Dawkins: "Religion is no moral compass" - Polidicks

[QUOTE=jaegerisacunt;42342353]What are you even saying Listen, I don't know how to break this to you guys, but people in the middle age weren't neanderthals, human intelligence hasn't dramatically improved since then. They thought and operated the same as we do now. The only difference is now you are born into a society that has a largely educated population, and one where the exchange of information is mostly free. ... So again this idea that a religious document (and people seem to gloss over the fact that the early iterations of these texts advocated inhumane and oppressive beliefs against certain peoples and behaviors) is needed to tell people how to behave in a society is ridiculous. The basic "moral tenants" of the bible can be boiled down to this: dont steal - dont murder - dont rape - dont betray Are you seriously going to sit there and suggest that humans couldnt have possibly thought of this shit themselves without a fucking fairy tale book (one that advocates slavery, racism, homophobia, etc under specific circumstances while we're at it) telling them to so? ...[/QUOTE] Of course the people of the Middle-ages are not Neanderthals but it is a large stretch to say they thought and operated the same as we, humans from the 21st century, do. This is a pre-enlightenment society we are talking about, all the notions we take for granted such as scientific method, rationality and logic weren't exactly at the forefront of the Middle-age consciousness were they? Whether they construed the world through religious means or not is up for debate, but I can guarantee they certainly didn't see the world exactly like we do. So talking about 'logical' outcomes of crimes as somehow informing the entirety of humanities' reasoning behind why they shouldn't do them is applying your own conceptions upon them. Talking about how humanity doesn't need 'fairy-tales' to justify morality is, at its essence, applying modern standards to past events. It is anachronistic. I'm not trying to suggest that the Middle-Age human couldn't have conceived of a secular morality justifying not murdering people, that would be stupid. Unfortunately however, it's not the way they went about it is it?

I'm tired of people acting like every single thing mentioned in the Bible is giving instructions on what you should do. The Bible contains chronicling of events, letters sent by important figures, poems, etc. Yeah, there are parts that retell events where someone gets stoned, but it's not like the book is directly telling you "Hey, do this." Anyone who gives this kind of reasoning has either never read a single page or is just intentionally reading in a hyper-critical lens.

[QUOTE=Lonestriper;42342532]Of course the people of the Middle-ages are not Neanderthals but it is a large stretch to say they thought and operated the same as we, humans from the 21st century, do. This is a pre-enlightenment society we are talking about, [B]all the notions we take for granted such as scientific method, rationality and logic weren't exactly at the forefront of the Middle-age consciousness were they?[/B] Whether they construed the world through religious means or not is up for debate, but I can guarantee they certainly didn't see the world exactly like we do. So talking about 'logical' outcomes of crimes as somehow informing the entirety of humanities' reasoning behind why they shouldn't do them is applying your own conceptions upon them. Talking about how humanity doesn't need 'fairy-tales' to justify morality is, at its essence, applying modern standards to past events. It is anachronistic. I'm not trying to suggest that the Middle-Age human couldn't have conceived of a secular morality justifying not murdering people, that would be stupid. Unfortunately however, it's not the way they went about it is it?[/QUOTE] uh yeah they were actually lmao What did you think the 21st century came and suddenly people just knew a bunch of shit? The religious institutes of the day suppressed a lot of scientific development but the groundwork was done none the less. I suggest before you comment more on the people of the middle ages you actually go read about the middle ages so you know what you are talking about. Its clearly not what you think it is. And yes, those are logical outcomes. Those same principles ran hunter gatherer societies, let alone advanced societies such as those of the middle ages.

