Women's Lives Before Politics

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
361

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:
Anyways, I disagree with Oleena. I think the source of morals is reason. When I speak of morality I’m referring to method by which we derive and apply our values. Both core values and what we do with them.

The internal moral compass we have is a result of reasoning and being empathetic creatures. Religions love to co opt the natural aspects of humans, the idea of why we are the way we are.

All you need is two individuals interacting who are thinking, reasoning human beings empathetic to one another that understanding the consequences of their actions to develop a moral system. Life is generally preferable to death etc.

Those values arise as emergent phenomenon in the interactions of thinking beings.

[/quote]

Then religion in history makes no sense. Atheism would’ve hit the ground running, radiating out self-evident godless systems of morality, skipping right past one of the most widespread human conditions throughout history, religiosity. [/quote]

So why do you think atheism is picking up now, right now, at this particular point in history?

362

[quote]pushharder wrote:
I could cite case after case after case after case in history where rape was “beneficial” to a conquering nation/people/tribe/leader.

A list as long as your arm, Olee.[/quote]

And yet, you still firmly believe we aren’t animals. So weird.

364

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

…The internal moral compass we have is a result of reasoning and being empathetic creatures…
[/quote]

Bogus.

I could cite case after case after case after case in history where the lack of empathy was “beneficial” to a conquering nation/people/tribe/leader.

A list as long as your arm, Raj. [/quote]

Although this is also a misunderstanding of what he’s pointing out. Having an empathetic nature doesn’t exclude also having a nature that allows you to kill and pillage.

For instance, chimpanzees have been known to pick up fallen birds and hold them until they can fly away, comfort their human caretakers when they’re sad, help each other when it’s inconvenient for them to do so, and yet, they will also tear other chimpanzees and animals to pieces, commit infanticide, and rape.

365

[quote]Oleena wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:
Anyways, I disagree with Oleena. I think the source of morals is reason. When I speak of morality I’m referring to method by which we derive and apply our values. Both core values and what we do with them.

The internal moral compass we have is a result of reasoning and being empathetic creatures. Religions love to co opt the natural aspects of humans, the idea of why we are the way we are.

All you need is two individuals interacting who are thinking, reasoning human beings empathetic to one another that understanding the consequences of their actions to develop a moral system. Life is generally preferable to death etc.

Those values arise as emergent phenomenon in the interactions of thinking beings.

[/quote]

Then religion in history makes no sense. Atheism would’ve hit the ground running, radiating out self-evident godless systems of morality, skipping right past one of the most widespread human conditions throughout history, religiosity. [/quote]

So why do you think atheism is picking up now, right now, at this particular point in history?[/quote]

Because it promises freedom from morality. Get pleasure in life, die. A bump in the road in a longer human history and future.

366

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Oleena wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:
Anyways, I disagree with Oleena. I think the source of morals is reason. When I speak of morality I’m referring to method by which we derive and apply our values. Both core values and what we do with them.

The internal moral compass we have is a result of reasoning and being empathetic creatures. Religions love to co opt the natural aspects of humans, the idea of why we are the way we are.

All you need is two individuals interacting who are thinking, reasoning human beings empathetic to one another that understanding the consequences of their actions to develop a moral system. Life is generally preferable to death etc.

Those values arise as emergent phenomenon in the interactions of thinking beings.

[/quote]

Then religion in history makes no sense. Atheism would’ve hit the ground running, radiating out self-evident godless systems of morality, skipping right past one of the most widespread human conditions throughout history, religiosity. [/quote]

So why do you think atheism is picking up now, right now, at this particular point in history?[/quote]

Because it promises freedom from morality. Get pleasure in life, die. A bump in the road in a longer human history and future.[/quote]

Hasn’t it ALWAYS promised that? Yes. Then why is it RIGHT NOW that it’s catching on?

368

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Oleena wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Oleena wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:
Anyways, I disagree with Oleena. I think the source of morals is reason. When I speak of morality I’m referring to method by which we derive and apply our values. Both core values and what we do with them.

The internal moral compass we have is a result of reasoning and being empathetic creatures. Religions love to co opt the natural aspects of humans, the idea of why we are the way we are.

All you need is two individuals interacting who are thinking, reasoning human beings empathetic to one another that understanding the consequences of their actions to develop a moral system. Life is generally preferable to death etc.

