Religion From An Evolutionary Perspective

[Socrates]

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1306992855' post='2249085']
I'm assuming you haven't been visiting YouTube much lately if you think that people actually think that the site itself is a stamp of legitimacy. Well I couldn't find the documentary anyways, but it was not "YouTube's", but BBC's Dispatches I think (though not really sure), which I think offers it slightly a bit more credibility than your average Vlogger.[/quote]
I said I was sure it was very serious and professional. [Insert snooty British accent]The BBC has spoken.[/snooty British accent]



[quote]Hmm...actually a goldfish would die in the ocean...[/quote]
Substitute "shrimp" for "goldfish."

Now the metaphor works.


[quote]I think I clarified it now, though if you need me to clarify it some more, please don't throw in some more ad hominems...they add nothing.



Why is homosexuality immoral?[/quote]
Also debated to death on here. Run a search. (Sorry, but I simply don't have time to go into that whole debate right now)

Basically, homosexuality is directly contrary to the primary God-given purpose of human sexuality, which is the creation of new human life, and an abuse of the human sexual facilities, which we believe are sacred.

Obviously, if you are atheist and don't believe human sexuality has any objective purpose or sacredness, then I don't expect you to buy that, but from a purely naturalistic perspective, homosexual activity can never propagate life, but bring only disease and death, and studies repeatedly confirm that homosexual behavior is neither physically nor psychologically healthy. (Life expectancy for active homosexuals is significantly shorter than average, and homosexuals suffer from many more psychological ailments than the population as a whole.)

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1307384364' post='2250468']
If you want to excuse atheism from all blame as a negation or a "non thing," then logically one should not defend it either, much less promote it. A "non thing" has absolutely zero value.

But it's good to see that you've decided that you agree with me that the "blame game" is pointless.

I've actually heard the whole "theists" spiel from atheists on here in the past, and found it just as stupid, as well as inaccurate. (Atheistic governments have been responsible for more murders and atrocities in a shorter span of time that all the Christian and Muslims put together.)

You may not subscribe to Communism (as I've agreed with many times here), but the Communists were no less atheistic than you are.[/quote]

Athiesm has [b]nothing to say about moral statements[/b], not that it doesn't prevent morality. It's like saying that one could assume a person's morality based on the fact that they have a mustache, or go by the first name Joseph. A preference to wear mustaches means that one is a immoral psychopath. It's ridiculously pointless. Saying that Stalin was a murderous psychopath because he was an atheist makes just as much sense as saying that he was because his name is Joseph, which also has nothing to say about what all the Josephs of the world think about morality. I think you might have too many presuppositions about athiests and what athiesm is to see that.

[quote]Atheist Communists believed religion was a lie and an obstacle to human progress and happiness as they saw it, and thus should be fought and eradicated as much as possible.

I'm sure your view of religion is fairly similar, although you may be much less fanatical in your opposition to organized religion, and have moral scruples which dictate that your opposition to religion should not involve physical violence and such.

You may not subscribe to Communism (as I've agreed with many times here), but the Communists were no less atheistic than you are.[/quote]

Athiests (myself included) have a problem when religion starts to go beyond the private lives of individuals and into society and by default mine. I know we're outnumbered, but that doesn't mean that some things shouldn't go unchallenged.
Even though I'm an atheist I obviously I wouldn't advocate killing all the religious to achieve that end.

In the case of communist Russia, I think the same thing applies. They were against anybody who was against Communism or in some way a threat and socially engineer the country to replace it with communism, not athiesm per se (which is also not communist). I just think it's important to draw those distinctions otherwise it is indeed very pointless.

So, if you can actually prove that firstly athiests (in the generalised sense which would apply to all) have a moral system (or lack of one) actually conduzive to being murderous dictators, then please do. Otherwise it's just as good as me saying that Catholics act the way they do because of muslim beliefs about reality.

I [i]call[/i] myself an athiest, and so do they.

[quote]On the other hand, the strongest and clearest opposition to such evil ideologies as Communism and Nazism has come from religion, especially from the Catholic Church.
A Christian could not follow such bloody ideologies without violating his Faith, and if he is sincere in his Christian beliefs, must consider judgement before Almighty God for his actions. Not so for the atheist.[/quote]


[quote]If an atheist truly believes that mass murder is necessary to advance his earthly goals, what's there to stop him?[/quote]

If a theist truly believes that his faith justifies mass murder (and calling it 'killing') then what's to stop him? Since theists claim knowledge about objective morality, then they're way more secure in their moral beliefs which could in itself be potentially dangerous.

[quote]As a Christian, I believe that the laws of morality are in fact eternal, and have been written on the hearts of men from the beginning, though they are often obscured by sin and falsehood.

