Switch Theme:

Athiests Know more about religion?  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
  • No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
  • Times and dates in your local timezone.
  • Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
  • Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
  • Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.




Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





Spitsbergen

Guitardian wrote:
AbaddonFidelis wrote:Guitardian
maybe it is why they last longer. have you considered the possibility that people are by nature selfish, violent, short-sighted, stupid - and that only the strong hand of government and of religion working together keeps their basically savage nature from destroying every achievement of civilization? What would our lives be without order imposed from above? A savage, endless war of all against all, incapable of resolution, from which no one benefits. If it takes a little despotism to prevent that then I'm for it. And if it requires the backing of religion to make it stick, then I'm for that too. People who dont believe in God after all dont fear God or divine punishments - they just fear the police man and going to jail. Maybe under those circumstances civilization is totally impossible.

If that seems like a nightmare scenario then reflect just how damn rotten your average human being is when on one's watching. A little divine wrath might straighten people up a bit. Hopefully though the industrial revolution has made different kinds of government possible. I think that our nature is basically so bad that some element of religion is required, but hopefully not despotism. I dont think your average human being is constitutionally capable of going through life without belief in the divine. So that by itself tells against secular values.
AF


I have to disagree with you. Needing a respect for a social order does not have to tie in to superstitious ghost stories to tell you to be nice. I belive there is a god, but I also believe that all human accounts for such a thing are self serving tools for worldly gain. Yes I agree people can be harsh, rude, cruel, and generally bad when not held to some accountability. We can have morals and idealism without needing the book of Bubba 13:11 telling us why. The problem I have isn't with the existance of a higher power, but why the specific ones detailed and (like the post chapter 8 stuff) quite possible conveniently made up for sociological reasons, quenched by the vatican, re-interpreted according to the times. Sorry, but Jesus didn't die for my sins. Jesus died. Let that be a lesson to people who think they are god I believe was what they were thinking at the time. Only later, with the lies of Paul, did Jesus become the demigod ideal he is so revered for with all the magical powers and godlight shining out of his butt.

So God is (probably) a real thing, that we cannot actually know. Why any specific religious take on it though? That is stories invented by people to serve people's purposes.

For all I know God is a giant uncaring amoeba and we are little atoms that make up it's big cosmic cell. God may not think at all as we can understand it, God just is. Religion as a social control mechanism and a 'necessary' despotism as you pointed out, is not the reflection of a higher power at work, but of our own failed natures needing to be kept in check by the fear of retribution from something that may or may not exist. I do fear cops because I have been wrongfully harassed by them before. I do not fear being struck by lightning for working on the sabbath though. I prefer to be good for goodness's sake, because it feels good to be good and helpful and kind and so on, not because I am afraid of some guy with a pitchfork slow roasting me till the end of time. It is a sign of weakness to invent supernatural stories as an excuse for idealism. Why not just have idealism for its own sake.

So my God says I must partake of no hot-dog-buns on friday because of the doctrine of the Origional Snub. Does that make me a good person? No. Helping out my old neighbor lady take out her lawn clippings to the curb makes me a good person, and God isn't responsible for that, I am.



I'm with Guitardian on this one. Lack of religion does not equal lack of morals. And furthermore, while organized religion can be used to keep the peace, it can also be hijacked for more nefarious purposes.

In the simplest terms, organized religion is the few laying down rules for the many, and the many have no say in it. This inevitably leads to those with authority abusing their power. I challenge you to provide an example of an organized religion in which this has not occurred.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Mesopotamia. The Kingdom Where we Secretly Reign.

Gailbraithe wrote:
Monster Rain wrote:
Gailbraithe wrote:
You jerks keep bringing it up, but you know what none of you will do? Try to engage the point in a reasonable manner.


It's not something that deserves reasonable discussion. If you had denied the Holocaust or something I'm sure the treatment would be similar. What you said is that crazy.


It's not crazy at all. Under current law we don't even recognize 17 year old children as having full rights. Your counter-argument isn't an argument at all, it's just a personal attack. And when someone makes a personal attack in lieu of an actual rebuttal? That person is generally recognized to have lost the debate.


Here's where I say I wasn't attacking you I was attacking your statement, and blah blah blah. I'm not going to argue that issue any more than I'd argue with the homeless guy drinking Lysol about whether or not the government was reading his brainwaves.

You can feel like you won broseidon, I really don't care.

rubiksnoob wrote:I'm with Guitardian on this one. Lack of religion does not equal lack of morals. And furthermore, while organized religion can be used to keep the peace, it can also be hijacked for more nefarious purposes.

In the simplest terms, organized religion is the few laying down rules for the many, and the many have no say in it. This inevitably leads to those with authority abusing their power. I challenge you to provide an example of an organized religion in which this has not occurred.


I agree with your first statement, more or less.

