|
On April 23 2013 05:46 Paljas wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 05:41 HardlyNever wrote:On April 23 2013 05:34 wherebugsgo wrote:On April 23 2013 05:22 HardlyNever wrote:On April 23 2013 05:20 wherebugsgo wrote:On April 23 2013 05:07 trias_e wrote:
I don't think moral absolutes exist, but it might be better for people to think that (especially depending on what the moral absolutes are). I also don't think that this is exclusive to religion.
Atheists today often believe in moral absolutes as well (of course not all). Most believe that slavery is wrong, period, absolutely. Murder is wrong. ETC. Is there any justification for this? From what authority are these absolutes? But, even if they aren't justified, belief in them as being absolute is probably a good thing.
Faith is self-delusion. Religious folks will mostly admit this as well. When they say they have faith, it means they have to ignore evidence to believe something that is contradicted by that evidence. That sounds like self-delusion to me. But, it isn't necessarily a bad thing to be self-delusional. Surely there are specific moral absolutes, and there have been plenty for thousands of years. Just out of curiosity, what are those, and why are they absolute? try murder for one. Why? Probably natural selection on that one. I'm not sure what you mean. What does natural selection have to do with the morality of murder? Could you explain how they are related? There are no moral absolutes. But you should belief that there are some. Because thats makes you a decent human beeing.
I think this is getting pretty close.
|
On April 23 2013 05:50 h3r1n6 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 05:34 wherebugsgo wrote:On April 23 2013 05:22 HardlyNever wrote:On April 23 2013 05:20 wherebugsgo wrote:On April 23 2013 05:07 trias_e wrote:
I don't think moral absolutes exist, but it might be better for people to think that (especially depending on what the moral absolutes are). I also don't think that this is exclusive to religion.
Atheists today often believe in moral absolutes as well (of course not all). Most believe that slavery is wrong, period, absolutely. Murder is wrong. ETC. Is there any justification for this? From what authority are these absolutes? But, even if they aren't justified, belief in them as being absolute is probably a good thing.
Faith is self-delusion. Religious folks will mostly admit this as well. When they say they have faith, it means they have to ignore evidence to believe something that is contradicted by that evidence. That sounds like self-delusion to me. But, it isn't necessarily a bad thing to be self-delusional. Surely there are specific moral absolutes, and there have been plenty for thousands of years. Just out of curiosity, what are those, and why are they absolute? try murder for one. Why? Probably natural selection on that one. The inquisition was basically murder and torture. To them it was morally acceptable. There also have been several instances of genocide throughout the ages. What it comes down to is that there appears to be a way humans can manage to not identify others as humans and therefore making the systematic slaughtering of those seem just. It stems from tribalism. Of course it looks like an atrocity from our perspective, but to the people conducting the genocide, their behavior is morally acceptable. Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 05:49 wherebugsgo wrote:On April 23 2013 05:46 Paljas wrote:On April 23 2013 05:41 HardlyNever wrote:On April 23 2013 05:34 wherebugsgo wrote:On April 23 2013 05:22 HardlyNever wrote:On April 23 2013 05:20 wherebugsgo wrote:On April 23 2013 05:07 trias_e wrote:
I don't think moral absolutes exist, but it might be better for people to think that (especially depending on what the moral absolutes are). I also don't think that this is exclusive to religion.
Atheists today often believe in moral absolutes as well (of course not all). Most believe that slavery is wrong, period, absolutely. Murder is wrong. ETC. Is there any justification for this? From what authority are these absolutes? But, even if they aren't justified, belief in them as being absolute is probably a good thing.
Faith is self-delusion. Religious folks will mostly admit this as well. When they say they have faith, it means they have to ignore evidence to believe something that is contradicted by that evidence. That sounds like self-delusion to me. But, it isn't necessarily a bad thing to be self-delusional. Surely there are specific moral absolutes, and there have been plenty for thousands of years. Just out of curiosity, what are those, and why are they absolute? try murder for one. Why? Probably natural selection on that one. I'm not sure what you mean. What does natural selection have to do with the morality of murder? Could you explain how they are related? There are no moral absolutes. But you should belief that there are some. Because thats makes you a decent human beeing. That statement is itself an absolute, though. If there are no moral absolutes: when is rape morally acceptable? murder? As for rape: Deuteronomy 22:28–29
Just because someone was willing to do something does not mean it is morally acceptable.
Plenty of psychopaths think that it is morally correct to cull the population but that doesn't mean their morals should have any weight in society.
e: in other words, the existence of something does not excuse it.
|
On April 23 2013 05:49 wherebugsgo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 05:46 Paljas wrote:On April 23 2013 05:41 HardlyNever wrote:On April 23 2013 05:34 wherebugsgo wrote:On April 23 2013 05:22 HardlyNever wrote:On April 23 2013 05:20 wherebugsgo wrote:On April 23 2013 05:07 trias_e wrote:
I don't think moral absolutes exist, but it might be better for people to think that (especially depending on what the moral absolutes are). I also don't think that this is exclusive to religion.
Atheists today often believe in moral absolutes as well (of course not all). Most believe that slavery is wrong, period, absolutely. Murder is wrong. ETC. Is there any justification for this? From what authority are these absolutes? But, even if they aren't justified, belief in them as being absolute is probably a good thing.