[QUOTE=Lonestriper;42342532]Of course the people of the Middle-ages are not Neanderthals but it is a large stretch to say they thought and operated the same as we, humans from the 21st century, do. This is a pre-enlightenment society we are talking about, all the notions we take for granted such as scientific method, rationality and logic weren't exactly at the forefront of the Middle-age consciousness were they? Whether they construed the world through religious means or not is up for debate, but I can guarantee they certainly didn't see the world exactly like we do. So talking about 'logical' outcomes of crimes as somehow informing the entirety of humanities' reasoning behind why they shouldn't do them is applying your own conceptions upon them. Talking about how humanity doesn't need 'fairy-tales' to justify morality is, at its essence, applying modern standards to past events. It is anachronistic. I'm not trying to suggest that the Middle-Age human couldn't have conceived of a secular morality justifying not murdering people, that would be stupid. Unfortunately however, it's not the way they went about it is it?[/QUOTE] Not sure if you know this but humanity didn't pop into existence in the middle ages, or during biblical times for that matter. In fact, humans have lived out the vast majority of their existence without even being able to speak. The basic moral values of not murdering, not stealing, not fucking people over, etc. have been around since we have been around. Hell, fucking Chimpanzees display these morals on a rudimentary level and they don't need religion. You say that claiming humans used logic in the past to inform "the entirety of humanities' (?) reasoning" is "applying your own conceptions upon them". So you're saying that past humans [i]didn't[/i] use logic in order to operate? That's wild speculation and outright incorrect. In fact, humans used logic to form religions in the first place. On the most simplistic level possible, basic origin stories and descriptions of gods' interfering in the world's physical processes is pretty logical when you consider early humans knew little to nothing of the world around them. [editline]29th September 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Run&Gun12;42342550]I'm tired of people acting like every single thing mentioned in the Bible is giving instructions on what you should do. The Bible contains chronicling of events, letters sent by important figures, poems, etc. Yeah, there are parts that retell events where someone gets stoned, but it's not like the book is directly telling you "Hey, do this." Anyone who gives this kind of reasoning has either never read a single page or is just intentionally reading in a hyper-critical lens.[/QUOTE] Deuteronomy 21: 18 If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: 19 Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; 20 And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. 21 And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear." Yeah, it's pretty damn explicit in its instructions. These are words supposedly spoken by Moses to the Jews, and he was God's prophet who interpreted his laws.

[QUOTE=Run&Gun12;42342550]I'm tired of people acting like every single thing mentioned in the Bible is giving instructions on what you should do. The Bible contains chronicling of events, letters sent by important figures, poems, etc. Yeah, there are parts that retell events where someone gets stoned, but it's not like the book is directly telling you "Hey, do this." Anyone who gives this kind of reasoning has either never read a single page or is just intentionally reading in a hyper-critical lens.[/QUOTE] actually that's exactly what the bible is for. it's a book to live your life by. that's what it is for. whether you agree is not important. That's what it was for. if you must cut out part of the book to believe in it, then why use the book at all if it is indeed flawed [editline]28th September 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Lonestriper;42342532]Of course the people of the Middle-ages are not Neanderthals but it is a large stretch to say they thought and operated the same as we, humans from the 21st century, do. This is a pre-enlightenment society we are talking about, all the notions we take for granted such as scientific method, rationality and logic weren't exactly at the forefront of the Middle-age consciousness were they? Whether they construed the world through religious means or not is up for debate, but I can guarantee they certainly didn't see the world exactly like we do. So talking about 'logical' outcomes of crimes as somehow informing the entirety of humanities' reasoning behind why they shouldn't do them is applying your own conceptions upon them. Talking about how humanity doesn't need 'fairy-tales' to justify morality is, at its essence, applying modern standards to past events. It is anachronistic. I'm not trying to suggest that the Middle-Age human couldn't have conceived of a secular morality justifying not murdering people, that would be stupid. Unfortunately however, it's not the way they went about it is it?[/QUOTE] Christianity took it's moral rules from the code of hamuabi and stuck in "don't idolize" and etc into it for it's basic rules. There's no reason to believe as you do. The dark ages are a misnomer in many ways.

[QUOTE=jaegerisacunt;42342581]uh yeah they were actually lmao What did you think the 21st century came and suddenly people just knew a bunch of shit? The religious institutes of the day suppressed a lot of scientific development but the groundwork was done none the less. I suggest before you comment more on the people of the middle ages you actually go read about the middle ages so you know what you are talking about. Its clearly not what you think it is. And yes, those are logical outcomes. Those same principles ran hunter gatherer societies, let alone advanced societies such as those of the middle ages.[/QUOTE] You don't quite get it do you. Rejecting religion based upon scientific notions of the world gets you as far as determining that what religion teaches is not scientific, hence religion being faith-based. It doesn't quite follow that you can reject religious morality out of hand because it doesn't work under your own moral strictures, calling morality defined by religion as unnecessary forgets that people do conceive of the world through religion. [editline]29th September 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Explosions;42342602]You say that claiming humans used logic in the past to inform "the entirety of humanities' (?) reasoning" is "applying your own conceptions upon them". So you're saying that past humans [i]didn't[/i] use logic in order to operate? That's wild speculation and outright incorrect. In fact, humans used logic to form religions in the first place. On the most simplistic level possible, basic origin stories and descriptions of gods' interfering in the world's physical processes is pretty logical when you consider early humans knew little to nothing of the world around them. [/QUOTE] No no, I'm not saying that they didn't use logic, its just that that logic may be different from what logic we know

[QUOTE=Lonestriper;42342671]No no, I'm not saying that they didn't use logic, its just that that logic may be different from what logic we know[/QUOTE] You're just making shit up now.