Those values arise as emergent phenomenon in the interactions of thinking beings.

[/quote]

Then religion in history makes no sense. Atheism would’ve hit the ground running, radiating out self-evident godless systems of morality, skipping right past one of the most widespread human conditions throughout history, religiosity. [/quote]

So why do you think atheism is picking up now, right now, at this particular point in history?[/quote]

Because it promises freedom from morality. Get pleasure in life, die. A bump in the road in a longer human history and future.[/quote]

Hasn’t it ALWAYS promised that? Yes. Then why is it RIGHT NOW that it’s catching on?[/quote]

I’ve answered this dozens of times albeit indirectly. Atheism IS a religion. At this point in time it appears to be an attractive one to some. Big deal. That kind of stuff has been going on for millennia. It’s catching on for the reason Sloth cited.[/quote]

That’s your opinion, which isn’t very logical.

How is it a religion? How are you defining religion that this is possible?

369

[quote]Oleena wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Oleena wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:
Anyways, I disagree with Oleena. I think the source of morals is reason. When I speak of morality I’m referring to method by which we derive and apply our values. Both core values and what we do with them.

The internal moral compass we have is a result of reasoning and being empathetic creatures. Religions love to co opt the natural aspects of humans, the idea of why we are the way we are.

All you need is two individuals interacting who are thinking, reasoning human beings empathetic to one another that understanding the consequences of their actions to develop a moral system. Life is generally preferable to death etc.

Those values arise as emergent phenomenon in the interactions of thinking beings.

[/quote]

Then religion in history makes no sense. Atheism would’ve hit the ground running, radiating out self-evident godless systems of morality, skipping right past one of the most widespread human conditions throughout history, religiosity. [/quote]

So why do you think atheism is picking up now, right now, at this particular point in history?[/quote]

Because it promises freedom from morality. Get pleasure in life, die. A bump in the road in a longer human history and future.[/quote]

Hasn’t it ALWAYS promised that? Yes. Then why is it RIGHT NOW that it’s catching on?[/quote]

Yes. That’s why it’s a bump in the totality of human history.

370

The west goes gray and barren. Has to bring in more religious, higher fertility, immigrants to keep the economy/nanny state supplied.

371

Why is atheism being a religion or not even matter? The discussion is the source of morals and nobody becomes an atheist to free themselves of moral principles.

372

[quote]Oleena wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Oleena wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Oleena wrote:

From a moral standpoint,there’s no way to understand this. From a scientific standpoint, it makes perfect sense. The pressures of the environment are shaping the population. Different societies have different pressures. When I was speaking of rape, I was speaking in terms of the pressures our society faces. But in terms of if one answer applies all of the time and that answer is the one I provided? Of course not.

[/quote]

It can’t even do so for OUR society. In the sense that there is no moral obligation, as uncovered by science, to maintain this society. The value in continuing this society is, well, a value judgment. Science can’t say “Yes, your society is how we’re SUPPOSED (opens a can of worms) to live.”
[/quote]

You didn’t pay attention to the whole post, apparently.[/quote]

No, I did. Edited: All of them. And they’re all been riddled with assumed value judgments, as has been pointed out to you. And even those assumption don’t lead you to say that infant rape is evil. Or that science establishes morality. You only highlight the transient state of nature and environment. And then let ‘morality’ flow with the current (besides your prime assumptions). Where a society of infant rape is as right as a society in which the practice is frowned upon. Or, looking at it from the other direction, a society that frowns upon the practice is as ‘bad’ as a society that practices infant rape. Oh wait, it makes no sense from a moral standpoint, as you said. So why imply science has anything to do with establishing ‘moral’ lifestyles? [/quote]

First of all, as I’ve said many times, it helps establish HEALTHY lifestyles. For an atheist, it provides a decision making process for answering questions that you, as a monotheist, consider moral. I was pointing out that acting in the way which is considered almost universally moral by western societies can be concluded as the right way to live through current knowledge about health, but these conclusions are dependent on the environment of the society.

As for robbing banks, you can easily conclude through economics how that wouldn’t be beneficial for yourself and others in the long run.

The problem is that your suggestions as to there being no reason why not to commit certain activities as an atheist are all short sighted. They will all come back to bite you or your kids. Your risk consideration process isn’t very good. Your understanding of how emotions and feeling connected as a social animal work also isn’t farsighted.