Faith is self-delusion. Religious folks will mostly admit this as well. When they say they have faith, it means they have to ignore evidence to believe something that is contradicted by that evidence. That sounds like self-delusion to me. But, it isn't necessarily a bad thing to be self-delusional. Surely there are specific moral absolutes, and there have been plenty for thousands of years. Just out of curiosity, what are those, and why are they absolute? try murder for one. Why? Probably natural selection on that one. I'm not sure what you mean. What does natural selection have to do with the morality of murder? Could you explain how they are related? There are no moral absolutes. But you should belief that there are some. Because thats makes you a decent human beeing. That statement is itself an absolute, though. If there are no moral absolutes: when is rape morally acceptable? murder?
Who said we can't have absolute statements? What does that have to do with morality?
And people can justify almost anything given the right circumstance. Would you kill someone who was about to kill 10 people if you had no other way to stop them? Is that still murder to you?
|
On April 23 2013 05:59 HardlyNever wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 05:49 wherebugsgo wrote:On April 23 2013 05:46 Paljas wrote:On April 23 2013 05:41 HardlyNever wrote:On April 23 2013 05:34 wherebugsgo wrote:On April 23 2013 05:22 HardlyNever wrote:On April 23 2013 05:20 wherebugsgo wrote:On April 23 2013 05:07 trias_e wrote:
I don't think moral absolutes exist, but it might be better for people to think that (especially depending on what the moral absolutes are). I also don't think that this is exclusive to religion.
Atheists today often believe in moral absolutes as well (of course not all). Most believe that slavery is wrong, period, absolutely. Murder is wrong. ETC. Is there any justification for this? From what authority are these absolutes? But, even if they aren't justified, belief in them as being absolute is probably a good thing.
Faith is self-delusion. Religious folks will mostly admit this as well. When they say they have faith, it means they have to ignore evidence to believe something that is contradicted by that evidence. That sounds like self-delusion to me. But, it isn't necessarily a bad thing to be self-delusional. Surely there are specific moral absolutes, and there have been plenty for thousands of years. Just out of curiosity, what are those, and why are they absolute? try murder for one. Why? Probably natural selection on that one. I'm not sure what you mean. What does natural selection have to do with the morality of murder? Could you explain how they are related? There are no moral absolutes. But you should belief that there are some. Because thats makes you a decent human beeing. That statement is itself an absolute, though. If there are no moral absolutes: when is rape morally acceptable? murder? Who said we can't have absolute statements? What does that have to do with morality? And people can justify almost anything given the right circumstance. Would you kill someone who was about to kill 10 people if you had no other way to stop them? Is that still murder to you?
no, and yes, it is still murder.
How about, more specific: murdering an innocent person.
You can get as specific as you like, there are definitely things you can find to be moral absolutes. It doesn't necessarily mean there are a lot of them.
|
On April 23 2013 06:01 wherebugsgo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 05:59 HardlyNever wrote:On April 23 2013 05:49 wherebugsgo wrote:On April 23 2013 05:46 Paljas wrote:On April 23 2013 05:41 HardlyNever wrote:On April 23 2013 05:34 wherebugsgo wrote:On April 23 2013 05:22 HardlyNever wrote:On April 23 2013 05:20 wherebugsgo wrote:On April 23 2013 05:07 trias_e wrote:
I don't think moral absolutes exist, but it might be better for people to think that (especially depending on what the moral absolutes are). I also don't think that this is exclusive to religion.
Atheists today often believe in moral absolutes as well (of course not all). Most believe that slavery is wrong, period, absolutely. Murder is wrong. ETC. Is there any justification for this? From what authority are these absolutes? But, even if they aren't justified, belief in them as being absolute is probably a good thing.
Faith is self-delusion. Religious folks will mostly admit this as well. When they say they have faith, it means they have to ignore evidence to believe something that is contradicted by that evidence. That sounds like self-delusion to me. But, it isn't necessarily a bad thing to be self-delusional. Surely there are specific moral absolutes, and there have been plenty for thousands of years. Just out of curiosity, what are those, and why are they absolute? try murder for one. Why? Probably natural selection on that one. I'm not sure what you mean. What does natural selection have to do with the morality of murder? Could you explain how they are related? There are no moral absolutes. But you should belief that there are some. Because thats makes you a decent human beeing. That statement is itself an absolute, though. If there are no moral absolutes: when is rape morally acceptable? murder? Who said we can't have absolute statements? What does that have to do with morality? And people can justify almost anything given the right circumstance. Would you kill someone who was about to kill 10 people if you had no other way to stop them? Is that still murder to you? no, and yes, it is still murder. How about, more specific: murdering an innocent person. You can get as specific as you like, there are definitely things you can find to be moral absolutes. It doesn't necessarily mean there are a lot of them.
Apostasy in current day Islam is punishable by death. That is murder of an innocent person, but in their view it is just.
|
On April 23 2013 05:15 HardlyNever wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 04:54 Kalingingsong wrote:
I'm go at this from a different angle.
Being an atheist, I do think the morality argument has some merit.
