|
On April 23 2013 07:40 HardlyNever wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 07:29 Birdie wrote:On April 22 2013 23:38 vOdToasT wrote:On April 22 2013 23:22 Treehead wrote:On April 22 2013 22:58 woreyour wrote:I am mature enough to know what is right or wrong. I don't need that to be "moral"; I just don't need to be an asshole. And best of all, I can fap without feeling bad about it.  100% of the people who say that they are mature enough to "know right from wrong" are just not mature enough to know that the distinction isn't always easy. You have a strange sense of what morality is - it is intended to be the set of rules which prevent a person from being "an asshole". Also, please read this: http://www.teamliquid.net/blogs/viewblog.php?id=346001Consider that sociopaths also view their version of morality (whereby some people are just supposed to die) to be completely legitimate. Now, explain why your views are superior without using statements like "everyone knows..." and "well obviously...". This is where religion/morality comes in. It gives people a context in which to discuss right and wrong. Outside of religion, there is no good and evil, there is only legal and illegal. That is a logical fallacy. Just because a being who created us says that something is moral, does not make it moral. If god was real and he really did order and / or condone the genocide and rape and slavery that's in the bible, it does not mean that it would be moral. It would still be evil. Morality can never be defined by an authority, no matter who it is. I don't know how moral the original poster is, but his morality can't be worse than that of catholicism. It's not actually a logical fallacy. You should look up divine command theory. Basically, if morality is defined by God, then no matter how often you say "premarital sex is not evil", that doesn't change how evil premarital sex is (assuming that the Christian God is the real and true God). Morality in that case is not a democracy, it's an absolute defined by God rather than humans. 2. It doesn't matter whether you understand it or not; you believe it. That makes it immoral, to me. You still believe that people who do not believe what you do will go to hell (or is this not accurate? Again, anyone can be a christian now I think). You basically gave a non-answer, to my sensibilities. You say you don't decide who gets in and who doesn't, but you still believe what you have been told. How can you believe what you don't understand? This concept is completely foreign to me. I mean in a basic sense. If someone told me, such and such works in such a way, and here is why, I would either a) ask them to explain it further or b) not really believe it until I understand it. Like lets say... quantum mechanics. I don't really fully understand quantum mechanics. But it's been explained to me in such a way, and I've seen enough evidence, that I can sort of grasp what is going on (at least I think I do), so I believe it. How can you believe something you don't understand at all? That boggles my mind. So believing something which you consider to be bad makes him immoral? I believe the Holocaust really happened, and that people in some countries die unjustly; that doesn't make me immoral for believing those things, does it? Unless you're saying that it's immoral for him to believe something which he doesn't understand. No, I believe it is immoral for someone to believe that if someone does not believe what they believe, that non-believer suffers for all eternity (that is a lot of "believes"). I don't believe in any religion, and I don't particularly like most religious people, but I think it would be immoral for me to say or believe that anyone who doesn't agree with my position of agnostic atheism will suffer for all eternity. That strikes me as morally wrong. And if you are just tuning in to the discussion, it should be quite clear that I think morality is subjective. But he asked what I felt about Christian doctrine was immoral, so I told him. It doesn't mean it is absolutely true.
But if it's true that non-believers suffer for all eternity, how is HE being immoral for believing something that is true? You're equating belief in something with immoral action, but as I said I believe that a lot of people suffered and died in the Holocaust. It's true that a lot of people suffered and died in the Holocaust, and it's not immoral for me to believe that (except according to you, it IS immoral for me to believe that).
Now, I could understand your position better if you believed it was immoral to WANT non-believers to suffer for all eternity. But just believing it would happen seems to be a strange thing to be considered immoral.
|
When I was in England every single person under 25 I spoke to was irreligious. Religion is dead in the younger generations of developed countries that aren't immigrants.
|
On April 23 2013 07:56 Birdie wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 07:40 HardlyNever wrote:On April 23 2013 07:29 Birdie wrote:On April 22 2013 23:38 vOdToasT wrote:On April 22 2013 23:22 Treehead wrote:On April 22 2013 22:58 woreyour wrote:I am mature enough to know what is right or wrong. I don't need that to be "moral"; I just don't need to be an asshole. And best of all, I can fap without feeling bad about it. 100% of the people who say that they are mature enough to "know right from wrong" are just not mature enough to know that the distinction isn't always easy. You have a strange sense of what morality is - it is intended to be the set of rules which prevent a person from being "an asshole". Also, please read this: http://www.teamliquid.net/blogs/viewblog.php?id=346001Consider that sociopaths also view their version of morality (whereby some people are just supposed to die) to be completely legitimate. Now, explain why your views are superior without using statements like "everyone knows..." and "well obviously...". This is where religion/morality comes in. It gives people a context in which to discuss right and wrong. Outside of religion, there is no good and evil, there is only legal and illegal. That is a logical fallacy. Just because a being who created us says that something is moral, does not make it moral. If god was real and he really did order and / or condone the genocide and rape and slavery that's in the bible, it does not mean that it would be moral. It would still be evil. Morality can never be defined by an authority, no matter who it is. I don't know how moral the original poster is, but his morality can't be worse than that of catholicism. It's not actually a logical fallacy. You should look up divine command theory. Basically, if morality is defined by God, then no matter how often you say "premarital sex is not evil", that doesn't change how evil premarital sex is (assuming that the Christian God is the real and true God). Morality in that case is not a democracy, it's an absolute defined by God rather than humans. 