The second one doesn't seem to work though. The many actually do have a say in whether or not they follow a particular doctrine or not. If they don't think that what their religious leaders are doing is right, they are free to leave in most cases. In the cases they are not free to leave, that is less a problem of Religion and more of a legal matter, IMHO.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2010/09/30 23:38:57


Drink deeply and lustily from the foamy draught of evil.
W: 1.756 Quadrillion L: 0 D: 2
Haters gon' hate. 
   
Made in us
Eternally-Stimulated Slaanesh Dreadnought





behind you!

frgsinwntr wrote:
AbaddonFidelis wrote:
not necessarily in the sense of building an engine or a bomb or whatever, but in the sense of consistently yielding predictive results. of saying something useful and reliable about the phenomena under examination.


A theory that says 'if A, then B' and people test it again and again, we aren't looking at a useful thing, we're looking at a true thing, because we know now that when A happens, then B will happen shortly afterwards.

This thing may or may not be useful, it could be 'if you throw a rock at Ms Gardiner's window she'll call you a prat'. That it happens everytime makes it true, but it doesn't make it very useful to know.


well we're just using different words to describe the same thing.
We don't know that a scientist's theory is true by any means other than watching how his theory plays out in the physical world. Did what he said would happen actually happen? Well I would argue that we can look for results in the field of religion and make similar inferrences. If followers of XYZ religion consistently commit suicide, then for gods sake lets all avoid that religion. If followers of ABC religion live happy and prosperous lives, then let's investigate the cause of that. (protestants have a higher rate of suicide than catholics btw. did you know that? I think thats fascinating. anyway...) It's not a scientific experiment, but in both cases I'm making inferrences about the theory based on the outcome I observe. In a field where methodology and experimentation are impossible, in the rigorous sense of science, I think its fair. Unless there's a better way available.....?


You make a jump... and this is what I am pointing out.

Your are jumping and saying that the simple process of Observing a phenomenon, Explaining the pattern you see, Making a prediction based on your explanation, and then testing it is the same thing as (in your words...) "making inferrences about the theory based on the outcome" which to me doesn't even make sense...

Did you mean: Conclusions inferred from multiple observations may be tested by additional observations?

You can't draw inferences from a theory... inferences would come from observations! the inferences as you put them ARE the theory.... The way I read what you said... (making inferrences about the theory based on the outcome I observe) sounds like you're making a theory about a theory?

Or do you mean "I'm revising my theory based on the results of my observational experiment?"

I just require clarification of your idea : )


Sure. Yes the theories are the inferrences. The theory about the theory would be it's true or it isn't. People would be astonished to know how patchy science can be. For instance both relativity and quantum theory have been observationally verified to a high degree of accuracy but they posit very different explanations of the universe. We can infer that they're both true from looking at the experimental results but if they contradict each other how can they be. I don't remember the nature of the contradiction exactly so you'll have to pardon me.... Anyway my point is science isn't about immutable truths it's about good guessing backed up by experimentation and then given mathematical expression. Well if someone makes a good guess about god and goes on to live an exemplary life and then those ideas become doctrines, what's wrong with that? The processes are similar though not the same, but we accept the 1 and not the other. Why?

   
Made in us
Confessor Of Sins






Scranton

generalgrog wrote:
frgsinwntr wrote:
generalgrog wrote:
These kinds of difficulties are only really problems to people that think that the Modern Bible is somehow supposed to be totally non influenced by man at all. The fact is, that it was men that translated it and men did make transcription mistakes. (however slight they may be). As stated before, there are really only a few "controversial" texts out of may thousands of texts and text pieces (some are only bits and pieces of a certain passage or book) and biblical scholars are well aware of these.

GG



Whoa... wait a minute here... a year ago you made exactly the argument I highlighted above....

You said there were no mistakes caused by man...

Have you changed your ideas?



frigs if I did say that, then yes I was in error. I would like to see my quote in context. :-)

GG


took me a while to find but here is the thread
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/270/253789.page#945944

 
   
Made in us
Eternally-Stimulated Slaanesh Dreadnought





behind you!

rubiksnoob wrote:
Guitardian wrote:
AbaddonFidelis wrote:Guitardian
maybe it is why they last longer. have you considered the possibility that people are by nature selfish, violent, short-sighted, stupid - and that only the strong hand of government and of religion working together keeps their basically savage nature from destroying every achievement of civilization? What would our lives be without order imposed from above? A savage, endless war of all against all, incapable of resolution, from which no one benefits. If it takes a little despotism to prevent that then I'm for it. And if it requires the backing of religion to make it stick, then I'm for that too. People who dont believe in God after all dont fear God or divine punishments - they just fear the police man and going to jail. Maybe under those circumstances civilization is totally impossible.

