[quote]Severiano wrote:
There are people who are godless, who don’t experience joy or happiness, who do good things, just because they are good.[/quote]
First, it assumes “good” exists. So, they sacrifice their lives/time for faith.
Or, you’re trying to imply they’re carrying out some biological predisposition which only makes makes them meat machines carrying out their inheritable program.
Oh, where’s the universe’s morality ranking system? I’d like to take my morality score.
[quote]Severiano wrote:
It’s a matter of looking at the Church for what it is as an institution. I could go on and on about specific Popes and how difficult it has historically been for certain minority men of the cloth to gain positions within the church. Only within the past 20 years when it was calculated that Latino’s would become the minority of Catholics did the Church really make an effort to start giving Latino’s more prominent roles within the Church.
[/quote]
Isn’t that true across the board though? How many minority presidents have we had? What % of CEOs are minorities? How about women, they are still a smaller % of top earners or in top positions.
Again, ridiculous. Soup kitchens are not convenient. Mission trips to Burma are not convenient. Being thrown in prison in Iran for having a bible isn’t convenient.
Men are fallible. The Church has black spots on their history. What organization does not?
The church doesn’t tell you what’s right from wrong. They guide you to your own conclusion.
Individual people act in an immoral way (or a way you think is wrong) and that’s the fault of the organization?
Who is going to educate the people about right from wrong? I really hope you don’t say government.
[quote]
We don’t need these ancient businesses which started off as all about power and have evolved to be something better, telling us right from wrong. They’ve had it mostly wrong for 2000 years… I’m not buying it. [/quote]
The vast majority of religious individuals have not had it wrong for 2,000 years. The core teachings of Christianity have not had it wrong for 2,000 years. Again, who care about what happened hundreds of years ago? It would be like holding me responsible for my grand father’s grand father’s ownership of slaves (assuming this is the case). What sense does that make?
The key here is they have evolved into something better.
There is no other organizations that helps the poor in this world , of their own free will, more than religion organizations.
Every single organization has a black spot in their history why is the church held to this impossible standard?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Severiano wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Severiano wrote:
If you can be a good person for it’s own sake, it’s better than being a good person for the sake of some religion or God. It’s an outright better form of goodness.
[/quote]
There is not a “better” source of an ultimately imaginary goodness.
Edit: Seriously though, in a Godless universe, how is there a “better” source? It wouldn’t matter what your source is. Or, what your definition of “goodness” is.
[/quote]
It’s pretty easy. We are wired, 95% of us are wired from birth with a direction of good justice… There’s an article from the NY times that I have referenced here called The Moral Life of Babies.
All I’m saying is, we don’t need to have rewards or good feelings as a reward to do good. Doing good things is an end in itself. Doing good because you want to please God is not, it makes goodness a means to an end rather than an end in itself…
There are people who are godless, who don’t experience joy or happiness, who do good things, just because they are good. They are morally superior to those who do good for the sake of God, or happiness. [/quote]
Oh, you mean infant studies showing that babies punish “others,” not like them? Or, did the NYT article forget to mention the “dark” side of baby KKK? Well, ok, “bigotry” is “good.”
"Infants as young as nine months old prefer individuals who punish those who are not like them, and this seemingly innate mean streak grows stronger in the next five months of life, a study by researchers at Yale University has found.
Babies, like adults, prefer individuals who like the same things they do. A new study reports that they want individuals who share their tastes to be treated well by others, but want those whose tastes differ from their own to be treated badly. The study of 200 nine- and 14-month-old infants was published in Psychological Science, a journal of the Association for Psychological Science…
…As expected babies of both ages preferred the helper over the meanies when the puppet being assisted liked the same food they did. But the next finding surprised the researchers: When the puppet that dropped the ball did not share the babiesÃ?¢?? taste in food, the infants preferred the mean puppet to the helper. In other words: Babies prefer someone who is nice to an individual similar to themselves, but they also prefer someone who is mean to a dissimilar individual."
