Support NeoGAF

[msv]

Well, for those to be absolute moral truths they must have a sovereign source. Who or what would that be? The problem is that many people might object to those moral statements, and who is to say they are wrong? Without being able to have a single source of authority on moral truths I don't see how any can be established.

What single source are you talking about? Unless you're stating every religion's god is actually real, the sovereign source you're talking about is people's own imagination. Therefore the people themselves are the sovereign source of their absolute moral statements. Which is the reality of the matter.

 

[Shinz Kicker]

I don't believe in god either though.



I'm not familiar with how the dog races work but the dog's life has to end anyway even if he does realize the bunny's not real, right?

I just have trouble coping with dying and being nothing, I'd like to find some way to cope with that and haven't so far and wanted some help so I posted among the only people that I know who are "learned" in the matter. I beat around the bush because I feel like a puss for having this concern.

i think this is something you have to ask yourself. If you truly dont believe in god, then the way you end up when you die is the same everyone else even if they believe. I Personally want to just go poof and have it all end. I dont fear it, because i know i will live on in the memories of my friends and loved one.

What is makes this odd is when your loved ones believe in eternal life and expect your coming with them.

 

[da_wump]

Originally Posted by KHarvey16:
I'm not sure I understand. Having the legal right to force your spouse to wear a veil is not present in almost any country. That isn't a religious issue really, but a basic human rights issue. The woman has a right to not be forced to wear a veil. I guess I don't see what the problem is exactly, or why it's related to an atheistic government.
I chose a bad example. I was trying to determine whether or not an atheistic government would mean having to forbid belief in God. At first I thought no, but then I figured there might be certain instances when somebody's religious obligations would have to be forfeited due to a conflict with the law. I suppose, then, that belief in God would be tolerated insofar as it did not conflict, challenge or otherwise interfere with the normal procedure of a country - which is essentially what exists now. But the problem I was trying to highlight is that if a secular state meant having no voice for religion, would a religious person be able to fully practice their faith? And if not, would that not essentially mean religion was out?

Originally Posted by Cyan:
Watch me.
I'm watching. Make an absolute moral statement.

Originally Posted by JayDubya:
Here's a couple:

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

Aggression is wrong.


No God required.

No theistic belief is required to be ethical. But the concept certainly helps some people.
Well, for those to be absolute moral truths they must have a sovereign source. Who or what would that be? The problem is that many people might object to those moral statements, and who is to say they are wrong? Without being able to have a single source of authority on moral truths I don't see how any can be established.

gonna have to agree with aurora. While an atheist, I do acknowledge that moral realism dies with God. Statements such as Aggression is wrong have no binding power that makes them "right" in the metaphysical sense. Sure, we can all agree aggression is wrong, but that sentiment is really a product of a JudeoChristian culture. It's not really right or wrong but just how we do things.

 

[Stoney Mason]

Exactly right, what we should be striving for is secularism. Having a country where everyone doesn't believe in God doesn't necessarily mean that they're will be benefits.

That is what nearly all atheists are striving for. In addition what some atheists are simply striving for is an expansion of rational thought. If you see any poll about atheists or live in the South you might get a better sense of this. It would be nice to reach the point where an atheist could be president in a conceivable America. That may or may not ever happen but that is a goal. Opening minds so prejudice and religious dogma don't cloud out rational thinking.

It doesn't help that one of our major parties is extremely tied to religious morality issues so there will always be a battle to fight in that regard. (Not that Democrats don't also suck at the teat of religion). It's no surprise that Creationism is a tool to undermine science or rational thought and who supports it.

And with that I really will leave the thread.

 

[msv]

gonna have to agree with aurora. While an atheist, I do acknowledge that moral realism dies with God. Statements such as Aggression is wrong have no binding power that makes them "right" in the metaphysical sense. Sure, we can all agree aggression is wrong, but that sentiment is really a product of a JudeoChristian culture. It's not really right or wrong but just how we do things.

You're talking as if religion is a starting point. Religion is brought forth by humans, only by fooling yourself that it isn't can you come to your conclusion.