2. It doesn't matter whether you understand it or not; you believe it. That makes it immoral, to me. You still believe that people who do not believe what you do will go to hell (or is this not accurate? Again, anyone can be a christian now I think). You basically gave a non-answer, to my sensibilities. You say you don't decide who gets in and who doesn't, but you still believe what you have been told. How can you believe what you don't understand? This concept is completely foreign to me. I mean in a basic sense. If someone told me, such and such works in such a way, and here is why, I would either a) ask them to explain it further or b) not really believe it until I understand it. Like lets say... quantum mechanics. I don't really fully understand quantum mechanics. But it's been explained to me in such a way, and I've seen enough evidence, that I can sort of grasp what is going on (at least I think I do), so I believe it. How can you believe something you don't understand at all? That boggles my mind. So believing something which you consider to be bad makes him immoral? I believe the Holocaust really happened, and that people in some countries die unjustly; that doesn't make me immoral for believing those things, does it? Unless you're saying that it's immoral for him to believe something which he doesn't understand. No, I believe it is immoral for someone to believe that if someone does not believe what they believe, that non-believer suffers for all eternity (that is a lot of "believes"). I don't believe in any religion, and I don't particularly like most religious people, but I think it would be immoral for me to say or believe that anyone who doesn't agree with my position of agnostic atheism will suffer for all eternity. That strikes me as morally wrong. And if you are just tuning in to the discussion, it should be quite clear that I think morality is subjective. But he asked what I felt about Christian doctrine was immoral, so I told him. It doesn't mean it is absolutely true. But if it's true that non-believers suffer for all eternity, how is HE being immoral for believing something that is true? You're equating belief in something with immoral action, but as I said I believe that a lot of people suffered and died in the Holocaust. It's true that a lot of people suffered and died in the Holocaust, and it's not immoral for me to believe that (except according to you, it IS immoral for me to believe that). Now, I could understand your position better if you believed it was immoral to WANT non-believers to suffer for all eternity. But just believing it would happen seems to be a strange thing to be considered immoral.
It is a question of evidence, which maybe I hinted at but didn't make quite clear. The different between the Holocaust and "hell" is evidence. One has evidence for its existence, the other does not.
And because there is no evidence, it will lead to people believing in many different scenarios. So, to put it more clearly, say I believe in this thing that has no evidence, you believe in that thing that has no evidence. But if you don't believe in my thing that has no evidence, I believe you will suffer eternally. Well, if the other person believes a similar thing, they are at a bit of an impasse. It is about not being able to understand another perspective, when your (religious) perspective is based on no evidence. I think that is wrong.
Of course, you could say the true believer has their own "evidence" like scripture, personal experiences, etc. However, again, not being able to see the subjectivity of that evidence and accept the possibility that they could be wrong, is immoral to me.
Edit; Also, people only believe what they want to believe, no matter what. Now sometimes this means they have to accept hard truths, or things they wish weren't true, but they still believe them out of wanting to believe them for one reason or another. Anyone who believes that non-believers suffer for all eternity WANTS to believe that, for some reason.
|
A belief in a God or a higher power is more important than the religion that may or may not come a long with it. I choose to believe that something greater is out there, but as for religious scripture and community? I don't want anything to do with it.
|
I guess I am spiritual but not religious.
We are all fatalistically subject to physical laws and nature. There is no escaping them. They determine what you are, what you experience happening around you and thus ultimately the experiences you base your decisions on.
I don't know what you want to call it, physical laws, mother nature, god, fate? Maybe it's four words for the same thing.
|
My parents taught me about Santa and The Tooth Fairy, but I found out they were made up by the time I was 6 years old. I put God in that category as well after that. I didn't really think about whether or not God was real until I was about 13. My friend's dad was an engineer and he taught us all kinds of things about how the world works.
I soon decided that everything has or will have a scientific explanation. You don't need God to make the world work. Even asking about how the universe itself came to be doesn't matter. I'll paraphrase Carl Sagan; if God made the universe, then who made God? If God has always existed, why can't the universe have always existed?
|
On April 23 2013 07:03 wherebugsgo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 06:55 Treehead wrote:On April 23 2013 06:25 HardlyNever wrote:On April 23 2013 06:12 Treehead wrote: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. 1. Jesus died for your sins. Jesus is not dead. The body died, but he lives. This is pretty basic Christianity. But the point you're making is that we killed him with our sin - yes, that's true. But where did "now we're in the clear, yay" come from? We still sin. It's still wrong to sin. What has changed is that we no longer die for it. And it wasn't scapegoating - we didn't *make* him do it (how do you make a god do anything?). He did it as a gift. That you state this in such ridiculous terms (given how little knowledge you have of the religion) is more than a little disrespectful. 2. People that don't believe what you believe are going to hell, no matter what. Who goes to heaven and who goes to hell is not determined by us. Nor do I claim to understand the process. You would like me to account for how god determines who gets into heaven? I can't. I know what I've been told, which is that worshiping false gods is a sin, and yet I know many for whom I hope this sin is forgiven. You want me to tell you I know it will be? I can't. You want me to tell you I worship the god of fire and brimstone who will send some friends of mine to hell for their beliefs? I can't do that either. This is something I don't understand. But there are things I don't understand about Christianity. That doesn't make it wrong. Perhaps as item 3, you could ask me to start accounting for deaths of certain famous people. I'm sure I'm a knowledgeable source for such material. What you've described is a heavily neutered form of Christianity. You could probably come up with some version of it that cannot really be easily dismissed, but then again there would be no real reason for believing in it. Similar to how there's no reason for you to believe in Zeus, or Odin, or Vishnu, or the FSM. None of those things matter in the slightest to you: you don't spend a lick of time thinking about them.
Interesting - in two basic points of christian theology I've completely neutered it? Are there factions of Christianity which believes that God is not ultimately in charge of sorting out those who go to heaven from those who go to hell - people who don't hope for a merciful god?