If that seems like a nightmare scenario then reflect just how damn rotten your average human being is when on one's watching. A little divine wrath might straighten people up a bit. Hopefully though the industrial revolution has made different kinds of government possible. I think that our nature is basically so bad that some element of religion is required, but hopefully not despotism. I dont think your average human being is constitutionally capable of going through life without belief in the divine. So that by itself tells against secular values.
AF


I have to disagree with you. Needing a respect for a social order does not have to tie in to superstitious ghost stories to tell you to be nice. I belive there is a god, but I also believe that all human accounts for such a thing are self serving tools for worldly gain. Yes I agree people can be harsh, rude, cruel, and generally bad when not held to some accountability. We can have morals and idealism without needing the book of Bubba 13:11 telling us why. The problem I have isn't with the existance of a higher power, but why the specific ones detailed and (like the post chapter 8 stuff) quite possible conveniently made up for sociological reasons, quenched by the vatican, re-interpreted according to the times. Sorry, but Jesus didn't die for my sins. Jesus died. Let that be a lesson to people who think they are god I believe was what they were thinking at the time. Only later, with the lies of Paul, did Jesus become the demigod ideal he is so revered for with all the magical powers and godlight shining out of his butt.

So God is (probably) a real thing, that we cannot actually know. Why any specific religious take on it though? That is stories invented by people to serve people's purposes.

For all I know God is a giant uncaring amoeba and we are little atoms that make up it's big cosmic cell. God may not think at all as we can understand it, God just is. Religion as a social control mechanism and a 'necessary' despotism as you pointed out, is not the reflection of a higher power at work, but of our own failed natures needing to be kept in check by the fear of retribution from something that may or may not exist. I do fear cops because I have been wrongfully harassed by them before. I do not fear being struck by lightning for working on the sabbath though. I prefer to be good for goodness's sake, because it feels good to be good and helpful and kind and so on, not because I am afraid of some guy with a pitchfork slow roasting me till the end of time. It is a sign of weakness to invent supernatural stories as an excuse for idealism. Why not just have idealism for its own sake.

So my God says I must partake of no hot-dog-buns on friday because of the doctrine of the Origional Snub. Does that make me a good person? No. Helping out my old neighbor lady take out her lawn clippings to the curb makes me a good person, and God isn't responsible for that, I am.



I'm with Guitardian on this one. Lack of religion does not equal lack of morals. And furthermore, while organized religion can be used to keep the peace, it can also be hijacked for more nefarious purposes.

In the simplest terms, organized religion is the few laying down rules for the many, and the many have no say in it. This inevitably leads to those with authority abusing their power. I challenge you to provide an example of an organized religion in which this has not occurred.


Well ofcourse power gets abused in religious hierarchies as it also does in secular ones. I don't want to get into the ethics without god question. I don't think ethics without god is possible but that tends to be a pretty angry debate..... Anyway guitardian brought up the point that maybe the stability is all based on a lie. I don't think it is. I think it's based on effectively controlling channelling and repressing the basically rotten nature of mankind.

   
Made in us
Nimble Dark Rider






AbaddonFidelis wrote:
Gailbraithe wrote:
AbaddonFidelis wrote:Gail
France has been secular for about 250 years out of a total history of about 1500. That's why I said ALMOST entirely religious. Read, then type.
AF


And this is what I mean by playing fast and loose. If you're going to claim France "survived" for 1500 despite being invaded multiple times, having multiple revolutions and restructurings, despite wave after wave of immigration, and constantly changing culture, then you have to grant that France has survived the last 250 years as a secular state.

Which completely destroys your claim that no secular society survives.

What the hell are you even talking about? Honestly. Do you deny that France has survived as an independent state/cultural group from conquest by the franks right up to the present day? AF

Uh, yeah.
   
Made in us
Confessor Of Sins






Scranton

AbaddonFidelis wrote:
Sure. Yes the theories are the inferrences. The theory about the theory would be it's true or it isn't. People would be astonished to know how patchy science can be. For instance both relativity and quantum theory have been observationally verified to a high degree of accuracy but they posit very different explanations of the universe. We can infer that they're both true from looking at the experimental results but if they contradict each other how can they be. I don't remember the nature of the contradiction exactly so you'll have to pardon me.... Anyway my point is science isn't about immutable truths it's about good guessing backed up by experimentation and then given mathematical expression. Well if someone makes a good guess about god and goes on to live an exemplary life and then those ideas become doctrines, what's wrong with that? The processes are similar though not the same, but we accept the 1 and not the other. Why?


I agree with the red.

I disagree with the green. Science is ABOUT disproving ideas. Scientists love the fact that both ideas you've quoted haven't been disproved yet... it gives them something to do : )

Science Is not a guess. It is a logical machine to DISPROVE... there is no guessing and there is no proving.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2010/10/01 00:12:29


 
   
Made in us
Nimble Dark Rider






Monster Rain wrote:Here's where I say I wasn't attacking you I was attacking your statement, and blah blah blah. I'm not going to argue that issue any more than I'd argue with the homeless guy drinking Lysol about whether or not the government was reading his brainwaves.


You are manifestly not attacking my statement. Comparing me to a paranoid homeless guy drinking Lysol is not attacking my argument, it's attacking me. You haven't offered any rebuttal of the argument except to say that I'm crazy.

In short: You are a disingenuous liar who is trying to derail this thread.
   