But to an atheist, how old laws of morality are shouldn't really matter, since all morality would be man-made and subjective.

Any morality an atheist might have would by definition have to come from something completely outside of atheism.[/quote]

I believe that parts of it are biologically hardwired, aided in human evolution (social animals) and so are an intrinsic part of who we are now. This would be compatible with the idea that mankind started trying to figure out moral rules, I just don't agree to there being an objective morality and much less an absolute morality. There are strong premises, however.

Since we're social animals by evolution, morality is a social construct using the human capacity to be moral which is intrinsic (in psychologically normal people, not the Stalin types)

[quote]And the fact is that most societies in the ancient world did not subscribe to all the tenants of Judaeo-Christian morality.[/quote]

Yes, I would say that someone objectified morality from that point on, which has grown to be accepted by followers.


[quote]What does logically follow from atheism is that all moral laws must be man-made, subjective, and ultimately arbitrary. An atheist could in fact follow a very strict code of morality if he so chose, but could just as consistently choose to follow no moral code at all. After all, as Sartre said, if God is dead, everything is permitted.
The only reason for an atheist to declare one code of morality better than another, or than none at all, is subjective personal preference.

(I know there's been a whole other thread started on that topic, though - just stating what I see as relevant here.)[/quote]

I wonder what Sartre meant by 'god'...as in an innate feeling or the ticket to heaven (eternal reward)?

[quote]The Communists do not share your particular moral scruples, but if there is no God, Communist "morality" is no more or less valid than your own.[/quote]

I can't say that mine is more real than theirs because I deny "real" morality in the first place.

I base mine on premises that are actually common in most moral systems, I just don't agree with their application in many cases.

[size="3"][size="2"][quote] [/size][i][u][b]Of course, the Communists (correctly) saw religion as a threat to their godless and totalitarian rule, but that does not mean their atheism played no part in their hatred of religion.[/b][/u][/i][/size][/quote]



And now we agree!

Though whatever their beliefs were, if they felt they needed to kill in order to socially engineer a country, then they would've looked for a justification anywhere.

[quote]And, again, the actions of hate and evil frequently do not make logical sense. There was little sense to the Liquidation of the Kulaks, nor the Nazi Holocaust.
The existence of evil in the world, and the often insane hatred of the forces of evil in the world for Christ and Christianity is in fact one reason I'm personally convinced of the truth of the Christian Faith.[/quote]

I think that even if some things make logical or emotional sense to some people, those were certainly not justified. It doesn't really matter if it makes sense or not.

Edited June 6, 2011 by xSilverPhinx

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote]Sorry, but the last sentence I bolded makes no sense whatever.

As all this is based on subjective categorizations of huge groups of people without much objective to back any of it up, I don't think there's really a meaningful debate to be had here.

I'll just say that there's lots of reliable testimony of many cases of the Christian Faith making a very real and very positive impact and change in the lives of all kinds of people from all walks of life and all circumstances.

You like to blame the Faith for all kinds of evils, yet consistently ignore or downplay the very real good it does in the lives of billions.[/quote]

That's probably because you feel that the only sense of meaning applicable is objective meaning. I feel there doesn't have to be one for people to lead meaningful lives. I don't spend that much time pondering the undesirable consequences of my death because I don't find them to be applicable.

I know that faithful people have done and are doing good in the world, but that in turn does not downplay or lessen the wrongs that faith is doing. I'll focus my claims to be less vague in the future.

[quote]
I said I was sure it was very serious and professional. [Insert snooty British accent]The BBC has spoken.[/snooty British accent] [/quote]

You mean the one thing that I was hinging on all this time isn't real? I guess I should stop watching BBC then...

(I know where you're getting at and no, I don't trust journalists to be impartial.)

[quote]Substitute "shrimp" for "goldfish."

Now the metaphor works.[/quote]

Shifting the goalpost...


[quote]Also debated to death on here. Run a search. (Sorry, but I simply don't have time to go into that whole debate right now)

Basically, homosexuality is directly contrary to the primary God-given purpose of human sexuality, which is the creation of new human life, and an abuse of the human sexual facilities, which we believe are sacred.[/quote]

Dolphins have sex outside their fertile periods

[quote]Obviously, if you are atheist and don't believe human sexuality has any objective purpose or sacredness, then I don't expect you to buy that, but from a purely naturalistic perspective, homosexual activity can never propagate life, but bring only disease and death, and studies repeatedly confirm that homosexual behavior is neither physically nor psychologically healthy. (Life expectancy for active homosexuals is significantly shorter than average, and homosexuals suffer from many more psychological ailments than the population as a whole.)
[/quote]

Two things (whether you want to answer them or not, I'll just throw it out there): is homosexuality intrinsically wrong or is it something that society preaches because society sees it to be a threat to its own fabric somehow.