[/quote]
Also, I’ve seen the “we discovered morality in infants” articles before. Besides leaving out the dark-sided findings of infant studies, I’ve yet to see one variation on the “mean” puppet mentioned. The mean puppet now steals the other puppet’s ball/toy and then brings it to the infant, for the infant to have…
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
The UN has exactly zero soldiers. Those assigned to peacekeeping and peace enforcement operations are members of the armed forces of the respective sovereigns states that constitute the UN. The conception of utopian stormtroopers infringing upon state sovereignty is naive to an alarming degree.[/quote]
Well, no if you understand the failure and utter tragedy of WWI, the stalemate and loss of mobility that went on for nearly five years, the millions of dead, the near loss of Western civilisation, social contract theory, starvation, disease, displacement of millions and the utter failure of the league of nations you might get a better undertstanding.[/quote]
The UN was formed in 1948, which is beside the point. Your post is nothing more than a string of non sequiturs. If you wish to dispute my argument, address it in a relevant manner. You studied history I presume? If you had taken an international organizations course, it would be clear to you that my position is very much in line with reality.[/quote]
Not sure what the date of the League of Nations formation has to do with anything however, the principles were pretty much agreed on in the Yalta meeting of the big three.
@Biz - I don’t mean to sound arrogant but the humanities departments at Western universities are riddled with radical leftists pushing Stalinist revisionism. I know this for a fact. I’m going to remain humble and not reveal my tertiary education. It means less to me than the dog shit I slipped in this morning.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Religion does far more damage than good
[/quote]
You are a bigot, as is AC, when it comes to religion.
Just an FYI. [/quote]
why am I a bigot ?
[/quote]
“having or revealing an obstinate belief in the superiority of one’s own opinions and a prejudiced intolerance of the opinions of others.”[/quote]
If saying that some social or political institution does more harm than good is bigotry, then we are all bigots and not a single one of us should be ashamed to be labeled so.[/quote]
Thank you 
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Severiano wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Severiano wrote:
If you can be a good person for it’s own sake, it’s better than being a good person for the sake of some religion or God. It’s an outright better form of goodness.
[/quote]
There is not a “better” source of an ultimately imaginary goodness.
Edit: Seriously though, in a Godless universe, how is there a “better” source? It wouldn’t matter what your source is. Or, what your definition of “goodness” is.
[/quote]
It’s pretty easy. We are wired, 95% of us are wired from birth with a direction of good justice… There’s an article from the NY times that I have referenced here called The Moral Life of Babies.
All I’m saying is, we don’t need to have rewards or good feelings as a reward to do good. Doing good things is an end in itself. Doing good because you want to please God is not, it makes goodness a means to an end rather than an end in itself…
There are people who are godless, who don’t experience joy or happiness, who do good things, just because they are good. They are morally superior to those who do good for the sake of God, or happiness. [/quote]
Oh, you mean infant studies showing that babies punish “others,” not like them? Or, did the NYT article forget to mention the “dark” side of baby KKK? Well, ok, “bigotry” is “good.”
"Infants as young as nine months old prefer individuals who punish those who are not like them, and this seemingly innate mean streak grows stronger in the next five months of life, a study by researchers at Yale University has found.
Babies, like adults, prefer individuals who like the same things they do. A new study reports that they want individuals who share their tastes to be treated well by others, but want those whose tastes differ from their own to be treated badly. The study of 200 nine- and 14-month-old infants was published in Psychological Science, a journal of the Association for Psychological Science…
…As expected babies of both ages preferred the helper over the meanies when the puppet being assisted liked the same food they did. But the next finding surprised the researchers: When the puppet that dropped the ball did not share the babiesÃ?¢?? taste in food, the infants preferred the mean puppet to the helper. In other words: Babies prefer someone who is nice to an individual similar to themselves, but they also prefer someone who is mean to a dissimilar individual."
[/quote]
Actually it was about babies who are more apt to punish things for wrong doing. It’s displayed often times when one type bullies another like takes away a toy from another unfairly, the baby is likely to punish the thief, and those who obstruct others from achieving simple ends. You can interpret it how you would like, it depends on whether you think thievery is good or bad lol.
[quote]Severiano wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Severiano wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Severiano wrote:
If you can be a good person for it’s own sake, it’s better than being a good person for the sake of some religion or God. It’s an outright better form of goodness.