[QUOTE=Lonestriper;42342671]You don't quite get it do you. Rejecting religion based upon scientific notions of the world gets you as far as determining that what religion teaches is not scientific, hence religion being faith-based. It doesn't quite follow that you can reject religious morality out of hand because it doesn't work under your own moral strictures, calling morality defined by religion as unnecessary forgets that people do conceive of the world through religion. [editline]29th September 2013[/editline] No no, I'm not saying that they didn't use logic, its just that that logic may be different from what logic we know[/QUOTE] but morality from the bible has no more backing than any other sort of morality. it is not particularly "moral" in any sense either, if you want to just take the good morals fine, but there are many morals and judgements that the bible passes down that we now call very 'amoral'

Well yeah, which is why I took exception to Explosions complaining that religion 'lies' to people. Does it lie to them if they believe in it? No. But it lies to them if you don't believe in it. Its an entirely personal thing and reducing it to being morally bad is assuming the individual fits the whole.

[QUOTE=Lonestriper;42342746]Well yeah, which is why I took exception to Explosions complaining that religion 'lies' to people. Does it lie to them if they believe in it? No. But it lies to them if you don't believe in it. Its an entirely personal thing and reducing it to being morally bad is assuming the individual fits the whole.[/QUOTE] if i tell you gravity isn't real, and you believe it, that's still a lie [editline]28th September 2013[/editline] so no, people can totally be lied to [editline]28th September 2013[/editline] replace gravity with any idea really, you get the point if you don't then I don't know if you will

It's not the same thing is it though? If Dawkins' says religion is no moral compass is he saying something objective or subjective?

[QUOTE=Lonestriper;42342746]Well yeah, which is why I took exception to Explosions complaining that religion 'lies' to people. Does it lie to them if they believe in it? No. But it lies to them if you don't believe in it. Its an entirely personal thing and reducing it to being morally bad is assuming the individual fits the whole.[/QUOTE] Reality isn't subjective.

[QUOTE=Explosions;42342781]Reality isn't subjective.[/QUOTE] you might be suprised

[QUOTE=Lonestriper;42342777]It's not the same thing is it though? If Dawkins' says religion is no moral compass is he saying something objective or subjective?[/QUOTE] no there is no moral objectivity which is something religion claims it is that alone is a good clue it is not

[QUOTE=Lonestriper;42342671]You don't quite get it do you. Rejecting religion based upon scientific notions of the world gets you as far as determining that what religion teaches is not scientific, hence religion being faith-based. It doesn't quite follow that you can reject religious morality out of hand because it doesn't work under your own moral strictures, calling morality defined by religion as unnecessary forgets that people do conceive of the world through religion. [editline]29th September 2013[/editline] No no, I'm not saying that they didn't use logic, its just that that logic may be different from what logic we know[/QUOTE] I can't "get it" if you suck at explaining "it", that is a problem on your end, not a problem with my reading comprehension. Now you are just marble mouthing. Lets boil this down: Morality does not exist because of religion, religion is not inherently moral. So then it follows that a religious document is not necessary to have moral principles.

I'm annoyed with "I'm an atheist, but Dawkins gives us a bad name" and all the stuff, to the point of saying this. So you're an atheist. Good for you, good for all of us to know that you're an atheist. You don't believe in gods, okay. When did someone tell you that just because you don't believe in gods, it makes you a member of a specific group where you can associate yourself, your beliefs (or lack thereof) and your personal reputation with some other guy who is an atheist? With a lot of people who are atheists? Quite honestly, you're making this imaginary "social movement of atheists" a reality a lot more than Dawkins could ever hope to do (and ever wanted in the first place). You'd think that being proud of your critical/skeptical thinking would make you know better than jumping yourself into social groups based of abstract stuff, much less non-existent ones. Guess not.

[QUOTE=gudman;42342880]I'm annoyed with "I'm an atheist, but Dawkins gives us a bad name" and all the stuff, to the point of saying this. So you're an atheist. Good for you, good for all of us to know that you're an atheist. You don't believe in gods, okay. When did someone tell you that just because you don't believe in gods, it makes you a member of a specific group where you can associate yourself, your beliefs (or lack thereof) and your personal reputation with some other guy who is an atheist? With a lot of people who are atheists? Quite honestly, you're making this imaginary "social movement of atheists" a reality a lot more than Dawkins could ever hope to do (and ever wanted in the first place). You'd think that being proud of your critical/skeptical thinking would make you know better than jumping yourself into social groups based of abstract stuff, much less non-existent ones. Guess not.[/QUOTE] Except nobody is actually saying that. You're projecting what you view atheists as onto people who say they are atheist, gj.