Reliance's on natural arguments against homosexuality are weak.

Another thing: if you're talking about a disease such as AIDS, actually the incidence of that among homosexuals is much lower than among heterosexuals, proportionally. As for psychological problems, are you differentiating between intrinsic problems (if so, then which) and those that come from a social animal being an outcast?

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1307376452' post='2250434']
The way I see it is fundamentally different, but don't generalise, it's not like I'm saying that women should donate their eggs in order to satisfy a demand for scientific research. I'm looking at it from the woman's point of view, and the right that people have to donate their cells, which could be joined to form an embryo. In the case of in vitro fertilization, in which more conceptions are made than necessary, those embryonic cells would be discarded of and never implanted in a womb to grow and develop into a person. So what do you say is Right" in this case, forcibly implant those into a womb so that they can develop? [/quote]

Please don't hide behind womanhood to support inhumanity against our fellow brethren. A egg is part of a person a embryo is a person. Do you really KNOW without any doubt what so every that the people you are denying personhood to are not persons? I don't think you do know without a doubt. You really don't know, you really don't have a clue if a embryo or earlier developments of a person is a person. So your support of using these persons for lab experiments or using these persons for the beneficial gain of others is made in blind ignorance. It's likened to firing at a target when you have no idea if there is or is not a person in range. Or imploding a building without knowing if people are in the building or not. Again I think the science proves your thinking wrong.

E.L. Potter, M.D., and J.M. Craig, M.D. Pathology of the Fetus and the Infant (3rd Edition). Chicago: Year Book Medical Publishers, 1975, page vii.: Moore, Keith L. and Persaud, T.V.N. Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology and Birth Defects. 4th edition. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1993, p. 1: O'Rahilly, Ronan and Müller, Fabiola. Human Embryology and Teratology, 2nd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996, pp. 8: Subcommittee on Separation of Powers to Senate Judiciary Committee S-158, Report, 97th Congress, 1st Session, 1981: Peter Singer, Practical Ethics, 2nd ed, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 85-86.: David Boonin, A Defense of Abortion, Cambridge University Press: New York, p. 20, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc….

I don't believe there is any need to "forcibly implant" the embryos. There would likely be quite a few women willing to save the lives of those persons. If not they should be given burial rights, even if that sounds foolish.


[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1307376452' post='2250434']
What becomes a baby is a group of cells in the right conditions. Take those conditions away and all you have is a group of cells stuck in that state, that will not develop into something that either looks more like a human or thinks like one. I know that this line of thinking might seem completely alien to you. [/quote]

Again the science proves your thinking wrong. The idea that a human being can be a nonperson is ridiculous and absurd no matter how hard one wishes to justify such nonsense. Based on a purely scientific basis these ideas aren't alien the ideas are just an absurdity. Human beings are persons, persons are human beings, human beings begin life at the moment of conception.

The "looks human" argument is again relative, some people don't think black people, disabled people, or insert minority or unwanted group here, look human, or think human enough. How is your thinking not the same kind of thinking?

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1307376452' post='2250434']
I guess another solution to one of the main the problems that stem cells research would try to remedy is transhumanism. Would that be better or worse in your opinion?[/quote]

Adult stem cell research is better it has actually provided results and doesn't require sacrificing people to do it.

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1307376452' post='2250434']
I think that's just sick in an of itself, but in that case there weren't other people who would really benefit from the leftovers of living, thinking, feeling people. [/quote]

So if they did it would make it ok?

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1307376452' post='2250434']
No, because those would already be persons and even if parents who are responsible for them wanted to sell them into slavery they couldn't.
[/quote]

If the child isn't born yet, you leave open the possibility.

Edited June 6, 2011 by KnightofChrist

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1307399330' post='2250580']
Please don't hide behind womanhood to support inhumanity against our fellow brethren. A egg is part of a person a embryo is a person. Do you really KNOW without any doubt what so every that the people you are denying personhood to are not persons? I don't think you do know without a doubt. You really don't know, you really don't have a clue if a embryo or earlier developments of a person is a person. So your support of using these persons for lab experiments or using these persons for the beneficial gain of others is made in blind ignorance. It's likened to firing at a target when you have no idea if there is or is not a person in range. Or imploding a building without knowing if people are in the building or not. Again I think the science proves your thinking wrong.

E.L. Potter, M.D., and J.M. Craig, M.D. Pathology of the Fetus and the Infant (3rd Edition). Chicago: Year Book Medical Publishers, 1975, page vii.: Moore, Keith L. and Persaud, T.V.N. Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology and Birth Defects. 4th edition. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1993, p. 1: O'Rahilly, Ronan and Müller, Fabiola. Human Embryology and Teratology, 2nd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996, pp. 8: Subcommittee on Separation of Powers to Senate Judiciary Committee S-158, Report, 97th Congress, 1st Session, 1981: Peter Singer, Practical Ethics, 2nd ed, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 85-86.: David Boonin, A Defense of Abortion, Cambridge University Press: New York, p. 20, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc….