[/quote]

Your use of ‘shortsighted’ and ‘farsighted’ goes back to an assumed set of value judgments.

374

[quote]sufiandy wrote:<<< So anyways how do you believers explain morals for Atheists? Most Atheists would agree there are good moral principles in the bible but a result of where they originated are irrelevant.[/quote]I’ve been over this one trillion times. Everybody is created in the image of God. That remaining image though broken in sin explains not only morality, but absolutely everything else unbelievers do, think, say and are. The good that they do and the bad that they don’t is the merciful hand of God restraining their sin. This has been called the doctrine of common grace for centuries.

Every actual truth and advancement accomplished by sinners is done so in spite of their declared delusion of autonomous existence. I am not going over this again here. If you care, I can point you to where this discussion has happened already. You’re welcome to participate there.

375

[quote]sufiandy wrote:<<< Why is atheism being a religion or not even matter? The discussion is the source of morals and nobody becomes an atheist to free themselves of moral principles [/quote]There is no such thing as an atheist or freedom moral principles. Only the sinful self delusion of both. This has been called the doctrine of depravity for centuries.

376

[quote]sufiandy wrote:
Why is atheism being a religion or not even matter? The discussion is the source of morals and nobody becomes an atheist to free themselves of moral principles.[/quote]

Well, if consistency is assumed, then the atheist abandons ‘good’ and ‘evil’ also. Now, the atheist might say he believes in the existence of good and evil. Or, that humans have unalienable rights. But then they’re putting faith in things they can’t falsify by science. There are plenty of atheists like this. At once, ‘enlightened’ in their lack of faith in a deity. But oddly oblivious that–let’s say pedophilia–is “evil regardless of opinion,” in their moral system, is a statement of faith.

But other atheists have rejected good and evil, unalienable rights, etc., in order to not give an inch to other systems of faith, such as theism. Many of these won’t admit that ‘their morals’ are the morals they haven’t been able to free themselves of. Morals of a more ‘faithful’ history. Of more religious ancestors. Morals from a longer and still influential social history. Nurture. Self-deceptively, they believe/claim they’ve constructed a scientific ‘morality.’

377

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Grneyes wrote:
Besides morality =/= religion. You can have morality without religion, you know. [/quote]

Could you share a ‘moral’ precept with me? I want to dissect it… Or, at least do mathematics with it. Thanks.

[/quote]

The problem is most morality has been taken over by religion, so any morals or right/wrong behavior I list has already been co-opted by religions as their basic tenets. If I say murder is wrong, then you would counter with the 10 Commandments. However, I’m sure the Greeks and Romans and Byzantines and Persians and Ancient Chinese and civilizations before those all agreed murder is wrong. If I say adultery is wrong, you would counter with the 10 Commandments, though I’m pretty sure all the civilizations I’ve listed had similar thoughts. Wanting someone else’s belongings (or wife) is wrong, I’m sure the cavemen knew it. These moral precepts are not the grand invention of Abraham and Moses and Christ.

378

[quote]Grneyes wrote:

The problem is most morality has been taken over by religion…[/quote]

So moral truths exist?

379

[quote]Oleena wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

If you found out tomorrow with absolute certainty there was no god do you think you would start raping and murdering people?[/quote]

That’s not even hypothetically possible. A theory isn’t even ‘absolutely certain.’ So how could I contemplate the absolute non-existence of something that science doesn’t even claim to be able to falsify? Who knows what I would be in a hypothetical, absolute certain science, universe. Well, perhaps I would be a God, with that kind of omniscience.

[/quote]

I vote this the most dodging post of the year. Nice work.
[/quote]

The silence is deafening.

380

[quote]

The problem is most morality has been taken over by religion, so any morals or right/wrong behavior I list has already been co-opted by religions as their basic tenets. If I say murder is wrong, then you would counter with the 10 Commandments. However, I’m sure the Greeks and Romans and Byzantines and Persians and Ancient Chinese and civilizations before those all agreed murder is wrong. If I say adultery is wrong, you would counter with the 10 Commandments, though I’m pretty sure all the civilizations I’ve listed had similar thoughts. Wanting someone else’s belongings (or wife) is wrong, I’m sure the cavemen knew it. These moral precepts are not the grand invention of Abraham and Moses and Christ. [/quote]

This would be the first type of atheist. Morals exist though we can’t falsify good and evil.