Made in us
Napoleonics Obsesser






I heard about this. It made me laugh for a few fleeting seconds....The I realized how much sense it makes!


If only ZUN!bar were here... 
   
Made in us
Eternally-Stimulated Slaanesh Dreadnought





behind you!

Gailbraithe wrote:
AbaddonFidelis wrote:
Gailbraithe wrote:
AbaddonFidelis wrote:Gail
France has been secular for about 250 years out of a total history of about 1500. That's why I said ALMOST entirely religious. Read, then type.
AF


And this is what I mean by playing fast and loose. If you're going to claim France "survived" for 1500 despite being invaded multiple times, having multiple revolutions and restructurings, despite wave after wave of immigration, and constantly changing culture, then you have to grant that France has survived the last 250 years as a secular state.

Which completely destroys your claim that no secular society survives.

What the hell are you even talking about? Honestly. Do you deny that France has survived as an independent state/cultural group from conquest by the franks right up to the present day? AF

Uh, yeah.


Ok then it's not your fault for being ridiculous. It's my fault for encouraging you. AF


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gailbraithe wrote:
Monster Rain wrote:Here's where I say I wasn't attacking you I was attacking your statement, and blah blah blah. I'm not going to argue that issue any more than I'd argue with the homeless guy drinking Lysol about whether or not the government was reading his brainwaves.


You are manifestly not attacking my statement. Comparing me to a paranoid homeless guy drinking Lysol is entirely fair in light of my previous nut bag statements. I apologize for wasting your time. I really should stop talking now

In short: you're way smarter than me and probably better looking too.

fixed that for you

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2010/10/01 00:06:58


   
Made in au
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter






Australia (Recently ravaged by the Hive Fleet Ginger Overlord)

Gailbraithe wrote:
Monster Rain wrote:Here's where I say I wasn't attacking you I was attacking your statement, and blah blah blah. I'm not going to argue that issue any more than I'd argue with the homeless guy drinking Lysol about whether or not the government was reading his brainwaves.


You are manifestly not attacking my statement. Comparing me to a paranoid homeless guy drinking Lysol is not attacking my argument, it's attacking me. You haven't offered any rebuttal of the argument except to say that I'm crazy.

In short: You are a disingenuous liar who is trying to derail this thread.


Sorry, your arguement was 18 month babies should not be treated as people under the law. How exactly are reasonable people supposed to respond to that? Furthermore, when you continued the discussion via PM you refused to address many of my points, yet you are the one who repeatedly throws out the word 'disingenous'. And that is just as much an attack as comparing someone to a homeless guy drinking Lysol.

In short: The response suits the comment.

Smacks wrote:
After the game, pack up all your miniatures, then slap the guy next to you on the ass and say.

"Good game guys, now lets hit the showers"
 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





Spitsbergen

AbaddonFidelis wrote:
rubiksnoob wrote:
Guitardian wrote:
AbaddonFidelis wrote:Guitardian
maybe it is why they last longer. have you considered the possibility that people are by nature selfish, violent, short-sighted, stupid - and that only the strong hand of government and of religion working together keeps their basically savage nature from destroying every achievement of civilization? What would our lives be without order imposed from above? A savage, endless war of all against all, incapable of resolution, from which no one benefits. If it takes a little despotism to prevent that then I'm for it. And if it requires the backing of religion to make it stick, then I'm for that too. People who dont believe in God after all dont fear God or divine punishments - they just fear the police man and going to jail. Maybe under those circumstances civilization is totally impossible.

If that seems like a nightmare scenario then reflect just how damn rotten your average human being is when on one's watching. A little divine wrath might straighten people up a bit. Hopefully though the industrial revolution has made different kinds of government possible. I think that our nature is basically so bad that some element of religion is required, but hopefully not despotism. I dont think your average human being is constitutionally capable of going through life without belief in the divine. So that by itself tells against secular values.
AF


I have to disagree with you. Needing a respect for a social order does not have to tie in to superstitious ghost stories to tell you to be nice. I belive there is a god, but I also believe that all human accounts for such a thing are self serving tools for worldly gain. Yes I agree people can be harsh, rude, cruel, and generally bad when not held to some accountability. We can have morals and idealism without needing the book of Bubba 13:11 telling us why. The problem I have isn't with the existance of a higher power, but why the specific ones detailed and (like the post chapter 8 stuff) quite possible conveniently made up for sociological reasons, quenched by the vatican, re-interpreted according to the times. Sorry, but Jesus didn't die for my sins. Jesus died. Let that be a lesson to people who think they are god I believe was what they were thinking at the time. Only later, with the lies of Paul, did Jesus become the demigod ideal he is so revered for with all the magical powers and godlight shining out of his butt.

So God is (probably) a real thing, that we cannot actually know. Why any specific religious take on it though? That is stories invented by people to serve people's purposes.