Again the science proves your thinking wrong. The idea that a human being can be a nonperson is ridiculous and absurd no matter how hard one wishes to justify such nonsense. Based on a purely scientific basis these ideas aren't alien the ideas are just an absurdity. Human beings are persons, persons are human beings, human beings begin life at the moment of conception.

The "looks human" argument is again relative, some people don't think black people, disabled people, or insert minority or unwanted group here, look human, or think human enough. How is your thinking not the same kind of thinking?[/quote]

No, I don't actually KNOW but 'person' is a legal term as far as I do. Biologically, I don' think they're the same, and even comparing other groups that were called non persons in the past such as blacks isn't a fair comparison in this case.

[quote]I don't believe there is any need to "forcibly implant" the embryos. There would likely be quite a few women willing to save the lives of those persons. If not they should be given burial rights, even if that sounds foolish. [/quote]

Burial rights? Do they have souls? If so, then in what way is their soul different from that of a protozoa (at that stage)? Does a group of embryonic cells that are not in a favourable environment for continued development have a soul? Is the soul contained in the DNA strand? What would be the biological defense for this?

[quote]Adult stem cell research is better it has actually provided results and doesn't require sacrificing people to do it. [/quote]

Then I'm all for it, though adult stem cells are not as good as embryonic stem cell.
What are your thoughts on in vitro fertilization and those embryonic stem cells that would be "sacrificed" anyway?

(Just to make things as clear as possible, I'm not advocating that stem cells be harvested to be researched, just in specific conditions.)

And out of curiosity, what are your thoughts on transhumanism?

[quote]So if they did it would make it ok? [/quote]

No, and how can skin be of any real justified use to anybody, even though there are way more cells contained in a small piece of skin than there are in early embryonic cells?

If you took the DNA from one of those skin cells and used it to clone itself to make a new set of embryonic cells would those be a person?

If a bunch of people are stranded in the wilderness without access to food and one of them dies, would it be okay to eat him or her?


[quote]If the child isn't born yet, you leave open the possibility.[/quote]

Again, we differ on the what we see to be a child in this case. I just don't see a couple of hundred embryonic cells as a child. Not at that stage.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1307406842' post='2250617']
[b]No, I don't actually KNOW[/b] but 'person' is a legal term as far as I do. [/quote]

Bingo bango, you don't know. That should be the end of it until you do know. It is not wise to speak about a topic and take a side if you do know a fundamental part of the topic. Legal term... be careful that's dangerously close to proving my point. Well in fact it does in fact do so. If you're going to say person is just a legal term as far as you know. Then Jews weren't persons in Nazi Germany. Blacks were not persons during slavery in the Untied States. Nor were any other people who've had their person hood denied by law.

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1307406842' post='2250617']Biologically, I don' think they're the same, [/quote]

Biologically they are in fact the same, they may look different and have different form but biologically the same. Again you've got to refute a lot of scientific evidence to make such a bold claim.

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1307406842' post='2250617']and even comparing other groups that were called non persons in the past such as blacks isn't a fair comparison in this case. [/quote]

It is it is a completely fair and just comparison. Based on your belief that person is a legal term it's completely fair to make this comparison. You're using the same lame worn out argument used over and over and over again by hate groups in the past.

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1307406842' post='2250617']Burial rights? Do they have souls? If so, then in what way is their soul different from that of a protozoa (at that stage)? Does a group of embryonic cells that are not in a favourable environment for continued development have a soul? Is the soul contained in the DNA strand? What would be the biological defense for this?[/quote]

They do have souls, from conception the human being has a soul. A person is a soul, who has a body.

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1307406842' post='2250617']Then I'm all for it, though adult stem cells are not as good as embryonic stem cell. [/quote]

No offense but bull, complete bull. The research on embryonic stem cells has resulted in many failures and no promising results. Adult stem cell research has been far more successful and promising.

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1307406842' post='2250617']What are your thoughts on in vitro fertilization and those embryonic stem cells that would be "sacrificed" anyway? [/quote]

The reality is that persons have had their life taken from them.

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1307406842' post='2250617']And out of curiosity, what are your thoughts on transhumanism? [/quote]

That it is mostly just pseudo-science eugenics, neo-eugenics. With a new twist.

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1307406842' post='2250617']No, and how can skin be of any real justified use to anybody, even though there are way more cells contained in a small piece of skin than there are in early embryonic cells?[/quote]

There were if I'm not mistaken many different medical advances made from the study of holocaust victims. Does that make it ok? Your reason, used against you says yes. The law determines personhood, the law said they were not human. The law used them in medical experiments to help with the benefit of others. Bayer is a company that benefited from these experiments.