If I were the dictator of the earth, I may not care about murdering millions of people just to get my way (but of course, the environment and circumstances will probably have a lot to do with it). But if you did want me to stop, then I don't think you are gonna be able to give me a rational argument. If you met with Stalin after 1945, how would you give him a 'rational' argument to stop doing what's he's doing? You can't argue that being dictator leads to negative consequences for him personally, because in the end his actions went unpunished.
But if you were able to lie to him and get him to believe in a religion that forces him to do good things, then he might stop.
So the point is, having some people act irrationally CAN actually be good for everyone. Yeah, there is time in human history where I can actually sort of agree with this, to a limited extent. I think religion (broadly defined here) was created (among other reasons) as a sort of early form of law enforcement or just a tool to keep society in line. As someone who studies the ancient world, I can say that it is a cruel and barbaric place. The modern concept of a state with laws and enforcement personnel to enforce said laws is a relatively new concept for humanity. What is a good stand in for that in the absence of real law enforcement? Religion. Invisible entities that see what you do, and can fuck your shit up if you do x or don't do y. I sort of get it. You need some way to keep society together in the absence of a real modern state. The problem, especially now, is two fold. The first is the pragmatic one: It simply doesn't work that well. We see people from all religions out-right ignore some basic rules of their religion. Even the leaders of organized religions (presumably the most devout; cynically the non-believers who use religion for their own ends) are constantly doing things that just fly in the face of their religious "morals." The imaginary scary guys just aren't scary enough. The second problem I think is more of a moral one, and therefore isn't such a clear cut answer. I'm just not convinced that brainwashing people that there are imaginary beings that see everything you do and will reward or punish you based on those actions is moral. If people are acting "morally" only out of the fear of being punished or in the hope of some reward, are they really being "moral?" I would argue they are not, but that is just an opinion.
ya definitely. It's also interesting to note that as society transitions from ancient/medieval to modern, different parts of society can't transition at the same rate. So you might end up with these residual conflicts when you have no choice but to impose a single norm on a society where there are pockets that still have to rely on these ancient norms to some extent.
It used to have some (possibly significant) utility as a system of law enforcement (back then there was no DNA evidence or highly technical investigation methods, people can get murdered and no one would know what the hell happened, so in order to keep order there is not much you can really do than to go on a propaganda campaign and try to threaten people with spiritual punishment), but since modern systems have gotten better with this the utility of the older religious system has declined somewhat. Still not sure if has gone entirely down to zero though.
It could be useful to keep it around in the background as a backup system for some people because it works better for them. But I'm just speculating though.
|
On April 23 2013 06:05 h3r1n6 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 06:01 wherebugsgo wrote:On April 23 2013 05:59 HardlyNever wrote:On April 23 2013 05:49 wherebugsgo wrote:On April 23 2013 05:46 Paljas wrote:On April 23 2013 05:41 HardlyNever wrote:On April 23 2013 05:34 wherebugsgo wrote:On April 23 2013 05:22 HardlyNever wrote:On April 23 2013 05:20 wherebugsgo wrote:On April 23 2013 05:07 trias_e wrote:
I don't think moral absolutes exist, but it might be better for people to think that (especially depending on what the moral absolutes are). I also don't think that this is exclusive to religion.
Atheists today often believe in moral absolutes as well (of course not all). Most believe that slavery is wrong, period, absolutely. Murder is wrong. ETC. Is there any justification for this? From what authority are these absolutes? But, even if they aren't justified, belief in them as being absolute is probably a good thing.
Faith is self-delusion. Religious folks will mostly admit this as well. When they say they have faith, it means they have to ignore evidence to believe something that is contradicted by that evidence. That sounds like self-delusion to me. But, it isn't necessarily a bad thing to be self-delusional. Surely there are specific moral absolutes, and there have been plenty for thousands of years. Just out of curiosity, what are those, and why are they absolute? try murder for one. Why? Probably natural selection on that one. I'm not sure what you mean. What does natural selection have to do with the morality of murder? Could you explain how they are related? There are no moral absolutes. But you should belief that there are some. Because thats makes you a decent human beeing. That statement is itself an absolute, though. If there are no moral absolutes: when is rape morally acceptable? murder? Who said we can't have absolute statements? What does that have to do with morality? And people can justify almost anything given the right circumstance. Would you kill someone who was about to kill 10 people if you had no other way to stop them? Is that still murder to you? no, and yes, it is still murder. How about, more specific: murdering an innocent person. You can get as specific as you like, there are definitely things you can find to be moral absolutes. It doesn't necessarily mean there are a lot of them. Apostasy in current day Islam is punishable by death. That is murder of an innocent person, but in their view it is just.
I am aware.
Not moral.
I would classify Muslims who believe this the same way I would classify any psychopath.
e: by the way, if you use their moral context then you should at least classify apostasy as a crime, since in Islam it is a crime.
So while I DO think it's in absolute terms immoral, the person is not innocent in the context of Islam anyway.
|
On April 23 2013 06:01 wherebugsgo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 05:59 HardlyNever wrote:On April 23 2013 05:49 wherebugsgo wrote:On April 23 2013 05:46 Paljas wrote:On April 23 2013 05:41 HardlyNever wrote:On April 23 2013 05:34 wherebugsgo wrote:On April 23 2013 05:22 HardlyNever wrote:On April 23 2013 05:20 wherebugsgo wrote:On April 23 2013 05:07 trias_e wrote:
I don't think moral absolutes exist, but it might be better for people to think that (especially depending on what the moral absolutes are). I also don't think that this is exclusive to religion.