[/quote]
There is not a “better” source of an ultimately imaginary goodness.
Edit: Seriously though, in a Godless universe, how is there a “better” source? It wouldn’t matter what your source is. Or, what your definition of “goodness” is.
[/quote]
It’s pretty easy. We are wired, 95% of us are wired from birth with a direction of good justice… There’s an article from the NY times that I have referenced here called The Moral Life of Babies.
All I’m saying is, we don’t need to have rewards or good feelings as a reward to do good. Doing good things is an end in itself. Doing good because you want to please God is not, it makes goodness a means to an end rather than an end in itself…
There are people who are godless, who don’t experience joy or happiness, who do good things, just because they are good. They are morally superior to those who do good for the sake of God, or happiness. [/quote]
Oh, you mean infant studies showing that babies punish “others,” not like them? Or, did the NYT article forget to mention the “dark” side of baby KKK? Well, ok, “bigotry” is “good.”
"Infants as young as nine months old prefer individuals who punish those who are not like them, and this seemingly innate mean streak grows stronger in the next five months of life, a study by researchers at Yale University has found.
Babies, like adults, prefer individuals who like the same things they do. A new study reports that they want individuals who share their tastes to be treated well by others, but want those whose tastes differ from their own to be treated badly. The study of 200 nine- and 14-month-old infants was published in Psychological Science, a journal of the Association for Psychological Science…
…As expected babies of both ages preferred the helper over the meanies when the puppet being assisted liked the same food they did. But the next finding surprised the researchers: When the puppet that dropped the ball did not share the babiesÃ???Ã???Ã??Ã?¢?? taste in food, the infants preferred the mean puppet to the helper. In other words: Babies prefer someone who is nice to an individual similar to themselves, but they also prefer someone who is mean to a dissimilar individual."
[/quote]
Actually it was about babies who are more apt to punish things for wrong doing. It’s displayed often times when one type bullies another like takes away a toy from another unfairly, the baby is likely to punish the thief, and those who obstruct others from achieving simple ends. You can interpret it how you would like, it depends on whether you think thievery is good or bad lol.
[/quote]
Yet, that ignores the darker results of these studies, such as the above (baby KKK).
Also, I haven’t found one that had the “mean” puppet bring the stolen ball/toy to the infant. As it is, the infant would fear the puppet stealing his own toys. But what if the puppet stole from another puppet to the benefit of the infant? That would be telling.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]Severiano wrote:
It’s a matter of looking at the Church for what it is as an institution. I could go on and on about specific Popes and how difficult it has historically been for certain minority men of the cloth to gain positions within the church. Only within the past 20 years when it was calculated that Latino’s would become the minority of Catholics did the Church really make an effort to start giving Latino’s more prominent roles within the Church.
[/quote]
Isn’t that true across the board though? How many minority presidents have we had? What % of CEOs are minorities? How about women, they are still a smaller % of top earners or in top positions.
Again, ridiculous. Soup kitchens are not convenient. Mission trips to Burma are not convenient. Being thrown in prison in Iran for having a bible isn’t convenient.
Men are fallible. The Church has black spots on their history. What organization does not?
The church doesn’t tell you what’s right from wrong. They guide you to your own conclusion.
Individual people act in an immoral way (or a way you think is wrong) and that’s the fault of the organization?
Who is going to educate the people about right from wrong? I really hope you don’t say government.
The difference being, various religious institutions are supposed to possess superior ethics, as superior ethics and conduct are the very things that supposedly get you to the next step, heaven, hell etc.
That the various religious institutions have been wrong, and have lagged behind ethically due to politics and hegemony shows they are incapable of having superior morality at any current era.
Morman faiths just recently rejected the idea of blacks being born a certain way. Christianity still is against fucking birth control and barely acknowledged they did Galileo wrong. They aren’t a bastion of justice or ethics, they are are centuries old institutions/ businesses. If they are consistently behind contemporary ethics and justice, why would they be good now? Are they making strides of moral excellence and being groundbreaking? Or are they still trying to figure out what to do with gay people for example? They are behind the moral contemporary times, and are consistently rather than being frontrunners and only seem to amend their stances when they are exposed as retarded.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Severiano wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Severiano wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Severiano wrote:
If you can be a good person for it’s own sake, it’s better than being a good person for the sake of some religion or God. It’s an outright better form of goodness.