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1307406842' post='2250617']If a bunch of people are stranded in the wilderness without access to food and one of them dies, would it be okay to eat him or her? [/quote]

No evil one can be do so that good may come from it.

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1307406842' post='2250617']Again, we differ on the what we see to be a child in this case. I just don't see a couple of hundred embryonic cells as a child. Not at that stage.
[/quote]

I know and it's said. I've had debates where someone just sees a black person as nothing more than a semi-advanced ape.

Edited June 7, 2011 by KnightofChrist

[xSilverPhinx]

Tell you what, I'll give it some thought.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1307413582' post='2250672']
Tell you what, I'll give it some thought.
[/quote]

Cool. God Bless sister.

[arfink]

Sociology is an intriguing topic for me, primarily because it's treated as a science nowadays. It is unique amongst accepted modern sciences in that it is the one which seeks to study that which cannot be materially measured in a direct way: ideas themselves. I am a philosophy major, and I have always found sociology to be far more interesting when considered from a philosophical standpoint than a scientific one, since it really frees you to do sociology properly.

See, things like ideas just don't make alot of sense from the standpoint of statistics and measurements and probability. Not to me anyways. Otherwise science would be able to explain things like random thought processes, such as me suddenly thinking of bacon, or a bar of soap, or loosing my socks on the subway, when there is absolutely nothing to trigger such thoughts. But if you want to think about the genesis and transference and continuance of ideas (such as religious ideals) it makes much more sense to use tools like epistemology, which is not normally considered to be a science except by some very atavistic (or old-school if you must) professors.

Delve into epistemology for a while. You'll find some pretty interesting stuff that explains things (or tries to) like belief, ideas, truth, how we know, etc. I think that one of the most important aspects of religion is that it ties directly into the desire to have knowledge, but sociology has a hard time getting past that point and onto the stuff of real importance, like how we go about making those sorts of decisions. I think you'll enjoy what you find, even if you find it a tad dizzying.

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='arfink' timestamp='1307417393' post='2250699']
Sociology is an intriguing topic for me, primarily because it's treated as a science nowadays. It is unique amongst accepted modern sciences in that it is the one which seeks to study that which cannot be materially measured in a direct way: ideas themselves. I am a philosophy major, and I have always found sociology to be far more interesting when considered from a philosophical standpoint than a scientific one, since it really frees you to do sociology properly. [/quote]

I agree with you on this. I think maybe one of the major limitations of a purely scientific approach besides ideas themselves being not measureable (what's measurable in some sense is the effect they have on societies) is that it tries to take a rational approach towards non rational beings. Good luck with that...

It certainly isn't as easy as the so called hard sciences where if you know how to ask the right questions and design the right experiments, you'll get clear and consistent answers.

[quote]See, things like ideas just don't make alot of sense from the standpoint of statistics and measurements and probability. Not to me anyways. Otherwise science would be able to explain things like random thought processes, such as me suddenly thinking of bacon, or a bar of soap, or loosing my socks on the subway, when there is absolutely nothing to trigger such thoughts. But if you want to think about the genesis and transference and continuance of ideas (such as religious ideals) it makes much more sense to use tools like epistemology, which is not normally considered to be a science except by some very atavistic (or old-school if you must) professors. [/quote]

I think that statistics may shine light on which ideas (or amorphous [i]sort[/i] of ideas) are those that people are more likely to accept and propagate based on their value (even if not true), but it's more in the psychological realm (and by extension, epistemology) that try and explain why some ideas are valued more than others even if it usually doesn't have much to say about the actual content of the ideas themselves. I think this would be the holy grail of propaganda, how to get people to think the ideas they choose.

[quote]Delve into epistemology for a while. You'll find some pretty interesting stuff that explains things (or tries to) like belief, ideas, truth, how we know, etc. I think that one of the most important aspects of religion is that it ties directly into the desire to have knowledge, but sociology has a hard time getting past that point and onto the stuff of real importance, like how we go about making those sorts of decisions. I think you'll enjoy what you find, even if you find it a tad dizzying.[/quote]

And come to the conclusion that I know nothing?

I like those sorts of subjects

[MagiDragon]

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1307381055' post='2250457']
Good And now for the really difficult thing that influences and underlies morality which is how "harm" would be defined and in which situations the same "harm" would not be as "harmful" in others. That's the main difficulty that my secular and atheistic point of view has to deal with in situations.