Atheists today often believe in moral absolutes as well (of course not all). Most believe that slavery is wrong, period, absolutely. Murder is wrong. ETC. Is there any justification for this? From what authority are these absolutes? But, even if they aren't justified, belief in them as being absolute is probably a good thing.
Faith is self-delusion. Religious folks will mostly admit this as well. When they say they have faith, it means they have to ignore evidence to believe something that is contradicted by that evidence. That sounds like self-delusion to me. But, it isn't necessarily a bad thing to be self-delusional. Surely there are specific moral absolutes, and there have been plenty for thousands of years. Just out of curiosity, what are those, and why are they absolute? try murder for one. Why? Probably natural selection on that one. I'm not sure what you mean. What does natural selection have to do with the morality of murder? Could you explain how they are related? There are no moral absolutes. But you should belief that there are some. Because thats makes you a decent human beeing. That statement is itself an absolute, though. If there are no moral absolutes: when is rape morally acceptable? murder? Who said we can't have absolute statements? What does that have to do with morality? And people can justify almost anything given the right circumstance. Would you kill someone who was about to kill 10 people if you had no other way to stop them? Is that still murder to you? no, and yes, it is still murder. How about, more specific: murdering an innocent person. You can get as specific as you like, there are definitely things you can find to be moral absolutes. It doesn't necessarily mean there are a lot of them.
No, you've made no ground. In order for there to be a moral absolute, the why is critical here. Why is it wrong to murder innocent people? On what authority?
|
On April 23 2013 06:06 HardlyNever wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 06:01 wherebugsgo wrote:On April 23 2013 05:59 HardlyNever wrote:On April 23 2013 05:49 wherebugsgo wrote:On April 23 2013 05:46 Paljas wrote:On April 23 2013 05:41 HardlyNever wrote:On April 23 2013 05:34 wherebugsgo wrote:On April 23 2013 05:22 HardlyNever wrote:On April 23 2013 05:20 wherebugsgo wrote:On April 23 2013 05:07 trias_e wrote:
I don't think moral absolutes exist, but it might be better for people to think that (especially depending on what the moral absolutes are). I also don't think that this is exclusive to religion.
Atheists today often believe in moral absolutes as well (of course not all). Most believe that slavery is wrong, period, absolutely. Murder is wrong. ETC. Is there any justification for this? From what authority are these absolutes? But, even if they aren't justified, belief in them as being absolute is probably a good thing.
Faith is self-delusion. Religious folks will mostly admit this as well. When they say they have faith, it means they have to ignore evidence to believe something that is contradicted by that evidence. That sounds like self-delusion to me. But, it isn't necessarily a bad thing to be self-delusional. Surely there are specific moral absolutes, and there have been plenty for thousands of years. Just out of curiosity, what are those, and why are they absolute? try murder for one. Why? Probably natural selection on that one. I'm not sure what you mean. What does natural selection have to do with the morality of murder? Could you explain how they are related? There are no moral absolutes. But you should belief that there are some. Because thats makes you a decent human beeing. That statement is itself an absolute, though. If there are no moral absolutes: when is rape morally acceptable? murder? Who said we can't have absolute statements? What does that have to do with morality? And people can justify almost anything given the right circumstance. Would you kill someone who was about to kill 10 people if you had no other way to stop them? Is that still murder to you? no, and yes, it is still murder. How about, more specific: murdering an innocent person. You can get as specific as you like, there are definitely things you can find to be moral absolutes. It doesn't necessarily mean there are a lot of them. No, you've made no ground. In order for there to be a moral absolute, the why is critical here. Why is it wrong to murder innocent people? On what authority?
There doesn't need to be an authority.
Society simply needs to agree on it.
Which society has agreed that the murder of an innocent is not wrong? Can you name one?
|
On April 23 2013 06:05 wherebugsgo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 06:05 h3r1n6 wrote:On April 23 2013 06:01 wherebugsgo wrote:On April 23 2013 05:59 HardlyNever wrote:On April 23 2013 05:49 wherebugsgo wrote:On April 23 2013 05:46 Paljas wrote:On April 23 2013 05:41 HardlyNever wrote:On April 23 2013 05:34 wherebugsgo wrote:On April 23 2013 05:22 HardlyNever wrote:On April 23 2013 05:20 wherebugsgo wrote:
[quote]
Surely there are specific moral absolutes, and there have been plenty for thousands of years. Just out of curiosity, what are those, and why are they absolute? try murder for one. Why? Probably natural selection on that one. I'm not sure what you mean. What does natural selection have to do with the morality of murder? Could you explain how they are related? There are no moral absolutes. But you should belief that there are some. Because thats makes you a decent human beeing. That statement is itself an absolute, though. If there are no moral absolutes: when is rape morally acceptable? murder? Who said we can't have absolute statements? What does that have to do with morality? And people can justify almost anything given the right circumstance. Would you kill someone who was about to kill 10 people if you had no other way to stop them? Is that still murder to you? no, and yes, it is still murder. How about, more specific: murdering an innocent person. You can get as specific as you like, there are definitely things you can find to be moral absolutes. It doesn't necessarily mean there are a lot of them. Apostasy in current day Islam is punishable by death. That is murder of an innocent person, but in their view it is just. I am aware. Not moral. I would classify Muslims who believe this the same way I would classify any psychopath.