For all I know God is a giant uncaring amoeba and we are little atoms that make up it's big cosmic cell. God may not think at all as we can understand it, God just is. Religion as a social control mechanism and a 'necessary' despotism as you pointed out, is not the reflection of a higher power at work, but of our own failed natures needing to be kept in check by the fear of retribution from something that may or may not exist. I do fear cops because I have been wrongfully harassed by them before. I do not fear being struck by lightning for working on the sabbath though. I prefer to be good for goodness's sake, because it feels good to be good and helpful and kind and so on, not because I am afraid of some guy with a pitchfork slow roasting me till the end of time. It is a sign of weakness to invent supernatural stories as an excuse for idealism. Why not just have idealism for its own sake.

So my God says I must partake of no hot-dog-buns on friday because of the doctrine of the Origional Snub. Does that make me a good person? No. Helping out my old neighbor lady take out her lawn clippings to the curb makes me a good person, and God isn't responsible for that, I am.



I'm with Guitardian on this one. Lack of religion does not equal lack of morals. And furthermore, while organized religion can be used to keep the peace, it can also be hijacked for more nefarious purposes.

In the simplest terms, organized religion is the few laying down rules for the many, and the many have no say in it. This inevitably leads to those with authority abusing their power. I challenge you to provide an example of an organized religion in which this has not occurred.


Well ofcourse power gets abused in religious hierarchies as it also does in secular ones. I don't want to get into the ethics without god question. I don't think ethics without god is possible but that tends to be a pretty angry debate..... Anyway guitardian brought up the point that maybe the stability is all based on a lie. I don't think it is. I think it's based on effectively controlling channelling and repressing the basically rotten nature of mankind.



Hey, you more or less brought it up. I am curious to hear just how ethics without god is impossible. And by god I am assuming you are referencing the common monotheistic notion of god, a sentient and thinking being. Much of the debate going on here hinges on one's definition of god.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2010/10/01 00:09:58


 
   
Made in us
Confessor Of Sins






Scranton

rubiksnoob wrote:


Hey, you more or less brought it up. I am curious to hear just how ethics without god is impossible. And by god I am assuming you are referencing the common monotheistic notion of god, a sentient and thinking being. Much of the debate going on here hinges on one's definition of god.


I'm going to agree... this interests me... how is ethics with out god impossible?

 
   
Made in us
Eternally-Stimulated Slaanesh Dreadnought





behind you!

Ok... Fair enough. If my good conflicts with that of others whose good am I likely to pursue? My own. If I recognize a fundamental difference conflict is inevitable. If I somehow come to conflate the two cooperation is much more likely. Thats only going to happen if I have strong, direct, immediate and obvious reasons for regarding the two as related.

So the reason I don't beat my x wife over the head with a concrete block till she's dead isn't because I care about her. I don't. I hope she burns in hell. The reason is because If I do the policeman will take mr away. I have to act in a way that benefits her even though that's the last thing in the world I want, because I care about myself first and foremost. Well the police can't be everywhere. Maybe i can get away with it.... hmmm.... Maybe ill stop thinking about it and look for a rock. Yeah i can get away with it. No problem. She's history.

But god can. He'll see. Really I should be sorry I thought that at all. Hopefully he'll forgive me for being such a brute if I repent. And if I repent every time I think violent thoughts like that and reflect on how much god loves all people, I'll love them too. At least a little bit. More than I would have otherwise.

I don't see any inhibitory mechanisms for atheists. It all comes down to self interest. Everyone pursuing their own self interest (as they understand it, which is often not very well) will leaf to anarchy murder blood death chaos. That's why I think secular values are inextricably linked to political turmoil and social decay. Only god can get people to put their own interests aside for long enough to make a community and a civilization possible.
AF

   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





Spitsbergen

AbaddonFidelis wrote:Ok... Fair enough. If my good conflicts with that of others whose good am I likely to pursue? My own. If I recognize a fundamental difference conflict is inevitable. If I somehow come to conflate the two cooperation is much more likely. Thats only going to happen if I have strong, direct, immediate and obvious reasons for regarding the two as related.

So the reason I don't beat my x wife over the head with a concrete block till she's dead isn't because I care about her. I don't. I hope she burns in hell. The reason is because If I do the policeman will take mr away. I have to act in a way that benefits her even though that's the last thing in the world I want, because I care about myself first and foremost. Well the police can't be everywhere. Maybe i can get away with it.... hmmm.... Maybe ill stop thinking about it and look for a rock. Yeah i can get away with it. No problem. She's history.

But god can. He'll see. Really I should be sorry I thought that at all. Hopefully he'll forgive me for being such a brute if I repent. And if I repent every time I think violent thoughts like that and reflect on how much god loves all people, I'll love them too. At least a little bit. More than I would have otherwise.

I don't see any inhibitory mechanisms for atheists. It all comes down to self interest. Everyone pursuing their own self interest (as they understand it, which is often not very well) will leaf to anarchy murder blood death chaos. That's why I think secular values are inextricably linked to political turmoil and social decay. Only god can get people to put their own interests aside for long enough to make a community and a civilization possible.
AF



It looks like this is more about your view of human nature than it is about god.