I think the main thing here is people have to accept responsibility for their actions. If two people voluntarily decide to risk their health and lives knowingly and something happens, it's pointless to blame it on others if it happens. They should then respect the decisions of others as to whether they would want to risk their lives or not.
[/quote]

Sounds fair. <religious digression> We can agree that infinite harm, if possible, would be a larger problem than finite harm. The problem from a religious standpoint, then becomes: the people have engaged in an act that causes infinite harm *to themselves.* This is what makes many religious people want to outlaw all immoral acts. Unfortunately, they forget that making someone incapable of committing an act does not stop the person from *contemplating* the act and *wishing* they could do it. Since Christ tells us that having desired a sinful act is equal to the sinful act itself, outlawing an act does nothing to prevent the infinite harm. This leads me to think that the NAP and libertarianism by extension, is completely in line with Catholic morality. This also leads religious people to be very preachy: they think that the non-religious should be informed of the consequences of their decisions. </digression>

Ultimately, I agree, if you wish to risk your health, wealth, livelihood and soul on something, that is your choice, but know the possible consequences as well as possible when you do something that risks one of those more important categories.

Something worth noting: the worst insult you can give someone is to say "you should have been aborted" why is this the case? Because it clearly does more harm to someone than anything else possibly could.

[quote name='xSilverPhinx']
We make it all about a credibility issue about the Church in general, especially with its claims to infallibility.
[/quote]

Yes, just keep in mind the limits to the claims of infallibility. If a remark is not made for the Church at large, the statement is not infallible. If the remark is not about faith or morals, the remark is not infallible.

[quote name='xSilverPhinx']
Yes, and I certainly think that people should be more responsible.

And this raises another point: many Christians that I know, in order to avoid responsibility place full blame on the devil (I'm not generalising here, I'm just saying that belief in the devil gives you that option) and to me such a thought is hardly moral.
[/quote]

Right, this is a misinterpretation of Christian belief because as Christians we know that we will always be given the help we need to resist *any* evil . . . but that doesn't make it easy. You're absolutely right, though, "the devil made me do it" is a lousy excuse.

[quote name='xSilverPhinx']


Well I don't know what will happen in the future, though if the Church is going to change or tweak its doctrines, it's going to happen from pressure on the inside, not others on the outside.
[/quote]

True, but those people are putting themselves outside of infallible Church teaching, so I'm not sure it's really considered internal pressure.

[quote name='xSilverPhinx']
Hmm..that's an interesting point, if you believe that life doesn't end after death then it doesn't seem as cheap.

Have you ever read Machiavelli's The Prince, by any chance? I brought that up a while ago because of of the similarities between god and Machiavelli's conception of a ruler are striking.
[/quote]

I've read large swathes of it. I took the whole thing with a healthy dose of salt, however, because I'd heard that Machiavelli wrote that merely to get in the good graces of a particular piece of royal scum, and later repudiated the whole thing. (Whether that's true or not, I never got around to verifying.) I'm not really sure what similarities you're seeing, could you elaborate?

Peace,
Joe

[Socrates]

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1307389598' post='2250523']
Athiesm has [b]nothing to say about moral statements[/b] . . . [/quote]
And the Christian Faith does.

That fact in itself is not insignificant.

The Faith of Christ provides (among other things) a clear path to moral and virtuous life, which if conscientiously followed leads to great good for oneself and others.

(I'm not responding to the rest of that spiel, as it is attacking strawmen, and does not address what I actually wrote. I don't have time to keep beating that dead horse.)


[quote]Athiests (myself included) have a problem when religion starts to go beyond the private lives of individuals and into society and by default mine. I know we're outnumbered, but that doesn't mean that some things shouldn't go unchallenged.[/quote]
What exactly do you mean by "the private lives of individuals"? As society is made up of individuals, one's beliefs and ideas of right and wrong will necessarily influence one's public actions if he acts consistently. Are you saying religious believers should avoid any mention of faith or religion, or acting according to the moral principles of their faith, outside the closed doors of their home (or at least the closed doors of their church)?

That would directly deny the Christian obligation to evangelize and administer to others, and to legally prohibit any public show of religion would in fact be oppressive to religious believers, and the enforcement of such would amount to Communist-like totalitarian rule.
And would you want any public expression of your atheism similarly banned?

As far as I know, nobody's pointing a gun to your head and demanding that you convert to Christianity. But, as you haven't specified what you're talking about, I'm afraid I can't say any more on that.

[quote]Even though I'm an atheist I obviously I wouldn't advocate killing all the religious to achieve that end.

In the case of communist Russia, I think the same thing applies. They were against anybody who was against Communism or in some way a threat and socially engineer the country to replace it with communism, not athiesm per se (which is also not communist). I just think it's important to draw those distinctions otherwise it is indeed very pointless.