[/quote]
There is not a “better” source of an ultimately imaginary goodness.
Edit: Seriously though, in a Godless universe, how is there a “better” source? It wouldn’t matter what your source is. Or, what your definition of “goodness” is.
[/quote]
It’s pretty easy. We are wired, 95% of us are wired from birth with a direction of good justice… There’s an article from the NY times that I have referenced here called The Moral Life of Babies.
All I’m saying is, we don’t need to have rewards or good feelings as a reward to do good. Doing good things is an end in itself. Doing good because you want to please God is not, it makes goodness a means to an end rather than an end in itself…
There are people who are godless, who don’t experience joy or happiness, who do good things, just because they are good. They are morally superior to those who do good for the sake of God, or happiness. [/quote]
Oh, you mean infant studies showing that babies punish “others,” not like them? Or, did the NYT article forget to mention the “dark” side of baby KKK? Well, ok, “bigotry” is “good.”
"Infants as young as nine months old prefer individuals who punish those who are not like them, and this seemingly innate mean streak grows stronger in the next five months of life, a study by researchers at Yale University has found.
Babies, like adults, prefer individuals who like the same things they do. A new study reports that they want individuals who share their tastes to be treated well by others, but want those whose tastes differ from their own to be treated badly. The study of 200 nine- and 14-month-old infants was published in Psychological Science, a journal of the Association for Psychological Science…
…As expected babies of both ages preferred the helper over the meanies when the puppet being assisted liked the same food they did. But the next finding surprised the researchers: When the puppet that dropped the ball did not share the babiesÃ???Ã???Ã???Ã???Ã??Ã?¢?? taste in food, the infants preferred the mean puppet to the helper. In other words: Babies prefer someone who is nice to an individual similar to themselves, but they also prefer someone who is mean to a dissimilar individual."
[/quote]
Actually it was about babies who are more apt to punish things for wrong doing. It’s displayed often times when one type bullies another like takes away a toy from another unfairly, the baby is likely to punish the thief, and those who obstruct others from achieving simple ends. You can interpret it how you would like, it depends on whether you think thievery is good or bad lol.
[/quote]
Yet, that ignores the darker results of these studies, such as the above (baby KKK).
Also, I haven’t found one that had the “mean” puppet bring the stolen ball/toy to the infant. As it is, the infant would fear the puppet stealing his own toys. But what if the puppet stole from another puppet to the benefit of the infant? That would be telling.
[/quote]
It depends on how you want to interpret it. Babies are going to be more apt also to motion to help someone if they witness something they perceive as accidental as well.
Instead of looking at things as adversarial, you can also look at babies in terms of reciprocation and cooperation. The babies are likely to punish those who don’t cooperate, it may be that their cognitive development is limited.
As adults, we also tend to look at differences between us and others as things that stratify our likes and dislikes. If you look at it from this perspective, it looks like the Church is baby like in their morality… Liking those similar to themselves, looking to change others to be just like themselves so they can be likable… And that seems to be similar in all religions, we are the best, our way is the only way, either you are with us or against us, if you don’t do it this way you go to hell etc. etc.
[quote]Severiano wrote:
It depends on how you want to interpret it. [/quote]
In other words, we’re born with the faculties to be “good” and/or “bad.” And not with knowing “good” and/or “bad.” Unless ‘bigotry’ is also good since infants do it.
So, whether the things infants do are good and/or bad, they are defined outside of what they are predisposed to do. They do something, we label it as “good” or “bad.”
“have lagged behind ethically” compared to what ?
During millenia, religion was everywhere and was everything. There was no alternative ethical standard.
So back then, if religion lagged behind something, it lagged behind… itself.
Non-religious ethical standards are a very recent phenomenon. So recent it’s absurd to pretend they are superior or inferior to the “old” religious standards.
They are so young they haven’t proven their viability and sustainability, let alone their superiority.
Irreligion is a cultural toddler. It make a lot of noise, and it looks rather healthy right now but its survival is far from being certain.
For all we know, in two or three centuries, it might very well be looked as a strange but ultimately unimportant parenthesis in our history.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Severiano wrote:
It depends on how you want to interpret it. [/quote]
In other words, we’re born with the faculties to be “good” and/or “bad.” And not with knowing “good” and/or “bad.” Unless ‘bigotry’ is also good since infants do it.
So, whether the things infants do are good and/or bad, they are defined outside of what they are predisposed to do. They do something, we label it as “good” or “bad.”[/quote]
I think it needs to be considered not only from the moral standpoint, but the anthropological standpoint. Remember we are complicated, social animals that are wired to reciprocate and cooperate. What things are good traits that would likely foster cooperation? Do you think empathy is one? Well I think babies show that, they are able to connect with situations and people similar to themselves. More complex level of empathy comes about as our brains develop, when we start looking at people, all people as similar to us regardless of differences.
[quote]kamui wrote:
“have lagged behind ethically” compared to what ?
During millenia, religion was everywhere and was everything. There was no alternative ethical standard.
So back then, if religion lagged behind something, it lagged behind… itself.
Non-religious ethical standards are a very recent phenomenon. So recent it’s absurd to pretend they are superior or inferior to the “old” religious standards.
They are so young they haven’t proven their viability and sustainability, let alone their superiority.
Irreligion is a cultural toddler. It make a lot of noise, and it looks rather healthy right now but its survival is far from being certain.
For all we know, in two or three centuries, it might very well be looked as a strange but ultimately unimportant parenthesis in our history.
[/quote]
Lagged behind ethically compared to contemporary ethics considering the different era’s of different moralists and philosophers.
If we are talking today, we can look at the church position on say homosexuals, always a topic that comes up, I’m kinda tired of the subject but it’s an important one, as well as womens rights. Hows womens rights been historically thoughout the different religions in general? Would you say that churches and religious institutions embody fairness between the sexes? They are always behind. Need I bring up the enlightenment? Behind back then too.
[quote]Severiano wrote:
I think it needs to be considered not only from the moral standpoint, but the anthropological standpoint. Remember we are complicated, social animals that are wired to reciprocate and cooperate.[/quote]
Which leaves a whole hell lot of room. Cooperate with what? A couple same-race members? Family members? Fellow gang-members? An entire neighborhood? An entire planet? Being that infants seem predisposed to punish others different from themselves (even for only different food!) I wouldn’t get your hopes up.
Cooperation with who and to what ends? There seems to be an assumption that we’re inherently “everyone around the world” minded. I would vehemently disagree. If anything I would argue we are more predisposed to local tribal cooperation. In a world with finite resources and competition, it sort of makes sense.
You mean when we nurture children to develop these attributes? Of course, we could simply reinforce the inherent ‘bigotry’ of infants, too. It since it seems inherent, why wouldn’t we? Aren’t infants being used here to tell us what is “good?”
Behavorial sciences can describe and (partially) explain human behavior.
We can certainly show how evolution favored altruistic traits.
But that doesn’t say anything about morality.
This can explain why (some) people are (sometimes) altruist.
This can explain why being altruist can be useful for the specy and/or useful for an individual
this can explain why we tend to think that altruistic people are good people.
But this will never explain why it is our moral duty to be altruist.
science deal with facts (descriptive ethology), not with rules (normative ethics).
[quote]Severiano wrote:
[quote]kamui wrote:
“have lagged behind ethically” compared to what ?
During millenia, religion was everywhere and was everything. There was no alternative ethical standard.
So back then, if religion lagged behind something, it lagged behind… itself.
Non-religious ethical standards are a very recent phenomenon. So recent it’s absurd to pretend they are superior or inferior to the “old” religious standards.
They are so young they haven’t proven their viability and sustainability, let alone their superiority.
Irreligion is a cultural toddler. It make a lot of noise, and it looks rather healthy right now but its survival is far from being certain.
For all we know, in two or three centuries, it might very well be looked as a strange but ultimately unimportant parenthesis in our history.
[/quote]
Lagged behind ethically compared to contemporary ethics considering the different era’s of different moralists and philosophers.
If we are talking today, we can look at the church position on say homosexuals, always a topic that comes up, I’m kinda tired of the subject but it’s an important one, as well as womens rights. Hows womens rights been historically thoughout the different religions in general? Would you say that churches and religious institutions embody fairness between the sexes? They are always behind. Need I bring up the enlightenment? Behind back then too. [/quote]
You say this like Tuesday is inherently better than Monday. Ok, so your modern ethics has a different/newish position on homosexuality…And?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Severiano wrote:
[quote]kamui wrote:
“have lagged behind ethically” compared to what ?
During millenia, religion was everywhere and was everything. There was no alternative ethical standard.
So back then, if religion lagged behind something, it lagged behind… itself.
Non-religious ethical standards are a very recent phenomenon. So recent it’s absurd to pretend they are superior or inferior to the “old” religious standards.
They are so young they haven’t proven their viability and sustainability, let alone their superiority.
Irreligion is a cultural toddler. It make a lot of noise, and it looks rather healthy right now but its survival is far from being certain.
For all we know, in two or three centuries, it might very well be looked as a strange but ultimately unimportant parenthesis in our history.
[/quote]
Lagged behind ethically compared to contemporary ethics considering the different era’s of different moralists and philosophers.
If we are talking today, we can look at the church position on say homosexuals, always a topic that comes up, I’m kinda tired of the subject but it’s an important one, as well as womens rights. Hows womens rights been historically thoughout the different religions in general? Would you say that churches and religious institutions embody fairness between the sexes? They are always behind. Need I bring up the enlightenment? Behind back then too. [/quote]
You say this like Tuesday is inherently better than Monday. Ok, so your modern ethics has a different/newish position on homosexuality…And?
[/quote]
Not just my newish ethics… Society as a whole is quicker to adjust morally than the Church, when the Church is supposed to be the moral leaders, they are the ones who lag behind society, and ultimately cave to society’s ethics. Do I need to do a historical breakdown of this again? Or do I need to site more examples? It’s easy to grasp and plain for everyone to see.
[quote]Severiano wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Severiano wrote:
[quote]kamui wrote:
“have lagged behind ethically” compared to what ?
During millenia, religion was everywhere and was everything. There was no alternative ethical standard.
So back then, if religion lagged behind something, it lagged behind… itself.
Non-religious ethical standards are a very recent phenomenon. So recent it’s absurd to pretend they are superior or inferior to the “old” religious standards.
They are so young they haven’t proven their viability and sustainability, let alone their superiority.
Irreligion is a cultural toddler. It make a lot of noise, and it looks rather healthy right now but its survival is far from being certain.
For all we know, in two or three centuries, it might very well be looked as a strange but ultimately unimportant parenthesis in our history.
[/quote]
Lagged behind ethically compared to contemporary ethics considering the different era’s of different moralists and philosophers.
If we are talking today, we can look at the church position on say homosexuals, always a topic that comes up, I’m kinda tired of the subject but it’s an important one, as well as womens rights. Hows womens rights been historically thoughout the different religions in general? Would you say that churches and religious institutions embody fairness between the sexes? They are always behind. Need I bring up the enlightenment? Behind back then too. [/quote]
You say this like Tuesday is inherently better than Monday. Ok, so your modern ethics has a different/newish position on homosexuality…And?
[/quote]
Not just my newish ethics… Society as a whole is quicker to adjust morally than the Church, when the Church is supposed to be the moral leaders, they are the ones who lag behind society, and ultimately cave to society’s ethics. Do I need to do a historical breakdown of this again? Or do I need to site more examples? It’s easy to grasp and plain for everyone to see.
[/quote]
Hold up a second, you act as if I agree that morality is whatever the flavor of the moment is. If society wasn’t agreeing with you now, and still agreed with me on a host of issues, would you change your conclusions to mine?
The church elected women (and homosexual men) at its highest ranks, taught them how to read and how to wrote centuries before our secular governments decided to let wives work without the consent of their husband.
Homophoby and misogyny largely predates the Church and both will survive our (quite ridiculous) attempts to legislate against them.
Fairness between the sexes won’t matter much when our bow-so-generous culture will have finished to implement its environnemental ethics at a worldwide scale.