 

[speculawyer]

I got another question, what are the benefits of atheism in the US? Is it just gay marriage? I mean, as of today, we still have abortion and the ban on stem-cell research is gone. I guess what I'm asking is, why do you guys care? If someone wants to believe in a God or anything else for that matter, and they aren't bothering you, why do you want them to be atheist?

Benefits? You get to sleep in on Sunday. You don't reject any tasty food or valuable medical technique due to superstition. You don't have to live in fear of an all-knowing all-seeing big brother that will roast you for eternity if you break some arbitrary rule.

Hey, if they are not bothering other people, that would be great. And I really don't care if people have other religions if they are harmless. I really like it actually . . . it creates more variety of art, music, and food. Who can't love the Amish? Those peaceful humble folks are cool.

But can you blame us for not being happy about religious people than fly planes into buildings? It sucks that one has pretty much zero percent chance at winning an election in most districts if you are an atheist. Religious people that want to pass laws which restrict our freedoms based on their superstitions? You probably would not like to live under Sharia law. Well I don't want to live under any religion's law. And I'm extremely happy that I don't. But the price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

 

[Panda Bear]

Benefits? You get to sleep in on Sunday. You don't reject any tasty food or valuable medical technique due to superstition. You don't have to live in fear of an all-knowing all-seeing big brother that will roast you for eternity if you break some arbitrary rule.

You just described every single religious person I know.

 

[Crayon Shinchan]

gonna have to agree with aurora. While an atheist, I do acknowledge that moral realism dies with God. Statements such as Aggression is wrong have no binding power that makes them "right" in the metaphysical sense. Sure, we can all agree aggression is wrong, but that sentiment is really a product of a JudeoChristian culture. It's not really right or wrong but just how we do things.

Nothing is right. Nothing is wrong.

Unless we frame it against an objective.

Removing the objective of entering heaven (or whatever you call a positive eternal afterlife/cycle), people generally become unbounded. Or a metaphysical level. They'll be bounded by the physical realities of the world and universe as well as their own genetic makeup of course.

The humanist objective is on the other hand, less arbitrary (but still to a degree); Continuous Progress for human kind, including a movement towards equality of opportunities (as in to provide the most developmental resources to a person that is reasonable for society).

 

[da_wump]

You're talking as if religion is a starting point. Religion is brought forth by humans, only by fooling yourself that it isn't can you come to your conclusion.

I'm well aware religion is brought about by humans, mainly as a way to engineer effective societies. The rules we see in religions were really critical in the past to a civlization's survival. But if you take away God, what makes something really right? Anything is permitted. Can you really answer the Nazis anymore? Anymore than you can answer the values of other societies? Take away a normative source like God, and no, you can't. you're fooling yourself if you think morals are real without God.

 

[JayDubya]

Nothing is right. Nothing is wrong.

Unless we frame it against an objective.

That's a very, very utilitarian view: only the objective matters.

Unsurprisingly, I disagree with you.

 

[speculawyer]

You just described every single religious person I know.

Well they are not really religious then are they?

If you are not going to follow the rules to avoid hell, then what are the benefits of religion?

 

[da_wump]

Crayon,
What is Continuous Progress? Who defines it? To the Nazis its the eugenic state, NOT equality of opportunity. Who decides then? The powerful?

 

[polyh3dron]

In a godless world who gets to determine what is ethical and what is not? There is no such thing as objective morality.

I can't stand it when people bring up this logical fallacy, like the only way one can have morals is through being religious.

 

[JayDubya]

I can't stand it when people bring up this logical fallacy, like the only way one can have morals is through being religious.

I'd agree with you. However, note this: it's not so much a logical fallacy in this usage, if you pay attention to context.

He's not religious, and he's saying there are no morals.

I am disagreeing of course, and by all means, join in.

 

[itsinmyveins]

Well, for those to be absolute moral truths they must have a sovereign source. Who or what would that be? The problem is that many people might object to those moral statements, and who is to say they are wrong? Without being able to have a single source of authority on moral truths I don't see how any can be established.

The reason why I'd say JayDubyas examples can be considered "moral truths" (although I don't know if I agree with those terms) is because they're necessary if you want a working society. At least one where you most people would want to live. They're fundamental to our society and aren't something that suddenly came about. All our morals and ethics have developed more and more over time as socity has progressed.

 

[da_wump]

Right. You need something for a working society. But my only point is that if the Nazis established a working society with a eugenic state, what then? Can you answer them?

 

[Panda Bear]

Well they are not really religious then are they?

If you are not going to follow the rules to avoid hell, then what are the benefits of religion?

Depends. If you are defining religious as belonging to an organized religion then no they aren't. If by religious you mean theistic then they are very much so. They, and I would posit most people in the United States, call themselves Christian out of habit and convenience. In actuality they are much closer to Deists but still very far from atheists.

 

[soul creator]

It makes people feel good Speculawyer. There's nothing more to it. That doesn't mean it bears truth mind.

that raises another interesting question. Couldn't one say that one of the primary reasons it "makes someone happy" is because it's heavily implied in our society that without it you wouldn't be happy? Our society is pretty much biased against the idea that you don't need religion to be happy (a notion generally pushed by religious believers, of course) so of course religion "makes them happy"...because religion has completely dominated the conversation when it comes to "things that make you happy". The acceptable terms of debate are pretty limited, so it's hard to determine for sure if religion actually has superior "make people happy" qualities, or does it just have better PR.

It's like when people say "being gay makes you depressed!" as if that's something that's inherent to being gay, rather than it being because of systemic discrimination that happens to gays in our society.

In essence, the big authoritarian religions tend to define the "sickness" and then sell us the "cure".

 

[SoulPlaya]

Benefits? You get to sleep in on Sunday. You don't reject any tasty food or valuable medical technique due to superstition. You don't have to live in fear of an all-knowing all-seeing big brother that will roast you for eternity if you break some arbitrary rule.

Hey, if they are not bothering other people, that would be great. And I really don't care if people have other religions if they are harmless. I really like it actually . . . it creates more variety of art, music, and food. Who can't love the Amish? Those peaceful humble folks are cool.

But can you blame us for not being happy about religious people than fly planes into buildings? It sucks that one has pretty much zero percent chance at winning an election in most districts if you are an atheist. Religious people that want to pass laws which restrict our freedoms based on their superstitions? You probably would not like to live under Sharia law. Well I don't want to live under any religion's law. And I'm extremely happy that I don't. But the price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

Well, I sort of did live under Sharia law, and I agree that it is wrong. Although, true Islam dictates that there must be sharia law, but doesn't that mean that there is something wrong with Islam, not all religions.

Let me be clear. Any religion that imposes its beliefs on others by force is WRONG, and should be gotten rid of. I used to live in fear in Iraq because I was a Christian that was surrounded by hostile Muslims (not all Muslims are bad, blah blah blah). If one day, America becomes 99% Atheist, will I have to live in fear again because I want to remain Christian? Can I be elected to the highest office in the land? I've met a couple of Atheists in my lifetime who've ridiculed me for my beliefs, and said that I was an idiot, despite the fact that I've never pushed my beliefs on anyone. I don't think religion should influence laws, and I'm double majoring in college with a current 3.95 GPA. Yet, I'm still considered an idiot because I spend an hour a week in church? Is that what I have to look forward to in an Atheist country?

IF SO, what changes have really taken place? All we've done is shift the discrimination from one group to another. Ignorance still flourishes, so what benefits have we got?

 

[speculawyer]

I'm well aware religion is brought about by humans, mainly as a way to engineer effective societies. The rules we see in religions were really critical in the past to a civlization's survival. But if you take away God, what makes something really right? Anything is permitted. Can you really answer the Nazis anymore? Anymore than you can answer the values of other societies? Take away a normative source like God, and no, you can't. you're fooling yourself if you think morals are real without God.

This is really a terrible argument. Atheism is about not believing in a god . . . not about eliminating laws & ethics.

And that last statement is laughable. God was into genocide, infanticide, pestilence . . . he was a mean immoral SOB. Go read that old Testament. If you get your morals from the old testament then please stay away from me.

 

[itsinmyveins]

Right. You need something for a working society. But my only point is that if the Nazis established a working society with a eugenic state, what then? Can you answer them?

Answer them what? That they're doing something wrong? Yes, I can.