I would have to disagree with you on the fact that humans are fundamentally selfish and brutish.

I would never kill anyone, not because i'm afraid of divine retribution, but because i believe it is wrong to kill people.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2010/10/01 00:42:00


 
   
Made in us
Confessor Of Sins






Scranton

rubiksnoob wrote:
AbaddonFidelis wrote:Ok... Fair enough. If my good conflicts with that of others whose good am I likely to pursue? My own. If I recognize a fundamental difference conflict is inevitable. If I somehow come to conflate the two cooperation is much more likely. Thats only going to happen if I have strong, direct, immediate and obvious reasons for regarding the two as related.

So the reason I don't beat my x wife over the head with a concrete block till she's dead isn't because I care about her. I don't. I hope she burns in hell. The reason is because If I do the policeman will take mr away. I have to act in a way that benefits her even though that's the last thing in the world I want, because I care about myself first and foremost. Well the police can't be everywhere. Maybe i can get away with it.... hmmm.... Maybe ill stop thinking about it and look for a rock. Yeah i can get away with it. No problem. She's history.

But god can. He'll see. Really I should be sorry I thought that at all. Hopefully he'll forgive me for being such a brute if I repent. And if I repent every time I think violent thoughts like that and reflect on how much god loves all people, I'll love them too. At least a little bit. More than I would have otherwise.

I don't see any inhibitory mechanisms for atheists. It all comes down to self interest. Everyone pursuing their own self interest (as they understand it, which is often not very well) will leaf to anarchy murder blood death chaos. That's why I think secular values are inextricably linked to political turmoil and social decay. Only god can get people to put their own interests aside for long enough to make a community and a civilization possible.
AF
It looks like this is more about your view of human nature than it is about god. I would have to disagree with you on the fact that humans are fundamentally selfish and brutish.

I would never kill anyone, not because i'm afraid of divine retribution, but because i believe it is wrong to kill people.


thats a pretty dark view of human nature alright...

I'm an atheist... I wouldn't think about killing someone just because I don't like them... they have just as much right to exist as I do....

Piranhas don't worship god... yet they don't eat each other... they school together...

haha Rubic beat me to it... but we had the same idea...

It also says that people have to be inhibited and aren't free to think and make choices on their own... in complete disagreement with the concept of "freewill"

This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2010/10/01 00:46:24


 
   
Made in us
Eternally-Stimulated Slaanesh Dreadnought





behind you!

Ummm.... yeah I guess it has alot to do with human nature that's true. But so did the 10 commandments. They're inextricably linked. Moses comes down from the mountains and what does he see? The isrealites couldn't stay on the strait and narrow for a few short days. So yeah it's about human nature.

And I think were all potential murderers. I mean imagine we all got to a couple grenades every year and we could use them without fear of any retribution from the state. How long do you think we'd last. It's like the prophet said: the heart of man is desperately. We need law from on high or else we won't last.

   
Made in us
Confessor Of Sins






Scranton

AbaddonFidelis wrote:Ummm.... yeah I guess it has alot to do with human nature that's true. But so did the 10 commandments. They're inextricably linked. Moses comes down from the mountains and what does he see? The isrealites couldn't stay on the strait and narrow for a few short days. So yeah it's about human nature.

And I think were all potential murderers. I mean imagine we all got to a couple grenades every year and we could use them without fear of any retribution from the state. How long do you think we'd last. It's like the prophet said: the heart of man is desperately. We need law from on high or else we won't last.


5 of the 10 commandments have Nothing to do with morality

 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Mesopotamia. The Kingdom Where we Secretly Reign.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:And I think were all potential murderers. I mean imagine we all got to a couple grenades every year and we could use them without fear of any retribution from the state. How long do you think we'd last. It's like the prophet said: the heart of man is desperately. We need law from on high or else we won't last.


Any one of us is about two days away from killing someone for a gallon of water if it became necessary.

frgsinwntr wrote:
AbaddonFidelis wrote:Ummm.... yeah I guess it has alot to do with human nature that's true. But so did the 10 commandments. They're inextricably linked. Moses comes down from the mountains and what does he see? The isrealites couldn't stay on the strait and narrow for a few short days. So yeah it's about human nature.

And I think were all potential murderers. I mean imagine we all got to a couple grenades every year and we could use them without fear of any retribution from the state. How long do you think we'd last. It's like the prophet said: the heart of man is desperately. We need law from on high or else we won't last.


5 of the 10 commandments have Nothing to do with morality


That's a matter of perspective, isn't it?

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2010/10/01 00:50:42


Drink deeply and lustily from the foamy draught of evil.
W: 1.756 Quadrillion L: 0 D: 2
Haters gon' hate. 
   
Made in us
Charging Dragon Prince




Chicago, IL, U.S.A.

Because Jesus said so. I saw him in my toast this morning.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2010/10/01 00:51:03


Retroactively applied infallability is its own reward. I wish I knew this years ago.