That doesn't make for absolute morals though. That just means that you think the morals you hold are absolute.
|
On April 23 2013 06:08 h3r1n6 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 06:05 wherebugsgo wrote:On April 23 2013 06:05 h3r1n6 wrote:On April 23 2013 06:01 wherebugsgo wrote:On April 23 2013 05:59 HardlyNever wrote:On April 23 2013 05:49 wherebugsgo wrote:On April 23 2013 05:46 Paljas wrote:On April 23 2013 05:41 HardlyNever wrote:On April 23 2013 05:34 wherebugsgo wrote:On April 23 2013 05:22 HardlyNever wrote:
[quote]
Just out of curiosity, what are those, and why are they absolute? try murder for one. Why? Probably natural selection on that one. I'm not sure what you mean. What does natural selection have to do with the morality of murder? Could you explain how they are related? There are no moral absolutes. But you should belief that there are some. Because thats makes you a decent human beeing. That statement is itself an absolute, though. If there are no moral absolutes: when is rape morally acceptable? murder? Who said we can't have absolute statements? What does that have to do with morality? And people can justify almost anything given the right circumstance. Would you kill someone who was about to kill 10 people if you had no other way to stop them? Is that still murder to you? no, and yes, it is still murder. How about, more specific: murdering an innocent person. You can get as specific as you like, there are definitely things you can find to be moral absolutes. It doesn't necessarily mean there are a lot of them. Apostasy in current day Islam is punishable by death. That is murder of an innocent person, but in their view it is just. I am aware. Not moral. I would classify Muslims who believe this the same way I would classify any psychopath. That doesn't make for absolute morals though. That just means that you think the morals you hold are absolute.
read my edit.
In Islam apostasy is a crime. So, the example doesn't hold.
|
On April 23 2013 04:41 wherebugsgo wrote:
So? It's not that much better than in its history. Plenty of official Christian doctrine, plenty of Christian institutions, represent Christianity when they, today, in 2013, deny civil rights and suppress minorities.
As for your atheist question, there probably weren't that many atheists back then, at least not public ones. You know why? Because most religions would kill them for being nonbelievers. There aren't many famous atheists in history because atheists have long been discriminated against, just like any other minority in existence.
Here's the difference, though: you are arguing that morality only exists within the context of religion. I am a walking contradiction to that statement. I am not religious at all, and I think most people would agree that I am not by any means an immoral person. I'm not going to kill anyone, I'm not going to steal, and I'm certainly not going to infringe upon the rights of any other person. Yet, I'm not religious, nor have I ever looked toward religion for moral guidance.
In fact, your earlier posts hinted toward Christian moral superiority. Plenty of Christians use Christianity to say that gays, blacks, women, oral sex, abortion, Democrats, Muslims, Jews, and plenty of other minorities/others are morally inferior to them.
When have you seen atheism, a lack of belief in God, used as a justification for the same?
It has not been my experience that many churches now, in 2013, deny civil rights and suppress minorities. You may be able to find some who do - but it's a bit like my finding a atheist who believes something crazy and then claiming that's your atheism. More to the point, ignorance is ignorance - and while most churches weed that out, every large group of people has some bad ones. That doesn't excuse them - but it doesn't mean that's Christianity, either.
I'm not arguing that morality only exists within the context of religion. I am arguing that it takes more than an individual to create a strong system of morality (which was what the OP was claiming). It takes a community. You're not killing or stealing, and everyone has their legal rights - great. But does that make you moral? You think so - but is that enough to make it true? And also, isn't the line "I think most people would agree that..." a fallacy, as you pointed out earlier? You can not kill, steal, or spoil anyone's rights and still be someone most people would agree is a terrible person - doubly so if you don't mind bending the meaning of the words "kill" or "steal" - which most people are willing to do under the right conditions.
Also, I hope you're not actually asking me to cite times I've seen it implied that people have used atheism to say that Christianity is morally inferior - because there are several in this thread. And that's not a bad thing, people ought to view their way of thinking as the best way. The bad part is when they use that inferiority to shut out a part of their mind which has valuable critical thinking to do. Many christians do this, walking away from discussion instead of addressing it. But many atheists are just as dismissive - citing "evidence" of christianity's wrongdoing through the ages (as though christianity was one living breathing entity, instead of a body of many different people at many different times) as a reason they don't have to listen to their arguments.
