On pondering my previous post, update:
As I stood in that scenario, I knew I could not live with myself if I did absolutely nothing and witnessed the one I love killed. So I can understand the selfish motive, I was also protecting myself from guilt and trauma.
Good point. Certainly relevant to to the Australian army when I was in.
Basic training sets out to break down earlier conditioning so that you automatically obey orders***. Plus the concept of ‘mateship’ is constantly hammered in and it sticks.
I was a medic, looking after a platoon out bush. First time out I became exhausted and was ready to just give up and lie down. I didn’t. My thoughts were not of getting into trouble . They were about not letting my mates down.
Over a life time, but especially in the army, I met dozens of blokes who had been in combat. I made a point of asking them about what motivated them. Without exception, the answer was; to protect one’s own life and that of one’s mates. Never ever heard soldier or WW2 veteran talk about patriotism, the evil of the enemy or any moral principle-------of course this is only anecdotal evidence,so can’t be claimed to be true.
I can’t speak for others. I had only a year of philosophy at university, in 1976. I have a pretty good memory,so remember some principles. Even so, I still rely heavily on internet searches. I apologise if I gave the impression of being knowledgeable about philosophy [or anything else] I ain’t. I’m only an opinionated dilettante. 
**** It’s always been my opinion that “I was only following orders” Is a valid defence.
We were taught “WE DO NOT TAKE PRISONERS IN VIETNAM”. What would happen to anyone who tried to buck that? Pretty good chance of getting his arse fragged.
Again,anecdotal ; I head about Australian war crimes in Vietnam, from blokes who were there. . What? You think My Lai was unusual? It was, in that they were found out OFFICIALLY
I think you’re being unjust to yourself.
From what you wrote, my impression was that AT THE TIME, you acted instinctively, not considering your own safety. From where I sit,that’s an altruistic act
…whooooosh…
(imaginary words added for the grammar robot)
Sorry…truly.
If you cannot distinguish between disbelief and unbelief…
We have nothing further to discuss.
Ah another dishonest straw man, I have actually stated the difference several times, which is that unbelief specifically mentions religion in its definition. I also never claimed there was no difference, just that they have similar meanings.
All I did was challenged your bullshit claim that “disbelief is a claim that no deity exists,” to which you made the even more absurdly stupid claim that dictionaries don’t offer definitions. Of course you can’t defend either assertion as they’re laughably wrong, hence you resorting to lies and evasion.
Sheldon
I’m not sure that’s true. Here is the dictionary definition.disbelief
noun
- inability or refusal to accept that something is true or real.
There is a significant difference between disbelieving something, and claiming something is untrue. On that I agree, but disbelief and unbelief are both simply the lack or absence of belief. The only difference I’m aware of is that unbelief is defined as the specific lack of religious belief and an absence of faith.
So there is something left to say, liar liar pants on fire.
I dumbed that last bit down for you so you’d understand it, no need to thank me.There will be nothing left to discuss when either
a) It stops being hilarious watching you thrash about, with lies and evasion when the posts are there for all to see.
b) Or in the extremely unlikely event you grow some self awareness, and admit you were wrong.
c) You leave and never come back.
[quote=“Sheldon, post:1, topic:382”]I have often heard hedonism decried by pretentious superstition, but can someone offer any rational or moral reason why pursuing earthly sensual and self indulgent pleasures is to be avoided?
I mean as long as no one else is harmed or exploited to obtain them, where’s the harm? I mean what else is there anyway?
[/quote]
Well, the Bible advocates for Balance and Reasonable Pursuits of Happiness, so that you hurt no one whether your fellow man or Your Owner, The Lord God, Who has only granted and given you permission to use His Things in a Reasonable Way.
That is what the Bible Counsels, for your continuous good preservation.
Please prove this god is real. because I am no one’s slave, especially to an entity that attempts to control every aspect of my life, even the afterlife.
And even if I partake of some acts of hedonism, just why would that offend any god? Unless it was a cruel and sadistic control freak. And that leads into the concept of free will. You do not have free will under those conditions.
Hahahaha - nah … unless, I guess a person’s gotta watch out for god’s feelings…
That depends on your personal tastes. Watch Michelle Pfeiffer movies, drink a lot of wine, have fun with an inflatable sheep toy, or maybe all three at once.
Umm, could you please explain why you have attempted to use the bible as a source to explain,well, anything, on an atheist site?
As it turns out, the majority of members here are former Christians. Most have actually read the bible and are unable to accept the explanations made by theology, or biblical exegesis and hermeneutics (after we stop laughing)
Some of us also have fairly good grasp of the history of christianity.
Using the bible as a source here is not only risible, it’s patronising. Do try not to do it again, there’s a good girl. 
You stole my thoughts 
. I hug an inflatable monkey 
I have a touch sensitive, cast soft resin Bonobo and a model railway layout. That is true hedonism.
where did you get my holiday pics?
It also advocates slavery, and portrays a vicious capricious deity, that commits indiscriminate mass murder, even torturing a new born baby to death at one point to punish its parents for conceiving it in an adulterous affair, and causing a global genocidal flood. All the while encouraging its followers into acts of evil ethnic cleansing, and the sex trafficking of female prisoners. So your claim is baffling.
Besides, why should I care what the bible says anymore than any other work of fiction?
Why would it necessarily?
Joyfully…with abandon…and single malt.
. My understanding is that at ideally, the hedonist seeks his own pleasure, as the greatest good. Or at the very least, avoids pain and discomfort.
As a social animal, most humans live among others. For the hedonist, that entails obeying the law, on one level. Failure to do so can lead to acute discomfort, even death in some countries. It’s in the Hedonist’s best interest to obey the law.
On another level, the social, it is in the best interest of the hedonist to learn to get along with others. He often needs other people to help him attain at least some of his desires. That of the company of others for example. Of course some such people become hermits and live by themselves. Easy enough to do,and one doesn’t need to go live one the top of a mountain or in a cabin in the woods.
The philosophy of Ayn Rand and Libertarians both seem to have the same basic ideal; “I’m OK, fuck you Jack” I think such a life philosophy may be called hedonistic. As can any selfish, self absorbed person, like Donald Trump for example. I consider him a hedonist.He only cares about Donald Trump.