[QUOTE=gudman;42342880] Quite honestly, you're making this imaginary "social movement of atheists" [/QUOTE] The worst people are the ones that keep trying to get political and form an atheist voting block. I'm an atheist and would happily vote in a religious fundamentalist if they shared my values. The whole forming groups things kind of makes sense in the crazy south where you're basically excommunicated if found out but anywhere else its just being edgy and stupid.

[QUOTE=jaegerisacunt;42342897]Except nobody is actually saying that. You're projecting what you view atheists as onto people who say they are atheist, gj.[/QUOTE] Except there're people in every thread about Dawkins who, in their first posts on the first page say literally that - "I'm an atheist, and I think Dawkins is the worst kind of atheist". My point is, there's no "kinds of atheists".

[QUOTE=Ganerumo;42340661]That's not what Jesus teaches in the bible at all though. Jesus was all like "yo bro don't be a dick okay" and that's pretty much it[/QUOTE]Have you actually read the Bible? Seriously? [QUOTE=Matthew 10:34-39, Jesus sending out the apostles.]Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law— a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household. Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. Whoever does not take up their cross and follow me is not worthy of me. Whoever finds their life will lose it, and whoever loses their life for my sake will find it.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Matthew 5:17-20, Jesus on the fulfillment of the Old Testament law]Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Mark 7:9-13, Jesus on that which defiles (in which food restrictions are lifted)]And he continued, “You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions! For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and mother,’ and, ‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.’ But you say that if anyone declares that what might have been used to help their father or mother is Corban (that is, devoted to God)— then you no longer let them do anything for their father or mother. Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that.”[/QUOTE] Jesus fully supported Old Testament law, which advocated slavery, varied forms of murder for minor offences, child abuse and other detestable things.

[QUOTE=Sgt Doom;42342959] Jesus fully supported Old Testament law, which advocated slavery, varied forms of murder for minor offences, child abuse and other detestable things.[/QUOTE] The bible's teachings are strange. While white southerners were using it to justify slavery the black slaves were using it as a source for hope and overcoming oppression. It can be used to justify anything.

It's almost like the bible can be viewed subjectively and that people can use it as a way to view God in their own personal way.

[QUOTE=bravehat;42343052]It's almost like the bible can be viewed subjectively and that people can use it as a way to view God in their own personal way.[/QUOTE] At least we can all agree that Jesus would have supported Laisez faire economics.

[QUOTE=bravehat;42343052]It's almost like the bible can be viewed subjectively and that people can use it as a way to view God in their own personal way.[/QUOTE] no

[QUOTE=Explosions;42343095]no[/QUOTE] Yeah actually, you can say whatever you like, but the fact is you don't need to believe every single word in the bible, it's completely possible for people to take them as fables and stories that act as metaphors for life to teach lessons to people. You can say no all you like, but it just makes you look like a retard considering there are actually people who do exactly what I said.

People need to understand the difference between knowing how to do good things and having a compelling reason to do good things. The normal argument isn't that an atheist doesn't know how to or can't do good things, but that an atheistic system has no compelling argument to make in favor of doing good things. There's a reason philosophy classes teach many different types of ethics... because there is no objective compelling system without some sort of supernatural.

[QUOTE=sgman91;42343119]People need to understand the difference between knowing how to do good things and having a compelling reason to do good things. The normal argument isn't that an atheist doesn't know how to or can't do good things, but that an atheistic system has no compelling argument to make in favor of doing good things. There's a reason philosophy classes teach many different types of ethics... because there is no objective compelling system without some sort of supernatural.[/QUOTE] Being a good person/not being an asshole/treating others as you wish to be treated is a pretty compelling reason to not be an asshat to people.

[QUOTE=bravehat;42343123]Being a good person/not being an asshole/treating others as you wish to be treated is a pretty compelling reason to not be an asshat to people.[/QUOTE] So being 'A' is a reason for being 'A'... sorry, but that doesn't make any sense.

[QUOTE=sgman91;42343150]So being 'A' is a reason for being 'A'... sorry, but that doesn't make any sense.[/QUOTE] Yeah it does, you don't act like an asshole because you're capable of empathising with them and able to put yourself in their shoes, no one likes being treated like an asshole or being treated badly, so you don't treat people badly or act like an asshole to them. It's great and everything trying to get into the deep philosophy of it, but sometimes it's pretty simple, some people are just nice.

[QUOTE=sgman91;42343150]So being 'A' is a reason for being 'A'... sorry, but that doesn't make any sense.[/QUOTE]How does it not? Treating others like shit makes it more likely oneself will be treated like shit in turn.