So, if you can actually prove that firstly athiests (in the generalised sense which would apply to all) have a moral system (or lack of one) actually conduzive to being murderous dictators, then please do. Otherwise it's just as good as me saying that Catholics act the way they do because of muslim beliefs about reality.[/quote]
Good that you see the stupidity of the blame game.

[quote]I [i]call[/i] myself an athiest, and so do they. [/quote]
And you're both equally correct.


[quote]If a theist truly believes that his faith justifies mass murder (and calling it 'killing') then what's to stop him?[/quote]
I thought you agreed the "theist" blame game was stupid and pointless.

If the "theist" is a Christian, one would hope that love of God and neighbor (commanded by Christ) and fear of eternal damnation would stop him.

It's hard to see how a Faith which commands "Thou Shalt not Kill," "love thy neighbor as thyself," "love your enemies; do good to those that hurt you," "turn the other cheek," "he who lives by the sword shall die by the sword," "forgive thy brother not seven times, but seventy times seven," and "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" would justify mass murder.

Such a "Christian" would be acting in direct defiance to the teachings of his Faith, and would be either a cynical hypocrite (Jesus had quite a few harsh words for religious hypocrites), or completely insane, in which case lack of faith would likely not better him.

(Again, I am not interested in defending bloodthirsty non-Christian religions anymore than you are in defending Joseph Stalin.)

[quote]Since theists claim knowledge about objective morality, then they're way more secure in their moral beliefs which could in itself be potentially dangerous.[/quote]
And I would argue that lack of objective morality and secure moral beliefs is far more potentially (and actually) dangerous.

[quote]I believe that parts of it are biologically hardwired, aided in human evolution (social animals) and so are an intrinsic part of who we are now. This would be compatible with the idea that mankind started trying to figure out moral rules, I just don't agree to there being an objective morality and much less an absolute morality. There are strong premises, however.

Since we're social animals by evolution, morality is a social construct using the human capacity to be moral which is intrinsic (in psychologically normal people, not the Stalin types)[/quote]
Evolution or biology is a poor standard for determining moral standards.
Exactly what is and isn't "biologically hardwired" in human behavior is hard to determine, and there are plenty of biologists who would claim that such things as murder, lying, and adultery are "hardwired" in our genes. Does that mean those things should all be considered acceptable moral behavior?
(As Christians, we believe that a tendency towards sin and evil due to original sin is in fact "hardwired in our genes.")

Chimpanzees, commonly regarded as man's closest living relatives, often brutally kill members of their own species, and engage in infanticide and cannibalism. If such behavior is inherited from ape ancestors, does that make it moral?

And if morality is a mere "social construct," then it has no objective basis and is always subject to change. Something being socially acceptable doesn't make it morally right. For instance, for much of human history, slavery was an accepted part of most human societies. Racism and racial discrimination was socially acceptable at times in the past. Yet few liberals would now declare those things moral.




[quote]Yes, I would say that someone objectified morality from that point on, which has grown to be accepted by followers.




I wonder what Sartre meant by 'god'...as in an innate feeling or the ticket to heaven (eternal reward)? [/quote]
You'd have to ask him. Think he means belief in God - as when Nietzsche wrote "God is dead."


[quote][b]I can't say that mine is more real than theirs because I deny "real" morality in the first place.[/b]

I base mine on premises that are actually common in most moral systems, I just don't agree with their application in many cases. [/quote]
If there is no "real morality" then your "morality" is just as valid as the Communists' and you have no solid basis to critique theirs beyond your personal preferences and tastes.

What is and isn't "common" in "most" moral systems is somewhat subjective, and subject to change. There are plenty of things that have been common practice in societies that I'm sure you would not agree with.
As I've pointed out, simply using what's commonly accepted in society is a weak basis for morality.

Edited June 7, 2011 by Socrates

[CephaDrigan]

[quote name='MagiDragon' timestamp='1307466027' post='2250835']
Right, this is a misinterpretation of Christian belief because as Christians we know that we will always be given the help we need to resist *any* evil . . . but that doesn't make it easy. You're absolutely right, though, "the devil made me do it" is a lousy excuse.
[/quote]

The whole "devil made me do it" thing reminds me a lot of the Garden of Eden, when God asked Eve why she ate of the fruit.

Also, while the devil may have caused someone to do it, it still was them that did it, and not the devil.

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='MagiDragon' timestamp='1307466027' post='2250835']
Sounds fair. <religious digression> We can agree that infinite harm, if possible, would be a larger problem than finite harm. The problem from a religious standpoint, then becomes: the people have engaged in an act that causes infinite harm *to themselves.* This is what makes many religious people want to outlaw all immoral acts. Unfortunately, they forget that making someone incapable of committing an act does not stop the person from *contemplating* the act and *wishing* they could do it. Since Christ tells us that having desired a sinful act is equal to the sinful act itself, outlawing an act does nothing to prevent the infinite harm. This leads me to think that the NAP and libertarianism by extension, is completely in line with Catholic morality. This also leads religious people to be very preachy: they think that the non-religious should be informed of the consequences of their decisions. </digression>

Ultimately, I agree, if you wish to risk your health, wealth, livelihood and soul on something, that is your choice, but know the possible consequences as well as possible when you do something that risks one of those more important categories.[/quote]

I see. Well it certainly helps to understand why the religious feel the need to evangelise, at least I can't blame them for having good intentions. Though I accept the responsibility of not believing in god(s), heaven or hell. If there is a god I will explain my reasons.

[quote]Something worth noting: the worst insult you can give someone is to say "you should have been aborted" why is this the case? Because it clearly does more harm to someone than anything else possibly could.[/quote]

Yes, or any threat to a person's existence. Telling people that they're better off dead, or that if you were them you would kill yourself also rings on a similar note.

[quote]Right, this is a misinterpretation of Christian belief because as Christians we know that we will always be given the help we need to resist *any* evil . . . but that doesn't make it easy. You're absolutely right, though, "the devil made me do it" is a lousy excuse.[/quote]

It's used as an ad hoc excuse often, and it's laughable.

[quote]Yes, just keep in mind the limits to the claims of infallibility. If a remark is not made for the Church at large, the statement is not infallible. If the remark is not about faith or morals, the remark is not infallible.

True, but those people are putting themselves outside of infallible Church teaching, so I'm not sure it's really considered internal pressure.[/quote]

I'm not so sure about the Church's infallibility being set in stone and truly infallible when it comes to facts and the spiritual interpretations they add to them.

To use the example of geocentrism (which is a favourite because of the scandal it caused) the Church were reluctant to change their views because of how they interpreted mankind's place: god's most special creation. I'm speculating here, but I guess that for them back in the day, being told that they were not at the center of the universe might have been as shocking as hearing today that our universe is not the only universe (supposing it were proved).

So I don't know. If there is too much internal pressure, the Church would have to adapt, even if it means maintaining central dogma on morality and tweaking the edges bit by bit or die out altogether until it reaches something that is accepted by society at large. I don't think it would happen within a single generation though.


[quote]I've read large swathes of it. I took the whole thing with a healthy dose of salt, however, because I'd heard that Machiavelli wrote that merely to get in the good graces of a particular piece of royal scum, and later repudiated the whole thing. (Whether that's true or not, I never got around to verifying.) I'm not really sure what similarities you're seeing, could you elaborate?

Peace,
Joe
[/quote]

Yes, he dedicated it to the father of the Popes Leo X and Clement VII in fact...

But anyways, putting that aside, he wrote it as a description of what the rulers were doing at the time and how they acted (and therefore should act, according to him) to stay in power. He was a republican and wanted the unification of Italy, and saw efficient rulers as a means to achieve that end.

Two things that I find that what he said about efficient rulers that could apply to god, though you may feel that are not exactly accurate when referring to how you see god , I'm speaking from an observer's POV of all the different versions of Christian god out there and the tactics that "his messengers" use to get others to accept and submit to their view:

What Machiavelli says about how rulers should go about gaining respect from their subjects: It's better to be loved than to be feared, but if it has to be one or the other it's better to be feared, but never hated. To maintain power, having the ruled fear acts of violence and displays of power is better than having them love you but hate is worse of all because then people will seek vengeance.

What he says about the ruler's morality. Since he defends an efficient ruler over a "good" or virtuous one, efficiency is sometimes better achieved through acts of violence or cruelty than through moral acts*. Rulers could be said to have a 'political persona' which is separate from their their true selves (or not ) to which morality is not applicable, only the pursuit of necessary acts in order to maintain power. The political persona is amoral and above moral standards.


* You might refute this by saying that god is essentially good and that we may not understand his motives, but in the example of the Egyptian firstborn killing/murder no person who considers themselves to be moral or just would've killed a criminal's children to teach the criminal a lesson.

By human morality standards, it's not just. If god (who you say is the source of objective morality) were a human, he would not be deemed moral.

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='CephaDrigan' timestamp='1307476264' post='2250901']
The whole "devil made me do it" thing reminds me a lot of the Garden of Eden, when God asked Eve why she ate of the fruit.

Also, while the devil may have caused someone to do it, it still was them that did it, and not the devil.
[/quote]

An example I had the misfortune of experiencing (nasty people) said that the devil took away their free will. It's the ultimate evasion of responsibility and I don't know if they really think that they're being taken seriously. They must've been a cosy home for the devil, then, because it went on for almost a year and was not a one time thing, 'the heat of the moment' or temporary insanity.

But I'd better stop myself there, otherwise I can easily turn this entire thread into a huge never ending rant.