 

[JayDubya]

Answer them what? That they're doing something wrong? Yes, I can.

But there are no absolutes, remember. If the majority or the state says it's right, it's right.

 

[soul creator]

I'm well aware religion is brought about by humans, mainly as a way to engineer effective societies. The rules we see in religions were really critical in the past to a civlization's survival. But if you take away God, what makes something really right? Anything is permitted. Can you really answer the Nazis anymore? Anymore than you can answer the values of other societies? Take away a normative source like God, and no, you can't. you're fooling yourself if you think morals are real without God.

morals are concepts in our heads, which is quite real, but obviously not "absolute" in the sense of some substance floating out in space waiting to be found.. When we want to approximate an "absolute morality", we form societies and make laws and try to convince people to follow them. And sometimes this doesn't work, so we agree as a society to put the people who "disagree" into jail. In more extreme situations, wars end up being fought. This is how it's always been, and how it likely will always be.

And of course we can answer the Nazi's. They disagreed, so a war ended up being fought, and (thankfully) the non-Nazi side won. And even if you allow for "god" in this situation, morality is just as "real" and "subjective" and "opinion". You just now happen to have an opinion with more power behind it. Doesn't make it "absolute".

 

[da_wump]

This is really a terrible argument. Atheism is about not believing in a god . . . not about eliminating laws & ethics.

And that last statement is laughable. God was into genocide, infanticide, pestilence . . . he was a mean immoral SOB. Go read that old Testament. If you get your morals from the old testament then please stay away from me.

I don't get my morals from him. But you have to admit to a degree of moral skepticism in that the decre "Killing is wrong" is not magically interwoven in the thread of the universe. Rather, its adopted by a society for stabillity. So it really isn't "wrong" in that traditional sense. Yeah, the God in the Old Testament was a SOB. by our standards. but how more right are our morals than his? We like our morals because were used to them. Again, can you make claims against morals of other cultures?

 

[da_wump]

soul creator: Right. So that's my point. It's just Nietzsche's will to power that resulted in what morals were established. So does that mean power is what makes things right? I don't like that answer.

 

[speculawyer]

If one day, America becomes 99% Atheist, will I have to live in fear again because I want to remain Christian?

Not if they continue to properly enforce the constitution. You have freedom of religion and that is guaranteed.

Can I be elected to the highest office in the land? I've met a couple of Atheists in my lifetime who've ridiculed me for my beliefs, and said that I was an idiot, despite the fact that I've never pushed my beliefs on anyone. I don't think religion should influence laws, and I'm double majoring in college with a current 3.95 GPA. Yet, I'm still considered an idiot because I spend an hour a week in church? Is that what I have to look forward to in an Atheist country?

If that is the way you feel, I wouldn't have a problem voting for you. Well . . . obviously I have to vote for Christians all the time as is . . . and it doesn't bother me in the least as long as they don't let it control the way they vote. John Kennedy gave the barn-burner of a speech in this area when it was a perceived as a big deal to possibly have a Catholic elected to the whitehouse since some people felt he could be controlled by the Pope. His strong defense of a separation of church & state eliminated any worry.

 

[itsinmyveins]

But there are no absolutes, remember. If the majority or the state says it's right, it's right.

But there are so many factors there you're not taking into account -- do people really buy into it, are there a lot of people who disagree and if so; how many? How will it affect the society as a whole and the relationship with other countries and in the country itself? Will it be able to stay stable if a large portion, albeit a minority, is living in fear?

I'd say that the basic laws pretty much are obvious, because if nothing else it's about self preservation. People don't want to live in fear, and that's why we built towns in the first place -- to shield us from hostiles. The next step, when the town grows large enough, is to start taking that withing the walls as well to make life easier.

 

[da_wump]

But there are so many factors there you're not taking into account -- do people really buy into it, are there a lot of people who disagree and if so; how many? How will it affect the society as a whole and the relationship with other countries and in the country itself? Will it be able to stay stable if a large portion, albeit a minority, is living in fear?

I'd say that the basic laws pretty much are obvious, because if nothing else it's about self preservation. People don't want to live in fear, and that's why we built towns in the first place -- to shield us from hostiles. The next step, when the town grows large enough, is to start taking that withing the walls as well to make life easier.

Yeah. But again the point is that a state could kill off a minority and get away with it. Being tried for crimes against humanity really holds no water. Same with human rights. Who says all humans have rights that need to be respected? Transnational claims to human rights transgressions in Rwanda and Darfur really aren't as powerful. Its simply a matter of the will to power of a powerful civ, in this case the West, which is enforcing its morality. So while were used to thinking our morality is "right" in its treatment of women, that's not really the case. The only counterargument is that of pragmatism, which is to say that the most effective societies are liberal and respect all groups. But even then, questions still arise as to the value of human life and dignity and so on.

 

[speculawyer]

I don't get my morals from him. But you have to admit to a degree of moral skepticism in that the decre "Killing is wrong" is not magically interwoven in the thread of the universe. Rather, its adopted by a society for stabillity. So it really isn't "wrong" in that traditional sense.

But decrees against murder are pretty universal across societies thus proving that the rule does not come from some mythical 'true religion' since all these societies had different religions . . . many of which are obviously man-made.

Yeah, the God in the Old Testament was a SOB. by our standards. but how more right are our morals than his? We like our morals because were used to them.

I believe we've seen a progression of ethics due to the use of principals (such as freedom & democracy), empathy, and balancing. Slavery used to be commonplace but now it is abhorrent. We arrived at this through the use of principals like freedom. Religious people love to credit religion for getting rid of slavery but the sad truth is that pro-slavery people were quite religious too.

Again, can you make claims against morals of other cultures?

Yes, I can and I do. It is wrong to criminalize homosexuality. If you personally think it is wrong, that is fine . . . don't be a homosexual. But don't tell others what they can and can't do.

 

[speculawyer]

It makes people feel good Speculawyer. There's nothing more to it. That doesn't mean it bears truth mind.

If it makes people feel good then I'm all for it . . . as long as they don't step on the rights of other people. God bless and go forward. (As Cenk would say.)

 

[da_wump]

But decrees against murder are pretty universal across societies thus proving that the rule does not come from some mythical 'true religion' since all these societies had different religions . . . many of which are obviously man-made.


I believe we've seen a progression of ethics due to the use of principals (such as freedom & democracy), empathy, and balancing. Slavery used to be commonplace but now it is abhorrent. We arrived at this through the use of principals like freedom. Religious people love to credit religion for getting rid of slavery but the sad truth is that pro-slavery people were quite religious too.


Yes, I can and I do. It is wrong to criminalize homosexuality. If you personally think it is wrong, that is fine . . . don't be a homosexual. But don't tell others what they can and can't do.

Again, hypothetically if i were to establish a state like Sparta which murdered their young and practiced polygamy, what could you do in that case? Do you have a right to impose your morality on me? Many issues such as the abolishment of slavery really owe their arguments for the rights of man from God. Look at our Founding Fathers. Deists. All of them. It is from this watchmaker God that they created natural rights. And builidng on this argument we decided slavery is wrong. My point is that we can't say shit to different societies. Our morals aren't "better" than theirs. Just different. Again, the only possible counterargument would involve pragmatism.

 

[itsinmyveins]

Yeah. But again the point is that a state could kill off a minority and get away with it. Being tried for crimes against humanity really holds no water. Same with human rights. Who says all humans have rights that need to be respected? Transnational claims to human rights transgressions in Rwanda and Darfur really aren't as powerful. Its simply a matter of the will to power of a powerful civ, in this case the West, which is enforcing its morality. So while were used to thinking our morality is "right" in its treatment of women, that's not really the case. The only counterargument is that of pragmatism, which is to say that the most effective societies are liberal and respect all groups. But even then, questions still arise as to the value of human life and dignity and so on.

All humans having equal rights is something we want, like I said, due to self preservation through a stable society if nothing else. If you start taking peoples rights away, or don't give them any to start with, that can easily turn into a pressure cooker in the long run.

And yes, it does mean that other more powerful countries are going to try and enforce its morailty upon others to some degree, I guess depending on the situation. But the crimes you mention are more likely to have reactions from several countries.

 

[mandiller]

I'm well aware religion is brought about by humans, mainly as a way to engineer effective societies. The rules we see in religions were really critical in the past to a civlization's survival. But if you take away God, what makes something really right? Anything is permitted. Can you really answer the Nazis anymore? Anymore than you can answer the values of other societies? Take away a normative source like God, and no, you can't. you're fooling yourself if you think morals are real without God.

One of the main reasons I could never be a Christian is because of how morally bankrupt the Bible and God is. There's far too much evil present, so it outweighs the good for me.

It amazes me that a lot of Christians choose to ignore this stuff. For example Moses being responsible for the butchering and genocide of three thousand Israelites. Telling the men to run around indiscriminately killing their sons, brothers and neighbours.

Now my morals will tell me that running around randomly killing people, especially my own brothers and sons is a very bad thing. But tell a Christian about this and they find the urge to somehow try to justify it. "It was an order from God, they had to do it" etc etc.... Just think about the bloody action that took place for a moment, imagine killing your son by running him through with a sword because one man said this is what you should do. To try and justify it is to throw your morals out the door.

Morals are quite real without God I assure you.

 

[da_wump]

All humans having equal rights is something we want, like I said, due to self preservation through a stable society if nothing else. If you start taking peoples rights away, or don't give them any to start with, that can easily turn into a pressure cooker in the long run.

And yes, it does mean that other more powerful countries are going to try and enforce its morailty upon others to some degree, I guess depending on the situation. But the crimes you mention are more likely to have reactions from several countries.

Right its something we want. But theres nothing stopping other societies from doing things differently. I'm all for equal rights. I love it. But I'm also painfully aware that my situation is the product of Judeo Christian values really. So even though i'm an atheist, and even though 15% of americans are atheists, were still very much Christian.

 

[SoulPlaya]

Not if they continue to properly enforce the constitution. You have freedom of religion and that is guaranteed.


If that is the way you feel, I wouldn't have a problem voting for you. Well . . . obviously I have to vote for Christians all the time as is . . . and it doesn't bother me in the least as long as they don't let it control the way they vote. John Kennedy gave the barn-burner of a speech in this area when it was a perceived as a big deal to possibly have a Catholic elected to the whitehouse since some people felt he could be controlled by the Pope. His strong defense of a separation of church & state eliminated any worry.

I understand your position, and I appreciate it. It's just that, when I see people on this board (and in this thread) get hyped up because more people are becoming Atheists, and they begin to ridicule anyone who believes in God because they believe that they're some bumbling idiots, then I get fearful. Honestly, imo, it's a thin line between a religious fanatic and a atheistic fanatic.

 

[soul creator]

soul creator: Right. So that's my point. It's just Nietzsche's will to power that resulted in what morals were established. So does that mean power is what makes things right? I don't like that answer.

Well, what we "like" is a different question from what "is".

Of course, we can define "power" in different ways. It doesn't always have to solely be "whoever has the biggest army wins the morality game". So we get things like democracy (self-government! The people have the power!) Of course, that has its flaws as wells, but we tend to decide on a case by case basis what is "good" and what is "bad", and weigh each side. We can try to come up with "objective" measures to create moral codes, such as "what causes pain is bad", and "what furthers the spread of our species is good", but that's obviously not a 100% thing either. And it's a constant refinement/tug of war/discussion/etc.

 

[da_wump]

Well, what we "like" is a different question from what "is".

Of course, we can define "power" in different ways. It doesn't always have to solely be "whoever has the biggest army wins the morality game". So we get things like democracy (self-government! The people have the power!) Of course, that has its flaws as wells, but we tend to decide on a case by case basis what is "good" and what is "bad", and weigh each side. We can try to come up with "objective" measures to create moral codes, such as "what causes pain is bad", and "what furthers the spread of our species is good", but that's obviously not a 100% thing either. And it's a constant refinement/tug of war/discussion/etc.

Right. And that discussion varies across societies. But can you then really use human rights agains the Chinese or Sudan? What if they have different values? What if they say that what causes pain doesn't matter to them? All morals require a leap of faith. you have to recognize that that leap cannot be rationally defended.

 

[ChoklitReign]

See? I am really fucking tired.

 

[msv]

I'm well aware religion is brought about by humans, mainly as a way to engineer effective societies. The rules we see in religions were really critical in the past to a civlization's survival. But if you take away God, what makes something really right? Anything is permitted. Can you really answer the Nazis anymore? Anymore than you can answer the values of other societies? Take away a normative source like God, and no, you can't. you're fooling yourself if you think morals are real without God.

Including god doesn't make something really right either, why would it? People themselves are the only ones upholding their morals, not the imaginary character they devised. I don't see how 'god' (which one, really?) can be used as a normative source, it's your own imagination, therefore it's yourself. You are your own normative source. This holds true for everyone. Even with strictly defined ethics, people's morals differ.

 

[ChoklitReign]

No . . . you obviously miss the whole point of science. It is evidence-based and it is always changing.

Yeah, sorry about that.

Yeah, OK . . . which would people rather give up . . . cars, electricity, modern medicine, computer, TV, videogames . . . or religion.

You really don't know the purpose of religion, don't you? Religion doesn't "invent" things, it brings people together.

Religion created societal order, some laws, structure, charity, crude psychology/counseling, (incorrect) answers to difficult questions, etc. However, secular laws are now better than the religious laws (the anti-pork stuff is arbitrary, the anti-women stuff is just plain misogyny, the anti-gay stuff is just plain discrimination based on an 'ewww' factor, etc.), charity does not require religion, science provides much better answers to the difficult questions, psychology provides better counseling (although it still needs a lot of work), etc.

Good point, religion doesn't help much as a legal system. But as I pointed above, religion still acts as a social medium with ideas that explain the metaphysical world and how we should act. Religion is metaphysics applied to society and ethics. Yes, you're right in that we would be better off without its supernatural elements. But that doesn't mean science is better at explaining any of that.

What is 'the metaphysical world'? A reason for existence. Religions can provide answers but they are no better than ones I can make up. If they can provide some proof or evidence, they might be useful . . . but that would be science wouldn't it?

Philosophy doesn't prove, it explains. You're missing what distinguishes it from science.

Sure. That is why there are so many Christian palestinian bombers (there are lots of Christian Palestinians you know). And all those abused Tibetan monks are blowing themselves up all the time. Clearly no link to Islam.

See? They're all politically based.

I'm tired so I'm not going to argue anymore. Enjoy your 15%.

 

[speculawyer]

Again, hypothetically if i were to establish a state like Sparta which murdered their young and practiced polygamy, what could you do in that case?

Well that depends on how much power I have.

Do you have a right to impose your morality on me?

Yes, to the degree that you cannot do actions which impinge on the rights of others.

Many issues such as the abolishment of slavery really owe their arguments for the rights of man to God.

Pfft . . . right . . . that's why the Bible is full of slavery. People may make up some justifications involving God, but it is people that create the rules using their brains. No God involved. BTW, the justifications FOR slavery were also filled with justifications involving God.

Look at our Founding Fathers. Deists. All of them. It is from this watchmaker God that they created natural rights.

Deists, yes. No matter how much they may attribute things to God, it was the work of their brains that created the constitution . . . not some religious text.

My point is that we can't say shit to different societies. Our morals aren't "better" than theirs. Just different. Again, the only possible counterargument would involve pragmatism.

Not just different . . . better. Freedom is better because it gives you a wider latitude to enjoy your life. If people chose to self-impose limitations on their own behavior in the form of religious laws/rules/tenets/etc, that is their choice. But a society that enforces the laws/rules/tenets/etc of one particular religion on all its subjects (whether or not they agree with the religion) is not as free (and thus not as good) as one that does not.

And ironically, most people agree that freedom is good. Even most people from various religious states will say that freedom is good. They just start to balk at things that offend their religion or homosexuality. If the Iranian people had the power to throw off the yoke of the Mullahs, I think they would. (Or at least it would be close.)

 

[Fusebox]

On the topic of getting our morals from God: George Carlin doing his classic bit on shortening the 10 Commandments...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkRYaMiP4K8

 

[Panda Bear]

People may make up some justifications involving God, but it is people that create the rules using their brains. No God involved.