Belief in our superiority is natural. It's acting on that belief out of turn which becomes unfortunate. You can think I'm wrong all you want. It's when you say I'm wrong without due evidence to support you that you've done wrong. I can think muslims pray to the wrong god all I want - it's when I yell at them over it, or disrespect their beliefs publicly that I've crossed a line.
|
On April 23 2013 06:08 wherebugsgo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 06:06 HardlyNever wrote:On April 23 2013 06:01 wherebugsgo wrote:On April 23 2013 05:59 HardlyNever wrote:On April 23 2013 05:49 wherebugsgo wrote:On April 23 2013 05:46 Paljas wrote:On April 23 2013 05:41 HardlyNever wrote:On April 23 2013 05:34 wherebugsgo wrote:On April 23 2013 05:22 HardlyNever wrote:On April 23 2013 05:20 wherebugsgo wrote:
[quote]
Surely there are specific moral absolutes, and there have been plenty for thousands of years. Just out of curiosity, what are those, and why are they absolute? try murder for one. Why? Probably natural selection on that one. I'm not sure what you mean. What does natural selection have to do with the morality of murder? Could you explain how they are related? There are no moral absolutes. But you should belief that there are some. Because thats makes you a decent human beeing. That statement is itself an absolute, though. If there are no moral absolutes: when is rape morally acceptable? murder? Who said we can't have absolute statements? What does that have to do with morality? And people can justify almost anything given the right circumstance. Would you kill someone who was about to kill 10 people if you had no other way to stop them? Is that still murder to you? no, and yes, it is still murder. How about, more specific: murdering an innocent person. You can get as specific as you like, there are definitely things you can find to be moral absolutes. It doesn't necessarily mean there are a lot of them. No, you've made no ground. In order for there to be a moral absolute, the why is critical here. Why is it wrong to murder innocent people? On what authority? There doesn't need to be an authority. Society simply needs to agree on it. Which society has agreed that the murder of an innocent is not wrong? Can you name one?
What is innocent? Maybe a child?
Pick a society that had a dynasty in some part in its history and you will find a society that killed innocent children to end a dynasty. Did some people think it was wrong? I'm sure they did. Did others think it was morally right? Sure.
How are you going to find a society that universally agrees on any one subject? That is impossible.
|
My favorite quotes:
Leviticus 25:44-46
However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way.
Timothy 2: 11-15
A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. But women will be saved through childbearing - if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.
Back to the kitchen/fields!
|
On April 23 2013 06:12 Treehead wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 04:41 wherebugsgo wrote:
So? It's not that much better than in its history. Plenty of official Christian doctrine, plenty of Christian institutions, represent Christianity when they, today, in 2013, deny civil rights and suppress minorities.
As for your atheist question, there probably weren't that many atheists back then, at least not public ones. You know why? Because most religions would kill them for being nonbelievers. There aren't many famous atheists in history because atheists have long been discriminated against, just like any other minority in existence.
Here's the difference, though: you are arguing that morality only exists within the context of religion. I am a walking contradiction to that statement. I am not religious at all, and I think most people would agree that I am not by any means an immoral person. I'm not going to kill anyone, I'm not going to steal, and I'm certainly not going to infringe upon the rights of any other person. Yet, I'm not religious, nor have I ever looked toward religion for moral guidance.
In fact, your earlier posts hinted toward Christian moral superiority. Plenty of Christians use Christianity to say that gays, blacks, women, oral sex, abortion, Democrats, Muslims, Jews, and plenty of other minorities/others are morally inferior to them.
When have you seen atheism, a lack of belief in God, used as a justification for the same?
It has not been my experience that many churches now, in 2013, deny civil rights and suppress minorities. You may be able to find some who do - but it's a bit like my finding a atheist who believes something crazy and then claiming that's your atheism. More to the point, ignorance is ignorance - and while most churches weed that out, every large group of people has some bad ones. That doesn't excuse them - but it doesn't mean that's Christianity, either. I'm not arguing that morality only exists within the context of religion. I am arguing that it takes more than an individual to create a strong system of morality (which was what the OP was claiming). It takes a community. You're not killing or stealing, and everyone has their legal rights - great. But does that make you moral? You think so - but is that enough to make it true? And also, isn't the line "I think most people would agree that..." a fallacy, as you pointed out earlier? You can not kill, steal, or spoil anyone's rights and still be someone most people would agree is a terrible person - doubly so if you don't mind bending the meaning of the words "kill" or "steal" - which most people are willing to do under the right conditions. Also, I hope you're not actually asking me to cite times I've seen it implied that people have used atheism to say that Christianity is morally inferior - because there are several in this thread. And that's not a bad thing, people ought to view their way of thinking as the best way. The bad part is when they use that inferiority to shut out a part of their mind which has valuable critical thinking to do. Many christians do this, walking away from discussion instead of addressing it. But many atheists are just as dismissive - citing "evidence" of christianity's wrongdoing through the ages (as though christianity was one living breathing entity, instead of a body of many different people at many different times) as a reason they don't have to listen to their arguments. Belief in our superiority is natural. It's acting on that belief out of turn which becomes unfortunate. You can think I'm wrong all you want. It's when you say I'm wrong without due evidence to support you that you've done wrong. I can think muslims pray to the wrong god all I want - it's when I yell at them over it, or disrespect their beliefs publicly that I've crossed a line.
So you're denying that the majority of Christian churches oppose gay marriage, which is a suppression of civil rights of a minority?
You're denying that the majority of Christian churches oppose abortion, which is a suppression of the reproduction rights of a minority?