I am Red/White
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
<small>Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.</small>

I'm both chaotic and orderly. I value my own principles, and am willing to go to extreme lengths to enforce them, often trampling on the very same principles in the process. At best, I'm heroic and principled; at worst, I'm hypocritical and disorderly.
 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





Spitsbergen

Monster Rain wrote:

rubiksnoob wrote:I'm with Guitardian on this one. Lack of religion does not equal lack of morals. And furthermore, while organized religion can be used to keep the peace, it can also be hijacked for more nefarious purposes.

In the simplest terms, organized religion is the few laying down rules for the many, and the many have no say in it. This inevitably leads to those with authority abusing their power. I challenge you to provide an example of an organized religion in which this has not occurred.


I agree with your first statement, more or less.

The second one doesn't seem to work though. The many actually do have a say in whether or not they follow a particular doctrine or not. If they don't think that what their religious leaders are doing is right, they are free to leave in most cases. In the cases they are not free to leave, that is less a problem of Religion and more of a legal matter, IMHO.



I was referring more to AF's idea of religion as a means to impose order. What I was getting at was that the rules of a religion are not created by the majority of a religion's followers, they are set down by those in positions of authority. Thus those that follow the religion had no say in the creation of the rules they are following.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





Not to mention that as much unethical behavior can be pointed at belief in a diety as ethical behvaior.

Another problem is, a lot of the time, people define 'ethical behavior' as whatever thier religion teaches them to do. Unethical behavior is defined the same way with no regard to what is actually ethical and unethical behavior.

   
Made in us
Eternally-Stimulated Slaanesh Dreadnought





behind you!

Frg
Yeah that's true. I think people left to themselves are pretty rotten. With gods help we can learn to be occasionally decent. Maybe. No I don't believe in free will. What people choose are strategies for pursuing goals that are given to them by biology or environment. When people think they're choosing really they're just making cost benefit analyses. No more a matter of choice than solving a math equation. They either analyze the situation correctly or they don't.

Pirannhas may(?) or may not attack each other but our closest relatives, chimps, most definitely do. It can be pretty awful.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Monster rain
Yes. Exactly. 3 days if were saints.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2010/10/01 00:54:23


   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Mesopotamia. The Kingdom Where we Secretly Reign.

rubiksnoob wrote:
Monster Rain wrote:

rubiksnoob wrote:I'm with Guitardian on this one. Lack of religion does not equal lack of morals. And furthermore, while organized religion can be used to keep the peace, it can also be hijacked for more nefarious purposes.

In the simplest terms, organized religion is the few laying down rules for the many, and the many have no say in it. This inevitably leads to those with authority abusing their power. I challenge you to provide an example of an organized religion in which this has not occurred.


I agree with your first statement, more or less.

The second one doesn't seem to work though. The many actually do have a say in whether or not they follow a particular doctrine or not. If they don't think that what their religious leaders are doing is right, they are free to leave in most cases. In the cases they are not free to leave, that is less a problem of Religion and more of a legal matter, IMHO.



I was referring more to AF's idea of religion as a means to impose order. What I was getting at was that the rules of a religion are not created by the majority of a religion's followers, they are set down by those in positions of authority. Thus those that follow the religion had no say in the creation of the rules they are following.


If a belief system is presented to you and it makes sense to you, why would you not follow the rules? Any learned behavior follows the same pattern you describe. Also, to become, say, a doctor you have to be taught things by people in positions of authority.

skyth wrote:Not to mention that as much unethical behavior can be pointed at belief in a diety as ethical behvaior.

Another problem is, a lot of the time, people define 'ethical behavior' as whatever thier religion teaches them to do. Unethical behavior is defined the same way with no regard to what is actually ethical and unethical behavior.


Care to cite an example?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2010/10/01 00:56:42


Drink deeply and lustily from the foamy draught of evil.
W: 1.756 Quadrillion L: 0 D: 2
Haters gon' hate. 
   
Made in us
Confessor Of Sins






Scranton

AbaddonFidelis wrote:Frg
Yeah that's true. I think people left to themselves are pretty rotten. With gods help we can learn to be occasionally decent. Maybe. No I don't believe in free will. What people choose are strategies for pursuing goals that are given to them by biology or environment. When people think they're choosing really they're just making cost benefit analyses. No more a matter of choice than solving a math equation. They either analyze the situation correctly or they don't.

Pirannhas may(?) or may not attack each other but our closest relatives, chimps, most definitely do. It can be pretty awful.


So what you are saying is: that you are simply making a cost/benefit analysis that if you are bad God will punish you? and thats your reason for not doing wrong?

You don't think god will know the difference and see you are really evil and just trying to trick her?

@monster
Explain to me how the first 4 are morality?


This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2010/10/01 00:56:06


 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Mesopotamia. The Kingdom Where we Secretly Reign.

frgsinwntr wrote:
@monster
Explain to me how the first 4 are morality?