You're right, I don't spend any time thinking about other gods. I can't prove that they're wrong or that I'm right, so I just put it out of my mind. It's better than convincing myself I have definitely disproven something I haven't (hint).
On April 23 2013 07:09 HardlyNever wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 06:55 Treehead wrote:On April 23 2013 06:25 HardlyNever wrote:On April 23 2013 06:12 Treehead wrote: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. 1. Jesus died for your sins. Jesus is not dead. The body died, but he lives. This is pretty basic Christianity. But the point you're making is that we killed him with our sin - yes, that's true. But where did "now we're in the clear, yay" come from? We still sin. It's still wrong to sin. What has changed is that we no longer die for it. And it wasn't scapegoating - we didn't *make* him do it (how do you make a god do anything?). He did it as a gift. That you state this in such ridiculous terms (given how little knowledge you have of the religion) is more than a little disrespectful. 2. People that don't believe what you believe are going to hell, no matter what. Who goes to heaven and who goes to hell is not determined by us. Nor do I claim to understand the process. You would like me to account for how god determines who gets into heaven? I can't. I know what I've been told, which is that worshiping false gods is a sin, and yet I know many for whom I hope this sin is forgiven. You want me to tell you I know it will be? I can't. You want me to tell you I worship the god of fire and brimstone who will send some friends of mine to hell for their beliefs? I can't do that either. This is something I don't understand. But there are things I don't understand about Christianity. That doesn't make it wrong. Perhaps as item 3, you could ask me to start accounting for deaths of certain famous people. I'm sure I'm a knowledgeable source for such material. 1. Ok, this whole thing never made sense to me. And your answer doesn't make it any clearer. Why did he die for our sins? I don't get it. What did that accomplish, and why is it important? Are you saying previously that when people sinned they died? And I'm pretty sure Pontius Pilate ordered him to be executed. Are you saying he orchestrated the whole thing? What evidence is there for that? Maybe you can explain it. 2. It doesn't matter whether you understand it or not; you believe it. That makes it immoral, to me. You still believe that people who do not believe what you do will go to hell (or is this not accurate? Again, anyone can be a christian now I think). You basically gave a non-answer, to my sensibilities. You say you don't decide who gets in and who doesn't, but you still believe what you have been told. How can you believe what you don't understand? This concept is completely foreign to me. I mean in a basic sense. If someone told me, such and such works in such a way, and here is why, I would either a) ask them to explain it further or b) not really believe it until I understand it. Like lets say... quantum mechanics. I don't really fully understand quantum mechanics. But it's been explained to me in such a way, and I've seen enough evidence, that I can sort of grasp what is going on (at least I think I do), so I believe it. How can you believe something you don't understand at all? That boggles my mind.
1. Jesus' death is the end of death. Before that, yes, people died according to scripture. Maybe this is some kind of metaphorical truth that I just don't understand, but I was taught that it actually meant the end of death (i.e. before that, then, people must have died). Pontius Pilate objected to having Jesus executed - he didn't "orchestrate" anything - but the people demanded he be crucified anyway. Herod was the one who had him hunted down, but Pontius Pilate was a reasonable judge who didn't want to sentence a man who apparently had committed no crime.
2. I believe god has mastery over who goes to heaven and who goes to hell. I believe it is out of my hands. This is similar to my feelings towards the death penalty. I'm not happy that anyone must be punished in such a fashion, but ultimately, I live and die under power other than my own. I do not like capital punishment, but I certainly believe it's happening. It's the same thing. I do not understand hell, but I certainly believe there are people there.
Personally, I think that people who do not believe should not be sentenced based on that alone. And I don't understand how a benevolent diety could send good people to hell. But, it's also not something I have power over, so maybe it's just like that anyway. I don't understand it, so I can't tell you how it works.
Think of it like this - how does your brain work? You don't know, right? But you assume it works somehow, and somehow the data gets in there and allows you to make the decisions you need to make. And you hope it works the way you think it does (i.e. that you're perceiving truth, and that your senses are not entirely contrived to view a reality that is slanted).
|
Northern Ireland25099 Posts
Aside from childhood, before developing, I never really 'believed' or even thought mainstream religion was plausible.
Neither do I think that the promises given are desirable. I don't like the idea that you should be incentivised/terrified of some deity in order to do good deeds, that detracts from their goodness. I don't like the idea of eternal life, existence is a journey that goes through peaks and troughs, that is made all the more exciting by the knowledge that at some stage, the rollercoaster will end and you have to get off.
|
I'm always amazed at how contentious and semantical these threads inevitably become. In the end, wouldn't we all agree that our mutual goal is to discover what is reality as best as possible and accordingly live in such a way that will optimize our own benefit? Isn't that really the heart of all our motivation? (If someone feels otherwise, please say so. I think everyone else is like me in this regard, but I would be interested to learn otherwise.) So why do we often get angry and speak heatedly with people who think reality is different than we do? (Granted, this is more of a general trend I see. You folks in this thread have been fairly reasonable.)
Anyway, that's just my opinion on arguments in general. It's silly to not be respectful to people just because they have different beliefs. (Unless your beliefs don't incorporate respect for others as a value, however I think that's a fairly uncommon belief.)
On April 23 2013 08:02 HardlyNever wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 07:56 Birdie wrote:On April 23 2013 07:40 HardlyNever wrote:On April 23 2013 07:29 Birdie wrote:On April 22 2013 23:38 vOdToasT wrote:On April 22 2013 23:22 Treehead wrote:On April 22 2013 22:58 woreyour wrote:I am mature enough to know what is right or wrong. I don't need that to be "moral"; I just don't need to be an asshole. And best of all, I can fap without feeling bad about it. 100% of the people who say that they are mature enough to "know right from wrong" are just not mature enough to know that the distinction isn't always easy. You have a strange sense of what morality is - it is intended to be the set of rules which prevent a person from being "an asshole". Also, please read this: http://www.teamliquid.net/blogs/viewblog.php?id=346001Consider that sociopaths also view their version of morality (whereby some people are just supposed to die) to be completely legitimate. Now, explain why your views are superior without using statements like "everyone knows..." and "well obviously...". This is where religion/morality comes in. It gives people a context in which to discuss right and wrong. Outside of religion, there is no good and evil, there is only legal and illegal. That is a logical fallacy. Just because a being who created us says that something is moral, does not make it moral. If god was real and he really did order and / or condone the genocide and rape and slavery that's in the bible, it does not mean that it would be moral. It would still be evil. Morality can never be defined by an authority, no matter who it is. I don't know how moral the original poster is, but his morality can't be worse than that of catholicism. It's not actually a logical fallacy. You should look up divine command theory. Basically, if morality is defined by God, then no matter how often you say "premarital sex is not evil", that doesn't change how evil premarital sex is (assuming that the Christian God is the real and true God). Morality in that case is not a democracy, it's an absolute defined by God rather than humans. 2. It doesn't matter whether you understand it or not; you believe it. That makes it immoral, to me. You still believe that people who do not believe what you do will go to hell (or is this not accurate? Again, anyone can be a christian now I think). You basically gave a non-answer, to my sensibilities. You say you don't decide who gets in and who doesn't, but you still believe what you have been told. How can you believe what you don't understand? This concept is completely foreign to me. I mean in a basic sense. If someone told me, such and such works in such a way, and here is why, I would either a) ask them to explain it further or b) not really believe it until I understand it. Like lets say... quantum mechanics. I don't really fully understand quantum mechanics. But it's been explained to me in such a way, and I've seen enough evidence, that I can sort of grasp what is going on (at least I think I do), so I believe it. How can you believe something you don't understand at all? That boggles my mind. So believing something which you consider to be bad makes him immoral? I believe the Holocaust really happened, and that people in some countries die unjustly; that doesn't make me immoral for believing those things, does it? Unless you're saying that it's immoral for him to believe something which he doesn't understand. No, I believe it is immoral for someone to believe that if someone does not believe what they believe, that non-believer suffers for all eternity (that is a lot of "believes"). I don't believe in any religion, and I don't particularly like most religious people, but I think it would be immoral for me to say or believe that anyone who doesn't agree with my position of agnostic atheism will suffer for all eternity. That strikes me as morally wrong. And if you are just tuning in to the discussion, it should be quite clear that I think morality is subjective. But he asked what I felt about Christian doctrine was immoral, so I told him. It doesn't mean it is absolutely true. But if it's true that non-believers suffer for all eternity, how is HE being immoral for believing something that is true? You're equating belief in something with immoral action, but as I said I believe that a lot of people suffered and died in the Holocaust. It's true that a lot of people suffered and died in the Holocaust, and it's not immoral for me to believe that (except according to you, it IS immoral for me to believe that). Now, I could understand your position better if you believed it was immoral to WANT non-believers to suffer for all eternity. But just believing it would happen seems to be a strange thing to be considered immoral. Of course, you could say the true believer has their own "evidence" like scripture, personal experiences, etc. However, again, not being able to see the subjectivity of that evidence and accept the possibility that they could be wrong, is immoral to me. Edit; Also, people only believe what they want to believe, no matter what. Now sometimes this means they have to accept hard truths, or things they wish weren't true, but they still believe them out of wanting to believe them for one reason or another. Anyone who believes that non-believers suffer for all eternity WANTS to believe that, for some reason.
That's interesting. You think it's immoral for someone to believe something based on faulty evidence?
What's your reasoning for this? Cause I want to believe that I'm going to be supremely happy from this instant into eternity, but I don't think I actually believe that.
|
I never jumped on the Atheist bandwagon, but I really think that religion puts God into a box. If God exists, then it wouldn't be logical to claim God as your own, or to limit God to any particular attributes. God would determine his own attributes, but when most people think of "God" or "Jesus", they think more of a super-being that operates within the realm of time and space, but can bend reality to his will. A super-being is easier to imagine because he would have a personality and would be relatable from, say, a particular specific cultural viewpoint, whereas a "God" would transcend any and all cultural viewpoints, and could not be quantified in human terms, which is exactly what religion attempts to do.
|
Here's my story...
I was raised in a secular home which held catholic traditions. I'm baptized, for instance. I'm glad that I was never really indoctrinated though, my parents never really mentioned Jesus for instance, at least not while suggesting to me that Jesus existed. Where I live, religion was never really part of people's public lives either, so I was not even exposed to it. I was maybe 11-12 when I realized that people believed in that stuff. For a while, I didn't really mind it. Being a curious kid though, I started looking it up online and it's with great disappointment that I learned, a few years later, that people with beliefs which I consider ridiculous, are all over. I was about 16-18 when I started calling myself an atheist, even though I had always been one.
At first I was young and kind of a troll, so I would mock people for believing in Santa even though they were grown adults. The issue of religion seemed like a big joke to me, which it still does for very different reasons. As an academic, reading the arguments for "intelligent design" and Christianity in general always left me absolutely and incredibly amazed at how unrefined the logic and reasoning were. In an argumentative text, they would get absolutely demolished by any competent critic. I've found out that the best argument for religion was that you just have to believe, you just have to have faith - because trying to make sense of "God" just leads to nonsense which doesn't hold at all at worst or is easy to refute at best.
My interest in politics has given a fresh, practical twist to my view on religion, though. Of course, I believe that people have the right to believe whatever they want. Religion in itself is not bad. In some cases, the belief which I would consider to be based on falsehoods actually has a positive effect. However, I would say that religion typically behaves more like a disease (sorry!). In most people, it may seem asymptomatic. However, religion is easy to transmit to others, along with its set of morals and ethics - which can be very, very dangerous and vile.
As a person who values rationality and the never-ending attempt to know the truth (while always keeping a healthy dose of modesty), I find the unconditional belief, or faith, to be disgraceful and an insult to the massive human brain that we all have. Question -everything-. However, I'll say that I have a lot more respect for religions which carry morals and ethics which I consider to be good enough for today's world.
What I'm trying to say is that my atheism was reinforced by the fact that Christianity and Islam appear, to me, to be wholly inadequate in their moral codes. The sexism, the racism, the slavery, the violence, the hatred... the magic?... So, not only do I simply not believe in the existence of God, there are many things suggesting to me that people are following false idols. If your GOD is telling you to fight against gay marriage and your GOD also tells you that he loves us all unconditionally, your GOD lies. If a deity did exist, I'd expect it would be significantly less shallow.
Edit: Also the whole thing where religious folks try to prove that their religion is true by citing their scripture shows how deeply indoctrinated they are, as they've reached a point where the level of evidence they themselves require to believe their stuff is essentially no evidence at all. To me, this is kind of creepy... It's like watching people who have joined cults and have completely lost their former personality. It's almost scary to me, because I think it just displays how fragile our minds are...
|
Northern Ireland25099 Posts
Djapz your background sounds very much like me, did you go through the solipsistic stage as well by any chance? 
|
On April 23 2013 13:17 LockeTazeline wrote:
I'm always amazed at how contentious and semantical these threads inevitably become. In the end, wouldn't we all agree that our mutual goal is to discover what is reality as best as possible and accordingly live in such a way that will optimize our own benefit? Isn't that really the heart of all our motivation? (If someone feels otherwise, please say so. I think everyone else is like me in this regard, but I would be interested to learn otherwise.) So why do we often get angry and speak heatedly with people who think reality is different than we do? (Granted, this is more of a general trend I see. You folks in this thread have been fairly reasonable.)
Anyway, that's just my opinion on arguments in general. It's silly to not be respectful to people just because they have different beliefs. (Unless your beliefs don't incorporate respect for others as a value, however I think that's a fairly uncommon belief.)
I disagree that our mutual goal is to discover what is reality as best as possible. Theists are not interested in what is true, they are interested in what makes them feel good. Whether or not reality agrees with their beliefs is irreverent.
I do agree with you(for the most part) that it's silly not to be respectful to people, though respecting an individual does not mean you need to respect their beliefs. The idea that someones 'faith' is sacred ground that you're not allowed to questions is moronic.
If you believe in Santa Clause, your belief is stupid. If you believe in the tooth fairy, your belief is stupid. If you believe in God, your belief is stupid, and likely harmful. It seems easy to say leave everyone alone to believe what they want, but it's pretty hard to do so when the religious organizations are retarding public knowledge, discriminating against gays(and other groups), and harbouring child molesters.
|
I didn't grow up in a religious environment so I never really was religious. I don't remember ever believing in a god or other religious stuff. I did hear about Adam and Eva a thousand times but I really never took it as an answer to something. Plus I never knew a person my age who was noticeably religious so I just thought that young people nowadays are not religious. At least in Finland. Of course when I grew up I realized that there still are plenty of religious people, even in modern societies like USA. That was really surprising. And that creationism is taught in science classes somewhere? That's was even more surprising and almost disappointing when I learned that. So for me, being an atheist was an obvious thing.
|
On April 23 2013 02:49 Kalingingsong wrote:
I was brainwashed by Mao ZheDong.
Mao: "...if you would kneel down, and worship ME...." *and if u dont I'll send my teenager loyalist lynch mobs to beat the shit out of you.
==================
But seriously tho, I actually really dislike the comparison of atheism to being gay.
It's like comparing being being a Republican or Democrat to being gay -- are you ready to "come out of the closet" and "admit" that you voted for Ronald Reagan? Do you "Really" have the balls? Would your family still accept you if they found out you voted for Reagan? I mean, have you no shame??? *ridiculous.
I was not comparing being homosexual to being an atheist. I was merely describing the feeling of realization I experienced.
|
On April 23 2013 00:34 Treehead wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2013 23:38 vOdToasT wrote:On April 22 2013 23:22 Treehead wrote:On April 22 2013 22:58 woreyour wrote:I am mature enough to know what is right or wrong. I don't need that to be "moral"; I just don't need to be an asshole. And best of all, I can fap without feeling bad about it. 100% of the people who say that they are mature enough to "know right from wrong" are just not mature enough to know that the distinction isn't always easy. You have a strange sense of what morality is - it is intended to be the set of rules which prevent a person from being "an asshole". Also, please read this: http://www.teamliquid.net/blogs/viewblog.php?id=346001Consider that sociopaths also view their version of morality (whereby some people are just supposed to die) to be completely legitimate. Now, explain why your views are superior without using statements like "everyone knows..." and "well obviously...". This is where religion/morality comes in. It gives people a context in which to discuss right and wrong. Outside of religion, there is no good and evil, there is only legal and illegal. That is a logical fallacy. Just because a being who created us says that something is moral, does not make it moral. If god was real and he really did order and / or condone the genocide and rape and slavery that's in the bible, it does not mean that it would be moral. It would still be evil. Morality can never be defined by an authority, no matter who it is. I don't know how moral the original poster is, but his morality can't be worse than that of catholicism. Morality is defined by an authority almost as a rule. Morality defined by someone without authority would be useless. Even individually-defined morality is assigned by virtue of each individual's authority over themselves. If you can think of no morality worse than catholicism (which may contain instances of poor behavior in stories, but overall at least contains undertones of well-being for people), you have both a very small imagination, and a very limited knowledge of history.
It not a matter of who has worse morality than Catholicism, any morality that are based in religion can be really conflicting with morals of other people or other religion. I really think Religion misunderstand morality and interchanged it with beliefs. Claiming their beliefs to be moral. Say eating pork is immoral for a Muslim but we non muslims in general see it is ridiculous. Jerking off is immoral for a catholic but what if it was a wet dream? If we remove all the beliefs of such religions then everything would be fine. Thus no need for religion to be "moral", you just need to think it through.
|
On April 23 2013 22:29 woreyour wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 00:34 Treehead wrote:On April 22 2013 23:38 vOdToasT wrote:On April 22 2013 23:22 Treehead wrote:On April 22 2013 22:58 woreyour wrote:I am mature enough to know what is right or wrong. I don't need that to be "moral"; I just don't need to be an asshole. And best of all, I can fap without feeling bad about it. 100% of the people who say that they are mature enough to "know right from wrong" are just not mature enough to know that the distinction isn't always easy. You have a strange sense of what morality is - it is intended to be the set of rules which prevent a person from being "an asshole". Also, please read this: http://www.teamliquid.net/blogs/viewblog.php?id=346001Consider that sociopaths also view their version of morality (whereby some people are just supposed to die) to be completely legitimate. Now, explain why your views are superior without using statements like "everyone knows..." and "well obviously...". This is where religion/morality comes in. It gives people a context in which to discuss right and wrong. Outside of religion, there is no good and evil, there is only legal and illegal. That is a logical fallacy. Just because a being who created us says that something is moral, does not make it moral. If god was real and he really did order and / or condone the genocide and rape and slavery that's in the bible, it does not mean that it would be moral. It would still be evil. Morality can never be defined by an authority, no matter who it is. I don't know how moral the original poster is, but his morality can't be worse than that of catholicism. Morality is defined by an authority almost as a rule. Morality defined by someone without authority would be useless. Even individually-defined morality is assigned by virtue of each individual's authority over themselves. If you can think of no morality worse than catholicism (which may contain instances of poor behavior in stories, but overall at least contains undertones of well-being for people), you have both a very small imagination, and a very limited knowledge of history. It not a matter of who has worse morality than Catholicism, any morality that are based in religion can be really conflicting with morals of other people or other religion. I really think Religion misunderstand morality and interchanged it with beliefs. Claiming their beliefs to be moral. Say eating pork is immoral for a Muslim but we non muslims in general see it is ridiculous. Jerking off is immoral for a catholic but what if it was a wet dream? If we remove all the beliefs of such religions then everything would be fine. Thus no need for religion to be "moral", you just need to think it through.
But society functions based on people imposing their morality on one another. I'm sure you can see that plenty of people could 'think it through' and come to the conclusion that that are totally justified in killing someone.
To be less sensational, if someone cons you out of all your money, they might consider that you aren't deserving to keep what you are too dumb to protect. But society has defined that as illegal.
Everyone has been very down on religion (particularly catholicism) as having a bad moral track record, but what about atheism/secularism's track record? If we're judging a worldview based on it's adherent's actions then we could easily fill pages on the evils committed by people who weren't following any particular God.
|
On April 23 2013 22:57 kerpal wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 22:29 woreyour wrote:On April 23 2013 00:34 Treehead wrote:On April 22 2013 23:38 vOdToasT wrote:On April 22 2013 23:22 Treehead wrote:On April 22 2013 22:58 woreyour wrote:I am mature enough to know what is right or wrong. I don't need that to be "moral"; I just don't need to be an asshole. And best of all, I can fap without feeling bad about it. 100% of the people who say that they are mature enough to "know right from wrong" are just not mature enough to know that the distinction isn't always easy. You have a strange sense of what morality is - it is intended to be the set of rules which prevent a person from being "an asshole". Also, please read this: http://www.teamliquid.net/blogs/viewblog.php?id=346001Consider that sociopaths also view their version of morality (whereby some people are just supposed to die) to be completely legitimate. Now, explain why your views are superior without using statements like "everyone knows..." and "well obviously...". This is where religion/morality comes in. It gives people a context in which to discuss right and wrong. Outside of religion, there is no good and evil, there is only legal and illegal. That is a logical fallacy. Just because a being who created us says that something is moral, does not make it moral. If god was real and he really did order and / or condone the genocide and rape and slavery that's in the bible, it does not mean that it would be moral. It would still be evil. Morality can never be defined by an authority, no matter who it is. I don't know how moral the original poster is, but his morality can't be worse than that of catholicism. Morality is defined by an authority almost as a rule. Morality defined by someone without authority would be useless. Even individually-defined morality is assigned by virtue of each individual's authority over themselves. If you can think of no morality worse than catholicism (which may contain instances of poor behavior in stories, but overall at least contains undertones of well-being for people), you have both a very small imagination, and a very limited knowledge of history. It not a matter of who has worse morality than Catholicism, any morality that are based in religion can be really conflicting with morals of other people or other religion. I really think Religion misunderstand morality and interchanged it with beliefs. Claiming their beliefs to be moral. Say eating pork is immoral for a Muslim but we non muslims in general see it is ridiculous. Jerking off is immoral for a catholic but what if it was a wet dream? If we remove all the beliefs of such religions then everything would be fine. Thus no need for religion to be "moral", you just need to think it through. But society functions based on people imposing their morality on one another. I'm sure you can see that plenty of people could 'think it through' and come to the conclusion that that are totally justified in killing someone. To be less sensational, if someone cons you out of all your money, they might consider that you aren't deserving to keep what you are too dumb to protect. But society has defined that as illegal. Everyone has been very down on religion (particularly catholicism) as having a bad moral track record, but what about atheism/secularism's track record? If we're judging a worldview based on it's adherent's actions then we could easily fill pages on the evils committed by people who weren't following any particular God.
I really think that would be the case 50? 100? years ago when education is not readily available and people are more "gullible"? The Internet is here. We are more dependent to technology. Media is on top of things. Little news, events spread like wildfire via social media. In a way it teaches us what is acceptable or not. It is being judge by the whole wide world. The effects of religion in modern society is getting less important as science provides us explanation. Religion in modern society makes people go backward if they preach their nonsense. It is good if they herd people to be good but to what extent? To be closed minded? It is not about atheism vs theism track record, its about what works now, what is effective or more productive.
|
On April 23 2013 10:06 Treehead wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 07:03 wherebugsgo wrote:On April 23 2013 06:55 Treehead wrote:On April 23 2013 06:25 HardlyNever wrote:On April 23 2013 06:12 Treehead wrote: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. 1. Jesus died for your sins. Jesus is not dead. The body died, but he lives. This is pretty basic Christianity. But the point you're making is that we killed him with our sin - yes, that's true. But where did "now we're in the clear, yay" come from? We still sin. It's still wrong to sin. What has changed is that we no longer die for it. And it wasn't scapegoating - we didn't *make* him do it (how do you make a god do anything?). He did it as a gift. That you state this in such ridiculous terms (given how little knowledge you have of the religion) is more than a little disrespectful. 2. People that don't believe what you believe are going to hell, no matter what. Who goes to heaven and who goes to hell is not determined by us. Nor do I claim to understand the process. You would like me to account for how god determines who gets into heaven? I can't. I know what I've been told, which is that worshiping false gods is a sin, and yet I know many for whom I hope this sin is forgiven. You want me to tell you I know it will be? I can't. You want me to tell you I worship the god of fire and brimstone who will send some friends of mine to hell for their beliefs? I can't do that either. This is something I don't understand. But there are things I don't understand about Christianity. That doesn't make it wrong. Perhaps as item 3, you could ask me to start accounting for deaths of certain famous people. I'm sure I'm a knowledgeable source for such material. What you've described is a heavily neutered form of Christianity. You could probably come up with some version of it that cannot really be easily dismissed, but then again there would be no real reason for believing in it. Similar to how there's no reason for you to believe in Zeus, or Odin, or Vishnu, or the FSM. None of those things matter in the slightest to you: you don't spend a lick of time thinking about them. Interesting - in two basic points of christian theology I've completely neutered it? Are there factions of Christianity which believes that God is not ultimately in charge of sorting out those who go to heaven from those who go to hell - people who don't hope for a merciful god? You're right, I don't spend any time thinking about other gods. I can't prove that they're wrong or that I'm right, so I just put it out of my mind. It's better than convincing myself I have definitely disproven something I haven't (hint). Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 07:09 HardlyNever wrote:On April 23 2013 06:55 Treehead wrote:On April 23 2013 06:25 HardlyNever wrote:On April 23 2013 06:12 Treehead wrote: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. 1. Jesus died for your sins. Jesus is not dead. The body died, but he lives. This is pretty basic Christianity. But the point you're making is that we killed him with our sin - yes, that's true. But where did "now we're in the clear, yay" come from? We still sin. It's still wrong to sin. What has changed is that we no longer die for it. And it wasn't scapegoating - we didn't *make* him do it (how do you make a god do anything?). He did it as a gift. That you state this in such ridiculous terms (given how little knowledge you have of the religion) is more than a little disrespectful. 2. People that don't believe what you believe are going to hell, no matter what. Who goes to heaven and who goes to hell is not determined by us. Nor do I claim to understand the process. You would like me to account for how god determines who gets into heaven? I can't. I know what I've been told, which is that worshiping false gods is a sin, and yet I know many for whom I hope this sin is forgiven. You want me to tell you I know it will be? I can't. You want me to tell you I worship the god of fire and brimstone who will send some friends of mine to hell for their beliefs? I can't do that either. This is something I don't understand. But there are things I don't understand about Christianity. That doesn't make it wrong. Perhaps as item 3, you could ask me to start accounting for deaths of certain famous people. I'm sure I'm a knowledgeable source for such material. 1. Ok, this whole thing never made sense to me. And your answer doesn't make it any clearer. Why did he die for our sins? I don't get it. What did that accomplish, and why is it important? Are you saying previously that when people sinned they died? And I'm pretty sure Pontius Pilate ordered him to be executed. Are you saying he orchestrated the whole thing? What evidence is there for that? Maybe you can explain it. 2. It doesn't matter whether you understand it or not; you believe it. That makes it immoral, to me. You still believe that people who do not believe what you do will go to hell (or is this not accurate? Again, anyone can be a christian now I think). You basically gave a non-answer, to my sensibilities. You say you don't decide who gets in and who doesn't, but you still believe what you have been told. How can you believe what you don't understand? This concept is completely foreign to me. I mean in a basic sense. If someone told me, such and such works in such a way, and here is why, I would either a) ask them to explain it further or b) not really believe it until I understand it. Like lets say... quantum mechanics. I don't really fully understand quantum mechanics. But it's been explained to me in such a way, and I've seen enough evidence, that I can sort of grasp what is going on (at least I think I do), so I believe it. How can you believe something you don't understand at all? That boggles my mind. 1. Jesus' death is the end of death. Before that, yes, people died according to scripture. Maybe this is some kind of metaphorical truth that I just don't understand, but I was taught that it actually meant the end of death (i.e. before that, then, people must have died). Pontius Pilate objected to having Jesus executed - he didn't "orchestrate" anything - but the people demanded he be crucified anyway. Herod was the one who had him hunted down, but Pontius Pilate was a reasonable judge who didn't want to sentence a man who apparently had committed no crime. 2. I believe god has mastery over who goes to heaven and who goes to hell. I believe it is out of my hands. This is similar to my feelings towards the death penalty. I'm not happy that anyone must be punished in such a fashion, but ultimately, I live and die under power other than my own. I do not like capital punishment, but I certainly believe it's happening. It's the same thing. I do not understand hell, but I certainly believe there are people there. Personally, I think that people who do not believe should not be sentenced based on that alone. And I don't understand how a benevolent diety could send good people to hell. But, it's also not something I have power over, so maybe it's just like that anyway. I don't understand it, so I can't tell you how it works. Think of it like this - how does your brain work? You don't know, right? But you assume it works somehow, and somehow the data gets in there and allows you to make the decisions you need to make. And you hope it works the way you think it does (i.e. that you're perceiving truth, and that your senses are not entirely contrived to view a reality that is slanted).
I guess this is why I can never be religious. I just lack that "faith" or whatever you want to call it (that is a nice term for it, imo). How can you say you don't understand it, yet were told it, so you just believe it? That... I can't even really put into words what that is to me. Why... I'm at a loss.
If someone came up to me and said this works this way. And I asked how, and either they didn't understand it, so they couldn't explain it themselves, or they gave an explanation that didn't make sense to me, the last thing I would do is believe it. How is that a rational course of action? I heard this thing, I don't understand it, I can't explain it, but I believe it as absolutely true. What? How is that even possible.
No, it isn't like the brain. I have some idea how it works, and more importantly, I see evidence of it working all around me (other people have brains, they work). You have no evidence for the idea that people once died, but since the death of Jesus, now they don't die. You can't possible have evidence for that, because you don't even understand what that idea means, so there is no way you can even begin to look for evidence for it.
I guess it is just a mentality that is completely foreign to me, so I'll never understand, and I am truly thankful for that. I don't see much point in furthering this conversation, because it seems to be reduced to the standard "you just have to believe" that most religious conversations are reduced to. Well, I don't believe, and you do, and I guess we'll have to leave it at that.
|
On April 23 2013 07:29 Birdie wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2013 23:38 vOdToasT wrote:On April 22 2013 23:22 Treehead wrote:On April 22 2013 22:58 woreyour wrote:I am mature enough to know what is right or wrong. I don't need that to be "moral"; I just don't need to be an asshole. And best of all, I can fap without feeling bad about it. 100% of the people who say that they are mature enough to "know right from wrong" are just not mature enough to know that the distinction isn't always easy. You have a strange sense of what morality is - it is intended to be the set of rules which prevent a person from being "an asshole". Also, please read this: http://www.teamliquid.net/blogs/viewblog.php?id=346001Consider that sociopaths also view their version of morality (whereby some people are just supposed to die) to be completely legitimate. Now, explain why your views are superior without using statements like "everyone knows..." and "well obviously...". This is where religion/morality comes in. It gives people a context in which to discuss right and wrong. Outside of religion, there is no good and evil, there is only legal and illegal. That is a logical fallacy. Just because a being who created us says that something is moral, does not make it moral. If god was real and he really did order and / or condone the genocide and rape and slavery that's in the bible, it does not mean that it would be moral. It would still be evil. Morality can never be defined by an authority, no matter who it is. I don't know how moral the original poster is, but his morality can't be worse than that of catholicism. It's not actually a logical fallacy. You should look up divine command theory. Basically, if morality is defined by God, then no matter how often you say "premarital sex is not evil", that doesn't change how evil premarital sex is (assuming that the Christian God is the real and true God). Morality in that case is not a democracy, it's an absolute defined by God rather than humans. Show nested quote +2. It doesn't matter whether you understand it or not; you believe it. That makes it immoral, to me. You still believe that people who do not believe what you do will go to hell (or is this not accurate? Again, anyone can be a christian now I think). You basically gave a non-answer, to my sensibilities. You say you don't decide who gets in and who doesn't, but you still believe what you have been told. How can you believe what you don't understand? This concept is completely foreign to me. I mean in a basic sense. If someone told me, such and such works in such a way, and here is why, I would either a) ask them to explain it further or b) not really believe it until I understand it. Like lets say... quantum mechanics. I don't really fully understand quantum mechanics. But it's been explained to me in such a way, and I've seen enough evidence, that I can sort of grasp what is going on (at least I think I do), so I believe it. How can you believe something you don't understand at all? That boggles my mind. So believing something which you consider to be bad makes him immoral? I believe the Holocaust really happened, and that people in some countries die unjustly; that doesn't make me immoral for believing those things, does it? Unless you're saying that it's immoral for him to believe something which he doesn't understand. '
It is logically flawed. If you think that god answers the question of existence, you are wrong. It only moves the question from our universe to god. He created our universe, but who created him? If you're going to say that god is eternal, you might as well say that the omniverse itself is eternal.
If you think that god gives objective purpose, you are wrong. Meaning and purpose are still subjective. Even if he exists, you can accept gods commands as your purpose and find meaning in them, or you can not. Just like everything else. If the asshole from the Qur'an or the bible existed, it wouldn't give me any purpose. It would just force me to do a bunch of stupid shit to avoid being tortured forever.
If you think that god gives objective morality, you are wrong. You can find his commands moral, or you can not, just like with everything else. It doesn't change anything. There is no argument for why gods morality is objectively moral, or why his commands give objective meaning and purpose. According to the religions, they just are. If the asshole from the Qur'an or the bible existed, the rules in those books would not become any more or less moral.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