You're denying that a significant subset of Christians opposed stem cell research, opposed the teaching of evolution in school, and have suppressed the abilities of countless minorities to do things such as run for political office? Please.
Based on human history, yes, I can confidently say that Christianity is no shining beacon of moral guidance.
|
On April 23 2013 06:13 HardlyNever wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 06:08 wherebugsgo wrote:On April 23 2013 06:06 HardlyNever wrote:On April 23 2013 06:01 wherebugsgo wrote:On April 23 2013 05:59 HardlyNever wrote:On April 23 2013 05:49 wherebugsgo wrote:On April 23 2013 05:46 Paljas wrote:On April 23 2013 05:41 HardlyNever wrote:On April 23 2013 05:34 wherebugsgo wrote:On April 23 2013 05:22 HardlyNever wrote:
[quote]
Just out of curiosity, what are those, and why are they absolute? try murder for one. Why? Probably natural selection on that one. I'm not sure what you mean. What does natural selection have to do with the morality of murder? Could you explain how they are related? There are no moral absolutes. But you should belief that there are some. Because thats makes you a decent human beeing. That statement is itself an absolute, though. If there are no moral absolutes: when is rape morally acceptable? murder? Who said we can't have absolute statements? What does that have to do with morality? And people can justify almost anything given the right circumstance. Would you kill someone who was about to kill 10 people if you had no other way to stop them? Is that still murder to you? no, and yes, it is still murder. How about, more specific: murdering an innocent person. You can get as specific as you like, there are definitely things you can find to be moral absolutes. It doesn't necessarily mean there are a lot of them. No, you've made no ground. In order for there to be a moral absolute, the why is critical here. Why is it wrong to murder innocent people? On what authority? There doesn't need to be an authority. Society simply needs to agree on it. Which society has agreed that the murder of an innocent is not wrong? Can you name one? What is innocent? Maybe a child? Pick a society that had a dynasty in some part in its history and you will find a society that killed innocent children to end a dynasty. Did some people think it was wrong? I'm sure they did. Did others think it was morally right? Sure. How are you going to find a society that universally agrees on any one subject? That is impossible.
No it isn't impossible.
The society you live in is a direct contradiction to that very statement. People don't think murder is morally acceptable. They never have and to suggest otherwise is simply contrary to real world practical evidence. You can come up with fringe cases all you want, but unprovoked murder has never been and never will be morally acceptable.
|
On April 23 2013 06:10 wherebugsgo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 06:08 h3r1n6 wrote:On April 23 2013 06:05 wherebugsgo wrote:On April 23 2013 06:05 h3r1n6 wrote:On April 23 2013 06:01 wherebugsgo wrote:On April 23 2013 05:59 HardlyNever wrote:On April 23 2013 05:49 wherebugsgo wrote:On April 23 2013 05:46 Paljas wrote:On April 23 2013 05:41 HardlyNever wrote:On April 23 2013 05:34 wherebugsgo wrote:
[quote]
try murder for one.
Why? Probably natural selection on that one. I'm not sure what you mean. What does natural selection have to do with the morality of murder? Could you explain how they are related? There are no moral absolutes. But you should belief that there are some. Because thats makes you a decent human beeing. That statement is itself an absolute, though. If there are no moral absolutes: when is rape morally acceptable? murder? Who said we can't have absolute statements? What does that have to do with morality? And people can justify almost anything given the right circumstance. Would you kill someone who was about to kill 10 people if you had no other way to stop them? Is that still murder to you? no, and yes, it is still murder. How about, more specific: murdering an innocent person. You can get as specific as you like, there are definitely things you can find to be moral absolutes. It doesn't necessarily mean there are a lot of them. Apostasy in current day Islam is punishable by death. That is murder of an innocent person, but in their view it is just. I am aware. Not moral. I would classify Muslims who believe this the same way I would classify any psychopath. That doesn't make for absolute morals though. That just means that you think the morals you hold are absolute. read my edit. In Islam apostasy is a crime. So, the example doesn't hold.
Alright, before I could give another example, I had to look up what murder is exactly defined as:
murder
Law. the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law.
So by definition murder is an illegal/immoral (not necessarily the same, but usually the law reflects the morals of a society) killing of a human. Which makes legal/moral murder a paradox
|
On April 23 2013 06:23 h3r1n6 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 06:10 wherebugsgo wrote:On April 23 2013 06:08 h3r1n6 wrote:On April 23 2013 06:05 wherebugsgo wrote:On April 23 2013 06:05 h3r1n6 wrote:On April 23 2013 06:01 wherebugsgo wrote:On April 23 2013 05:59 HardlyNever wrote:On April 23 2013 05:49 wherebugsgo wrote:On April 23 2013 05:46 Paljas wrote:On April 23 2013 05:41 HardlyNever wrote:
[quote]
I'm not sure what you mean. What does natural selection have to do with the morality of murder? Could you explain how they are related?
There are no moral absolutes. But you should belief that there are some. Because thats makes you a decent human beeing. That statement is itself an absolute, though. If there are no moral absolutes: when is rape morally acceptable? murder? Who said we can't have absolute statements? What does that have to do with morality? And people can justify almost anything given the right circumstance. Would you kill someone who was about to kill 10 people if you had no other way to stop them? Is that still murder to you? no, and yes, it is still murder. How about, more specific: murdering an innocent person. You can get as specific as you like, there are definitely things you can find to be moral absolutes. It doesn't necessarily mean there are a lot of them. Apostasy in current day Islam is punishable by death. That is murder of an innocent person, but in their view it is just. I am aware. Not moral. I would classify Muslims who believe this the same way I would classify any psychopath. That doesn't make for absolute morals though. That just means that you think the morals you hold are absolute. read my edit. In Islam apostasy is a crime. So, the example doesn't hold. Alright, before I could give another example, I had to look up what murder is exactly defined as: Show nested quote +murder
Law. the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. So by definition murder is an illegal/immoral (not necessarily the same, but usually the law reflects the morals of a society) killing of a human. Which makes legal/moral murder a paradox
Probably same thing is true for rape, but guess what?
My point stands.
|
Another productive religion thread for TL.net. How could it ever possibly get better!
|
On April 23 2013 06:12 Treehead wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 04:41 wherebugsgo wrote:
So? It's not that much better than in its history. Plenty of official Christian doctrine, plenty of Christian institutions, represent Christianity when they, today, in 2013, deny civil rights and suppress minorities.
As for your atheist question, there probably weren't that many atheists back then, at least not public ones. You know why? Because most religions would kill them for being nonbelievers. There aren't many famous atheists in history because atheists have long been discriminated against, just like any other minority in existence.
Here's the difference, though: you are arguing that morality only exists within the context of religion. I am a walking contradiction to that statement. I am not religious at all, and I think most people would agree that I am not by any means an immoral person. I'm not going to kill anyone, I'm not going to steal, and I'm certainly not going to infringe upon the rights of any other person. Yet, I'm not religious, nor have I ever looked toward religion for moral guidance.
In fact, your earlier posts hinted toward Christian moral superiority. Plenty of Christians use Christianity to say that gays, blacks, women, oral sex, abortion, Democrats, Muslims, Jews, and plenty of other minorities/others are morally inferior to them.
When have you seen atheism, a lack of belief in God, used as a justification for the same?
It has not been my experience that many churches now, in 2013, deny civil rights and suppress minorities. You may be able to find some who do - but it's a bit like my finding a atheist who believes something crazy and then claiming that's your atheism. More to the point, ignorance is ignorance - and while most churches weed that out, every large group of people has some bad ones. That doesn't excuse them - but it doesn't mean that's Christianity, either. I'm not arguing that morality only exists within the context of religion. I am arguing that it takes more than an individual to create a strong system of morality (which was what the OP was claiming). It takes a community. You're not killing or stealing, and everyone has their legal rights - great. But does that make you moral? You think so - but is that enough to make it true? And also, isn't the line "I think most people would agree that..." a fallacy, as you pointed out earlier? You can not kill, steal, or spoil anyone's rights and still be someone most people would agree is a terrible person - doubly so if you don't mind bending the meaning of the words "kill" or "steal" - which most people are willing to do under the right conditions. Also, I hope you're not actually asking me to cite times I've seen it implied that people have used atheism to say that Christianity is morally inferior - because there are several in this thread. And that's not a bad thing, people ought to view their way of thinking as the best way. The bad part is when they use that inferiority to shut out a part of their mind which has valuable critical thinking to do. Many christians do this, walking away from discussion instead of addressing it. But many atheists are just as dismissive - citing "evidence" of christianity's wrongdoing through the ages (as though christianity was one living breathing entity, instead of a body of many different people at many different times) as a reason they don't have to listen to their arguments. Belief in our superiority is natural. It's acting on that belief out of turn which becomes unfortunate. You can think I'm wrong all you want. It's when you say I'm wrong without due evidence to support you that you've done wrong. I can think muslims pray to the wrong god all I want - it's when I yell at them over it, or disrespect their beliefs publicly that I've crossed a line.
I'd argue Christianity is immoral in some of its most basic tenants. Now in the 21st century it seems like you can believe almost anything and still call yourself a Christian, so you may move the goal posts on me at any given time and still call yourself a Christian. Not much I can do about that. Here are a few starters for what, I believe, are core principles of any Christian, that are immoral in my view. Again, you may not actually believe any of these (but then I honestly don't know what it means to be Christian):
1. Jesus died for your sins.
This is immoral to me because it means someone can take the blame for your faults, and you are absolved of them. It is reminiscent of scapegoating, and even human sacrifice. We, as a species, have sinned, but this guy died for them, now we're in the clear. Yay.
2. People that don't believe what you believe are going to hell, no matter what. Specifically, that Jesus Christ is our lord and savior. Even if they are "good" people, they still burn for all eternity, because they don't happen to believe when someone tells them that a virgin had a baby 2000 years ago and that baby was the son of god.
A lot of religions are guilty of this, but we're talking about Christianity, so I'll stick with this. This is simply the standard "if you don't believe what I believe, you are screwed" mentality. I find this immoral because why should anyone believe what you believe, based on no evidence, yet be required to believe this odd story in order to not burn in hell for all eternity.
I have some others, but I'm dying to see what you say about those two.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