Why doesn't this apply when people do bad things in the name of God?

 

[soul creator]

Right. And that discussion varies across societies. But can you then really use human rights agains the Chinese or Sudan? What if they have different values? What if they say that what causes pain doesn't matter to them?

But is it really "the Chinese" that has their values that corrupt what we call "human rights", or is it just a particular group of Chinese who happen to be in power, and want to define things in a particular way that benefits them, and actually has nothing to do with what "the Chinese" or "the Sudanese" actually want?.

In a lot of situations, things like "I don't want to be hungry" are about as universal as you can get (even though there technically could be situations where someone actually "desires" to be hungry). So if a bunch of people are hungry, it's likely that it's not because their "value system" actually defines hunger as an awesome and wonderful state to be in.

Now of course, you can still say "but the people in power, their value system is to make people hungry, how can you criticize them??" But that's when you go to things like human psychology, emotions, evolutionary biology, etc. and try to make your case and maybe even appeal to their own self-interest.

And if they still disagree...well that's where the more controversial decisions come in (Adrian Veidt!)

But as always, there's no hard and fast rules to any of this. It's a constant push and pull.

 

[da_wump]

sry repeat

 

[msv]

Why doesn't this apply when people do bad things in the name of God?

Feeding people bollocks can make them do terrible things. Proper education is a priority above all.

 

[da_wump]

Well that depends on how much power I have.


Yes, to the degree that you cannot do actions which impinge on the rights of others.




Pfft . . . right . . . that's why the Bible is full of slavery. People may make up some justifications involving God, but it is people that create the rules using their brains. No God involved. BTW, the justifications FOR slavery were also filled with justifications involving God.


Deists, yes. No matter how much they may attribute things to God, it was the work of their brains that created the constitution . . . not some religious text.


Not just different . . . better. Freedom is better because it gives you a wider latitude to enjoy your life. If people chose to self-impose limitations on their own behavior in the form of religious laws/rules/tenets/etc, that is their choice. But a society that enforces the laws/rules/tenets/etc of one particular religion on all its subjects (whether or not they agree with the religion) is not as free (and thus not as good) as one that does not.

And ironically, most people agree that freedom is good. Even most people from various religious states will say that freedom is good. They just start to balk at things that offend their religion or homosexuality. If the Iranian people had the power to throw off the yoke of the Mullahs, I think they would. (Or at least it would be close.)

The arguments against slavery derived from Christian ideas of the equality of man. The natural rights in our Constitution are derived from the idea that we are all equal before God. Read some Locke. Deists saw God as what equalized all of mankind.

Again the question of the better society can differ across cultures. Maybe some people like freedom. But what if people prefer a caste system? Or any other system? you revert again to who has more power. And yeah, concerning gays, what can you do to those that are homosexual in Iran? What if the Iranians argue that homosexuality would destroy their state? Would you use your power then?

My answer: No. Recognize that your morals aren't absolute and open dialogue with different cultures to work together. But respect their way of doing things as well. You can only argue that your culture is more effective of a society and perhaps let the diffusion of information do its work.

 

[itsinmyveins]

Right its something we want. But theres nothing stopping other societies from doing things differently. I'm all for equal rights. I love it. But I'm also painfully aware that my situation is the product of Judeo Christian values really. So even though i'm an atheist, and even though 15% of americans are atheists, were still very much Christian.

I'm not saying that christianity didn't have any influence or impact on our societies, because it clearly did. But it's not the source of our morals. Humans needed the basic ones to function together waaay back. And from there they have evolved to what we have today.

 

[Panda Bear]

Feeding people bollocks can make them do terrible things. Proper education is a priority above all.

I'll stick to the idea that people are responsible for their own actions thanks.

 

[Fusebox]

Again the question of the better society can differ across cultures. Maybe some people like freedom. But what if people prefer a caste system? Or any other system? you revert again to who has more power. And yeah, concerning gays, what can you do to those that are homosexual in Iran? What if the Iranians argue that homosexuality would destroy their state? Would you use your power then?

Cultural relativism is bullshit. It's simply an enabler, provided by the moderates to the fundamentalists, to violate human rights.