From the perspective of Christians, Jews and Muslims I would say that they are part of their cultural values of right and wrong. That would make them issues of morality, in my opinion. If not obeying them would be considered wrong, there's a moral issue there.

Drink deeply and lustily from the foamy draught of evil.
W: 1.756 Quadrillion L: 0 D: 2
Haters gon' hate. 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





Spitsbergen

AbaddonFidelis wrote:Ummm.... yeah I guess it has alot to do with human nature that's true. But so did the 10 commandments. They're inextricably linked. Moses comes down from the mountains and what does he see? The isrealites couldn't stay on the strait and narrow for a few short days. So yeah it's about human nature.



See, the problem with that is that the story of Moses and the burning bush and all that, is in all probability a metaphorical story.
But then again that is a personal opinion, so we come to the impasse that all religion debates usually end in. I can't take anything from the bible as literal evidence for something, because I do not view the Bible as a literal work. I can appreciate it as a metaphorical piece of literature, but I cannot consider it or it's content as fact upon which to base an argument.
   
Made in us
Confessor Of Sins






Scranton

Monster Rain wrote:
frgsinwntr wrote:
@monster
Explain to me how the first 4 are morality?


From the perspective of Christians, Jews and Muslims I would say that they are part of their cultural values of right and wrong. That would make them issues of morality, in my opinion. If not obeying them would be considered wrong, there's a moral issue there.


BUT as a species as a whole not morality? Which means only in this case? and only if going by the definition that it is proper behavior for that culture?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality

However... this points out that on a whole... is a belief in a god necessary to KNOW right from wrong? I don't believe in god... but I know its wrong to steal.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
rubiksnoob wrote:
AbaddonFidelis wrote:Ummm.... yeah I guess it has alot to do with human nature that's true. But so did the 10 commandments. They're inextricably linked. Moses comes down from the mountains and what does he see? The isrealites couldn't stay on the strait and narrow for a few short days. So yeah it's about human nature.



See, the problem with that is that the story of Moses and the burning bush and all that, is in all probability a metaphorical story.
But then again that is a personal opinion, so we come to the impasse that all religion debates usually end in. I can't take anything from the bible as literal evidence for something, because I do not view the Bible as a literal work. I can appreciate it as a metaphorical piece of literature, but I cannot consider it or it's content as fact upon which to base an argument.


QFT

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2010/10/01 01:04:51


 
   
Made in us
Charging Dragon Prince




Chicago, IL, U.S.A.

in the immortal words of Leonard Cohen.. "I will help you if I can, but I will kill you if I must".

It isn't about whether or not morals can be justified, legalized, put in stone. It is about the need for such laws in the first place. If the laws are absolute, then why do we need unicorns to tell us they are true? The rules are true because of our communal nature of needing to get along with each other from a superstitious subjective point of view. Satan didn't tell me to kill puppies, I just blame it on him. If he isn't around I guess I can blame it on Cthulu or something. If my grandma lived I can blame it on Jesus, If my boss died in a car accident on the way to work, I can praise Poseidon for the earthquake.

Personally I like the tooth fairy. She gets better with age. She's a lot more sexy once the grown up teeth start crumbling. Maybe that was just a wierd dream.

Chimps are stupid. We ascribe them with more intelligence and empathy than they deserve because they remind us so much of our own mannerisms. They still throw temper tantrums (and poop) when upset.

Retroactively applied infallability is its own reward. I wish I knew this years ago.

I am Red/White
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
<small>Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.</small>

I'm both chaotic and orderly. I value my own principles, and am willing to go to extreme lengths to enforce them, often trampling on the very same principles in the process. At best, I'm heroic and principled; at worst, I'm hypocritical and disorderly.
 
   
Made in us
Eternally-Stimulated Slaanesh Dreadnought





behind you!

Frg
I think god will know that I can't help thinking wicked thoughts and occasionally acting on them. On that basis alone I deserve punishment. But if I accept the sacrifice he made for me through his son and try really hard to reform my life he might overlook it. Maybe.
AF


Automatically Appended Next Post:
rubiksnoob wrote:
AbaddonFidelis wrote:Ummm.... yeah I guess it has alot to do with human nature that's true. But so did the 10 commandments. They're inextricably linked. Moses comes down from the mountains and what does he see? The isrealites couldn't stay on the strait and narrow for a few short days. So yeah it's about human nature.



See, the problem with that is that the story of Moses and the burning bush and all that, is in all probability a metaphorical story.
But then again that is a personal opinion, so we come to the impasse that all religion debates usually end in. I can't take anything from the bible as literal evidence for something, because I do not view the Bible as a literal work. I can appreciate it as a metaphorical piece of literature, but I cannot consider it or it's content as fact upon which to base an argument.


Well suppose it is a metaphor.. What's wrong that. It's not like you have to be a slow to appreciate the value of belief. I don't know if god spoke to Moses through a bush either.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2010/10/01 01:07:54


   
 
Forum Index » Off-Topic Forum
Go to: