rather be torn to shreds than be a part of so base an action. It is my conviction that killing under the cloak of war is nothing but an act of murder.

  16. #16
    Zenith Darksea's Avatar Ορθοδοξία ή θάνατος!
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    4,659

    Default Re: Understanding Atheism: Marquis de Sade's 'Dialogue Between a Priest and a Dying Man'

    Quote Originally Posted by Irishman
    My point is, there is no right or wrong in nature, just survival.
    Then you would seem to agree with me that the Marquis de Sade got it wrong when he said:

    the entirety of human morals is contained in this one phrase: Render others as happy as one desires oneself to be, and never inflict more pain upon them than one would like to receive at their hands. There you are, my friend, those are the only principles we should observe, and you need neither god nor religion to appreciate and subscribe to them, you need only have a good heart.
    For who was he to say what a good heart is?

    Quote Originally Posted by Irishman
    No, I am asserting that there is no such thing as a moral absolute.
    If that is true, then there can be no morality at all, and you are unable to call any action of yourself or another person 'right' or 'wrong'. If the concept of righteousness is purely relative, then that can be used to justify any action. When the murderer is brought to court, he will merely say, "You may not think it right, but I did." Taken to its extreme logical conclusion, anarchy is the only justifiable state of existence, and I don't think that either of us would agree that that was 'right'.

  17. #17
    Irishman's Avatar Let me out of my mind
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    2,850

    Default Re: Understanding Atheism: Marquis de Sade's 'Dialogue Between a Priest and a Dying Man'

    If that is true, then there can be no morality at all, and you are unable to call any action of yourself or another person 'right' or 'wrong'. If the concept of righteousness is purely relative, then that can be used to justify any action. When the murderer is brought to court, he will merely say, "You may not think it right, but I did." Taken to its extreme logical conclusion, anarchy is the only justifiable state of existence, and I don't think that either of us would agree that that was 'right'.
    Morality is decided by the majority of the people. There will always be those who differ with the accepted moral values, but if they are held by the majority of the public, then that is what is considered right.

    You are correct in saying that there is no clear cut right and wrong. Stealing is wrong, but is a starving man who steals a loaf of bread from rainbow to feed his family immoral?
    Last edited by Irishman; June 07, 2006 at 03:23 PM.
    The flow of time is always cruel... its speed seems different for each person, but no one can change it... A thing that does not change with time is a memory of younger days...

    Under the perspicacious and benevolent patronage of the great and honorable Rez and a member of S.I.N


    He who joyfully marches to music rank and file, has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would surely suffice. This disgrace to civilization should be done away with at once. Heroism at command, how violently I hate all this, how despicable and ignoble war is; I would rather be torn to shreds than be a part of so base an action. It is my conviction that killing under the cloak of war is nothing but an act of murder.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •