Religion Catch All

[mnben87]

@pat

So, Dillahunty is right. If someone says they are atheist, then that’s good enough. There is and should be no reason to have to qualify or prove that you are. You can be an atheist, be a good person and up hold the moral foundations you believe in.

Agree.

@pat

Using the justified murder of someone to describe the limitlessness of ultimately believing in nothing can make the point

Not that you are arguing that it couldn’t occur (or doesn’t occur), but a religious person could take the same actions as the character in Crime and Punishment, and I think the justification would likely be the same regardless.

IMO (and it is backed by science), these type of actions occur mostly from people who lack empathy (psychopaths and sociopaths), and these people can be religious or non religious.

@pat

You don’t have to be a narcissist to be an atheist

I hope not LOL.

@pat

In other words, you cannot have an objective moral framework and be an atheist because morality and the God are intrinsically linked. Hence, there is no good or bad, or evil or righteous. There’s just stuff you can do.

While I don’t believe in objective morality, I think we can come close to it. I think there are many things that we can agree on almost unanimously (ultimately it comes down to agreeing that we want a happy society). Those things can be deemed good or bad. I think people can get to wanting “good” things though selfish means. I have already gone though this up thread if you want examples (both of selfish means producing “good” actions, and avoiding “bad” actions).

@pat

Sam is an atheist who believes in objective moral values and the two contradict.

I am going to look for his argument on this. I like most of his ideas, and this would surprise me. Are you certain he isn’t using an argument like what I used above (about approaching objective but not getting there)?

@pat

Peterson also delves into the intrinsic nature of the moral code being written on the soul\ heart.

This is unfalsifiable (and also not supported with reasonable evidence). To me it is more reasonable to think that our “instinctive” ability to tell right and wrong is a product of evolution and tradition. We see a moral code in nature, where the animals (species) that live in groups behave more socially, and the animals (species) that are loners are not usually quite as social and do things that would be seen as anti-social by a social animal.

Another thing of interest is how just a few hundred years ago it was common for average people (not likely psychopaths) did things that would be seen as horrific to modern people. If a moral code was written on our hearts, how did so many justify slavery? Eugenics?

@pat

And morality does not necessarily co-inside with survival of the fittest. In fact in many cases it’s contradictory. Why would we want to preserve and help the weakest and most vulnerable, when their existence is evolutionary detrimental?

I think this can be explained by needing to fit into a social group to find a mate. The ladies don’t like the cruel asshole who goes around killing those weaker then him. They probably figure this big asshole is going to be nice to me until he gets laid, then he is going to beat me around like all the others. The big assholes eventually figured this out, started being nice and got laid more.

@pat

It would be more evolutionary beneficial to practice eugenics.

The USA had a eugenics program until this ass hat in Germany ruined how it was perceived. I kid. I am glad we don’t forcibly sterilize people anymore.

I’ll probably have some more edits as this was a big post to respond to. I do enjoy this type of philosophy discussion.

[mnben87]

@chris_ottawa

I know one guy who got shot in the chest breaking up a fight and another who died. Very selfish behavior indeed.

The outcome doesn’t change the motive.

[BrickHead]

The last thing a spouse, friend, family member, maybe even a co-worker, and especially a fellow soldier or child wants to hear is, “I don’t owe you anything.” We can break this down in various philosophical or theoretical ways, but the way such words register with most people is callous and crude. Some might even think sociopathic. I also think it is said by libertarians to express their independence, as if to deny that man is a dependent creature, but I don’t know if this fits @mnben87.

Very few people would be able to tolerate living in solitary confinement (which requires some dependence too) or as the sole resident of an island.

Libertarianism to me is adult edgelording.

[chris_ottawa]

@mnben87

The outcome doesn’t change the motive.

I’m pretty skeptical about your motives.

[mnben87]

You don’t think they are selfish?

[unreal24278]

I generally tend to agree that humanity is inherently selfish. Even the most selfless of acts frequently stem from an inherent benefit an individual may perceive.

This isn’t to say there isn’t a spectrum of selfishness/selflessness. Some/many people are legitimately good at heart, but no one is perfect aside from purported religious deities.

@chris_ottawa

know one guy who got shot in the chest breaking up a fight and another who died.

I indirectly know someone who wound up brain damaged from a similar situation. Extremely unfortunate

@BrickHead

Libertarianism to me is adult edgelording.

Ehhh, true libertarianism sometimes involves advocating for certain societal constructs to be free of rules/regulation whilst simultaneously railing against said constructs. This can be somewhat confusing but it doesn’t meet the criteria for edgelording, many times the argument conveyed actually makes sense until you delve into legitimately amoral territory. There is a difference between being a libertarian and simply advocating for individualistic rights. Whilst @mnben87 has stated he abides by a libertarian point of view when it comes to individualistic rights, he hasn’t outright stated “I am a libertarian”.

When it comes to individualistic rights my pov is libertarian in nature… up to a point. The line for me is crossed when a right/act induces serious detriment upon the greater community (or more detriment than the proposed alternative). But otherwise my sense of morality isn’t justification for me to say “hey, that’s not okay… You can’t do that”.

To @mnben87 I’d like to state I agree with the majority of what you’ve put down. A mob mentality of sorts tends to develop when arguments develop where it seems to be one individual vs a majority harbouring alternate opinions.

[dt79]

@chris_ottawa

I know one guy who got shot in the chest breaking up a fight and another who died. Very selfish behavior indeed.

I wouldn’t call it selfish, but rather, not selfless(?). My point is I think we’re just playing with semantics here. When you have situations like this, there are also so many factors to consider. Did the guy who broke up the fight foresee his act could end up in his demise?

How about we go a bit further?

Guy jumps on a grenade to save his surrounding platoon mates. It’s a split second decision. Is it selflessness or instinct developed through training?

EDIT:

I genuinely don’t know. I’m just throwing this out there for discussion.

[dt79]

@BrickHead

The last thing a spouse, friend, family member, maybe even a co-worker, and especially a fellow soldier or child wants to hear is, “I don’t owe you anything.” We can break this down in various philosophical or theoretical ways, but the way such words register with most people is callous and crude. Some might even think sociopathic. I also think it is said by libertarians to express their independence, as if to deny that man is a dependent creature, but I don’t know if this fits @mnben87.

Very few people would be able to tolerate living in solitary confinement (which requires some dependence too) or as the sole resident of an island.

Libertarianism to me is adult edgelording.

Doesn’t “libertarianism” exist on a spectrum, just like authoritarianism? I’d agree you have to be an independent individual focused on keep yourself as mentally and physically well as possible as well as pursue wealth to the best extent you are able to. This, which I practice, is because it’s how I feel I can fully maximize the benefits I can bring to my family. If I bring my serious problems home and confide in my wife, now I’ve made myself feel just a little bit better but it’s made her worse off. And then I end up feeling guilty because now I’ve made her feel bad so I’m also worse off. I also want to make sure that if I drop dead today, they wouldn’t have to be dependent on me for maintaining a good life. So I’m essentially “solitary”, even though it’s only mentally. What would I be labelled under lol?

I’ve been collaborating with a couple of web developers over the last few months for a project. My management style is normally rather informal and participative when dealing with creatives so I spoke with them a lot on non-business stuff. I find that most of them lean libertarian, but have established an unbelievable level of collaboration in their industry culture in terms of individual contributions to software libraries, open source material and other tech stuff I have no idea about even though much of them are, in fact, direct competitors to the extent that it’s almost collectivist in nature(just an observation based on my very limited knowledge).

[BrickHead]

Hypothetically speaking, imagine if a friend told you this shortly before you two had to fend off attackers? [quote=“dt79, post:1195, topic:268570”]
What would I be labelled under lol?
[/quote]

You’re still dependent, like all men who don’t live in the wilderness by themselves.

@dt79

. I find that most of them lean libertarian

I’m not surprised. Have you ever met a libertarian steam fitter or brick layer?

People are also not just a bunch of individuals as you’ve stated.

I think I’m going to stay out of some of the talk here but might participate if and when it goes back to religion specifically.

At first my screen name was made for a humorous reason but apparently it actually describes the man I became, literally brick headed and therefore cannot comprehend some stuff said here.

[dt79]

@BrickHead

You’re still dependent, like all men who don’t live in the wilderness by themselves.

YES! What I was implying was that most people who claim to be libertarian don’t buy the dogma or philosophy or whatever it’s called in it’s entirety. Shit, I don’t even know what real libertarianism is although I supposedly lean slightly towards that end after taking the political compass test.

If I hadn’t went so in-depth into the description of my thought process, I could easily be mistaken as what you first described a libertarian to be.

@BrickHead

I’m not surprised. Have you ever met a libertarian steam fitter or brick layer?

No, but you wouldn’t want to know what the brick layers I know think about politics lol. Hint: US evil. Jews also evil.

@BrickHead

I’m not surprised.

But you did read the rest of my post, didn’t you? They are more collectivist/ collaborative in their industry than any other I’ve ever seen despite also being competitors for jobs. I was mindblown, tbh.

[unreal24278]

@dt79

supposedly lean slightly towards that end after taking the political compass test.

@BrickHead and I also took this test on one of my threads!

[BrickHead]

Ok, I get it. My bad.

[chris_ottawa]

@mnben87

You don’t think they are selfish?

Now I’m sure they are, and maybe more than that too. If I knew you in real life I think I would avoid you.

A few weeks ago there was a seemingly abandoned baby cat lingering outside the dumpsters at my work. I gave it some meat, twice. I don’t even like cats and I would never want one in my house. Was I being selfish by feeding it? I just felt pity for it, and there was leftover food that was going in the trash.

@dt79

Did the guy who broke up the fight foresee his act could end up in his demise?

In both instances that I mentioned, probably not. No guns were brandished and neither of them were attacked or threatened until they got involved, but they also didn’t need to get involved at all. Some people would just stand there and watch people fight or get killed.

@dt79

Guy jumps on a grenade to save his surrounding platoon mates. It’s a split second decision. Is it selflessness or instinct developed through training?

Only he knows what is going on in his mind, but unless he’s under some sort of mind control I would assume he went against his instincts. Even when people want to kill themselves they often have a hard time doing it.

[mnben87]

@unreal24278

@mnben87 has stated he abides by a libertarian point of view when it comes to individualistic rights, he hasn’t outright stated “I am a libertarian”.

Only libertarian to individual rights. I think full libertarian government maybe could have worked well in the past, but would be a disaster now.

@chris_ottawa

Now I’m sure they are, and maybe more than that too. If I knew you in real life I think I would avoid you.

I don’t think you are quite understanding my position. I do lots of nice things for people and animals. I’m just delving into motivations for actions. I’m not thinking how does this action help me for everything I do. Additionally, you wouldn’t know these thoughts in person. I choose this medium as a way to talk about these topics, because there is little risk involved.

A selfish action can be a great action that benefits others. Is can even seem selfless.

They have some studies on animals that perform seemingly selfless acts. Upon further study, they always found a selfish reason. For example, prairie dogs will pop out of their holes to warn other prairie dogs about predators putting themselves at risk (sometimes drawing the predator to them). This seemed like a selfless act, but they saw that they would only perform this action if the prairie dogs out above ground were offspring of them. They were protecting their own genetics, but wouldn’t do the warning to protect genetics outside of their own.

@chris_ottawa

A few weeks ago there was a seemingly abandoned baby cat lingering outside the dumpsters at my work. I gave it some meat, twice. I don’t even like cats and I would never want one in my house. Was I being selfish by feeding it? I just felt pity for it, and there was leftover food that was going in the trash.

You fed it because you felt pity. You didn’t want to pity it anymore, so you fed it, and felt better. If it brought you joy to see starving animals, I doubt you would feed them.

[chris_ottawa]

@mnben87

This seemed like a selfless act, but they saw that they would only perform this action if the prairie dogs out above ground were offspring of them. They were protecting their own genetics, but wouldn’t do the warning to protect genetics outside of their own.

Protecting your children is selfish in your opinion? You have a twisted mind.

[unreal24278]

@chris_ottawa

You have a twisted mind.

Stop being deliberately facetious…

[mnben87]

It is my opinion that I’m being attacked due to a lack of counter argument. I could be wrong, but why attack someone personally when you could go after the idea? Certainly the latter is more effective for the people who read through this thread, if the goal is to be convincing of your position.

[pat]

@mnben87

While I don’t believe in objective morality, I think we can come close to it.

Well, that makes you more of an atheist. As the ‘problem of evil’ is the biggest problem for theists, ‘objective morality’ is the biggest problem for atheists. As far as I have seen, it’s a split decision half believe in objective moral values others don’t.

@mnben87

I am going to look for his argument on this. I like most of his ideas, and this would surprise me. Are you certain he isn’t using an argument like what I used above (about approaching objective but not getting there)?

Sure go ahead. Unless he has changed his mind in the last couple of weeks he has maintained a belief in objective morality. His explanation around it has to do with determinism. He argues for determinism, heavily, however, he cannot manage to do so, with out invoking freewill to do it. I.E. the very process of trying to convince someone of determinism has to assume that someone has the freedom to accept the argument. It’s methodologically contradictory. And there is no way around it.

@mnben87

This is unfalsifiable (and also not supported with reasonable evidence).

It’s scientifically un-falsifiable, like the concept of the multi-verse. We can see indications that it may be there, but there is no way to test it, at all. Philosophically, we can get closer, but we cannot prove or disprove that God writes his law in our hearts and souls. There are indications that something like that can exist, but it’s not provable on it’s own.

@mnben87

If a moral code was written on our hearts, how did so many justify slavery? Eugenics?

It’s reasonable to ask why we find it abhorrent now, when it was a widely accepted practice not long ago? Was it not equally abhorrent then?
What makes these practices abhorrent?

@mnben87

I think this can be explained by needing to fit into a social group to find a mate. The ladies don’t like the cruel asshole who goes around killing those weaker then him. They probably figure this big asshole is going to be nice to me until he gets laid, then he is going to beat me around like all the others. The big assholes eventually figured this out, started being nice and got laid more.

That’s a very thin distillation of mating behavior which is only a sliver of the landscape and arguably not necessarily correct. Mating behavior is a weirdly contradictory activity that many people go about in many ways.
If we wanted to be more evolutionary pure, men would compete directly for mates and the strong would fuck as many women as possible. We don’t do that.

@mnben87

The USA had a eugenics program until this ass hat in Germany ruined how it was perceived. I kid. I am glad we don’t forcibly sterilize people anymore.

I think asking the questions have merit. I am not so skippy about it in practice.

@mnben87

I’ll probably have some more edits as this was a big post to respond to. I do enjoy this type of philosophy discussion.

Sure, sounds good. I enjoy it too.

[mnben87]

@pat

Well, that makes you more of an atheist. As the ‘problem of evil’ is the biggest problem for theists, ‘objective morality’ is the biggest problem for atheists. As far as I have seen, it’s a split decision half believe in objective moral values others don’t.

I agree. I think statistics back your last sentence as well.

@pat

Sure go ahead. Unless he has changed his mind in the last couple of weeks he has maintained a belief in objective morality.

Still haven’t looked into this. I think he is likely an outlier of the popular atheists in this regard. Iam curious to hear his argument though.

@pat

It’s scientifically un-falsifiable, like the concept of the multi-verse. We can see indications that it may be there, but there is no way to test it, at all.

We are probably different in this regard. I don’t believe in the multi-verse, or other things that we can’t reasonably (I say reasonably, because we can’t get around something like solipsism) show to exist. I am off the position that I’ll believe when I have proof.

@pat

It’s reasonable to ask why we find it abhorrent now, when it was a widely accepted practice not long ago? Was it not equally abhorrent then?
What makes these practices abhorrent?

On this, it is my opinion that we need to agree to desire a happy society that includes everyone. If we can agree on that, we can see that something like slavery is contradictory (abhorrent) to that goal. I think as time has gone on people have accepted that idea more than in the past.

I think our evolving views of what is good or bad is an issue for the idea that a moral code has been written on our hearts. I don’t think it is an issue with my position.

@pat

That’s a very thin distillation of mating behavior which is only a sliver of the landscape and arguably not necessarily correct.

It leaves out a lot. I can admit that. For example, for the most part the asshole men took generations of breading to become nice (statically the more appealing men bread them out).

@pat

If we wanted to be more evolutionary pure, men would compete directly for mates and the strong would fuck as many women as possible. We don’t do that.

This isn’t advantageous with humans if the goal is passing down your genes. In the past, life was hard, many children died. The children of the two parent families were more likely to survive and pass down their genes.

This mating strategy seems to be seen in animals that have offspring that are fairly capable of survival in a short time frame. Humans have one of the longest time frames to be able to survive on their own. A 1 year old deer can do just fine. A 1 year old human, not so much. More care is needed for it to survive.

[unreal24278]

I don’t think it’s that. I have difficulty interpreting tone, especially on online forums but I believe I’ve been quasi insulted by chris ottawa numerous times. Resorting to insults based on character can be used as a decent rebuttal, though it’s akin to fighting dirty.

From being called homosexual to mentally deranged to a high class hoe because I wouldn’t suck a dick for a few dollars and more… I’m not sure if they’re darkly comical statements or outright insults. I think it teeters on the definition of facetious (using deliberately inappropriate humour).

It’s a form of counterargument that I don’t appreciate as it isn’t civil in nature.

Even if you’ve got a counterargument, when irritated with someone else’s POV an insult based upon character relating to an opinion conveyed is unfortunately fairly common during debates.