Dawkins: "Religion is no moral compass" - Polidicks

Let's settle the argument on a naturalistic worldview before moving to a theistic one, which I will happily do afterwards. The problem with subjective morality is that you have no right to tell another person that what they are doing is wrong. You can tell them that you disapprove, but that's it, nothing more. Governmental punishment isn't to punish wrongdoing, it's to punish the majorities opinion. There is no basis to call another society less moral than your own since they simply have a different majority opinion. The world devolves into nothing more than the old phrase: "Might is Right."

How could you say this when morality is subjective anyway?

[QUOTE=sgman91;42351566]Let's settle the argument on a naturalistic worldview before moving to a theistic one, which I will happily do afterwards. The problem with subjective morality is that you have no right to tell another person that what they are doing is wrong. You can tell them that you disapprove, but that's it, nothing more. Governmental punishment isn't to punish wrongdoing, it's to punish the majorities opinion. There is no basis to call another society less moral than your own since they simply have a different majority opinion.[/QUOTE] No. Let's not talk about our view point. Let's talk about yours because that is what this whole discussion is about. How do you have an objective morality code where did you get this code from how do you know it is "true" how do you know it does not have faults how do you determine it to be from god, because you brought up that a real morality system needs a supernatural to it You do not get to ignore your section of the argument that is heavily in need of support to attack ours. The position many of us are taking is that one cannot have a objective stand on morality, but that one does not need an objective stand on morality in order to have a functional society, or set of moral ethics in which people can follow. I do not understand why you get a free pass from the critical flaws that your argument inherently has so you can discuss ours, when yours is the topic at hand.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;42351598]No. Let's not talk about our view point. Let's talk about yours because that is what this whole discussion is about. How do you have an objective morality code where did you get this code from how do you know it is "true" how do you know it does not have faults how do you determine it to be from god, because you brought up that a real morality system needs a supernatural to it You do not get to ignore your section of the argument that is heavily in need of support to attack ours. The position many of us are taking is that one cannot have a objective stand on morality, but that one does not need an objective stand on morality in order to have a functional society, or set of moral ethics in which people can follow. I do not understand why you get a free pass from the critical flaws that your argument inherently has so you can discuss ours, when yours is the topic at hand.[/QUOTE] My argument stands on it's own and takes nothing from my own beliefs on morality. Either my argument is logical or it isn't. I haven't used anything theistic to prove my argument and it is therefore irrelevant. It's much easier and clearer to finish one argument before starting a completely different one. This way they don't get confused.

Yep just as I thought, marble mouthing. Quit it holy shit, you're at an impasse because you can't argue the point but you dont want to concede that you can't.

[QUOTE=Explosions;42349698]How do you know which verses to pick and which to ignore?[/QUOTE] It's simple, pick the humanistic verses that align with the golden rule. Most religions have that rule listed.

So it's circular? Good job

on the issue of religious texts and their interpretations: most people who subscribe to a religion do not read religious texts in full and do not follow everything in it. this is primarily for two reasons: 1.) people are born into religion, so they 'technically' don't need to be very informed on it. it's kind of like how the citizenship test in the united states asks questions that most naturalized US citizens aren't aware of. 2.) the generally-accepted cultural morality that these religious texts were authored under do not fully align with the cultural morality of the present. because we live in the present, and cultural morality enforces itself, they will align with that before they align with the moral codes outlined in their religion. this does actually raise a key point against the "without x religion we would all be rapists" argument: morality is contextual and environmental. people do things because other people do those same things. people follow moral codes and enforce them because they were raised to do so. moral codes change because the factors vary. none of these are necessarily reliant upon religion - in fact, one could instead argue that religion was instead a reason for explaining human cooperation instead of a reason for justifying it. however, it is important to recognize that religions do propose their own moral codes, and that we can only judge those codes based on the ones that we have today both at large and as individuals. this gets kind of complicated in a sense, because morality is almost entirely subjective. there is no inherent good or evil in the universe, these are things determined via an interaction between the self and the society. the closest things that we have to objective forms of morality are ones enforced by genetic imperatives. another important thing to recognize is that pretty much every human being wants to do what they believe is morally good, from Mohandas Gandhi to Osama Bin Laden. Bin Laden most likely thought that the loss of life from committing acts of terror was morally justified so long as it meant that his agenda was advanced (which he likely thought was good or necessary for the world). it's the same thing with homophobes - they were taught from a young age that people who did homosexual things were evil, and that doing things against the interests of those people is morally good and just.

[QUOTE=CoolKingKaso;42351797]It's simple, pick the humanistic verses that align with the golden rule. Most religions have that rule listed.[/QUOTE] How do you know which verses are humanistic, and how do you know that the "golden rule" should be followed?

[QUOTE=joes33431;42352101]this does actually raise a key point against the "without x religion we would all be rapists" argument[/QUOTE] I've never heard anyone actually make this argument. (besides completely ignorant religious people, but those exist in any group) Christianity, for example, explicitly says that even the unbeliever has a conscious and has knowledge of at least a basic idea of right from wrong. "For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them" - Romans 2:14-15 NASB

[QUOTE=jaegerisacunt;42351647]Yep just as I thought, marble mouthing. Quit it holy shit, you're at an impasse because you can't argue the point but you dont want to concede that you can't.[/QUOTE] Arguments are proven incorrect by either showing a premises to be false or the logic to be wanting. Neither my premises nor my logic includes any theistic reasoning, therefore theistic beliefs are irrelevant to my argument.

Can you give me an example of a moral standard that isn't selfish, sgman91?

[QUOTE=Explosions;42361296]Can you give me an example of a moral standard that isn't selfish, sgman91?[/QUOTE] Since you aren't going against my point I'll assume you agree that all naturalistic morality is, at its foundation, based on selfishness. A theistic system holds that there is a real and objective moral standard which is set and presided over by God. All people are held to this standard whether they agree or not. Now, it may be that people only follow this moral standard because of selfish intentions (or for whatever other reason), but that doesn't change the fact that the moral standard applies irregardless of that fact as opposed to the naturalist system where the moral rules, themselves, are created BECAUSE of the selfish intentions. Simply put: Under a naturalistic worldview subjective moral standards are caused by selfish intentions, whether conscious or subconscious. Under a theistic worldview objective moral standards are caused by God and the act of obeying those standards are what's in question.

[QUOTE=sgman91;42361549]Since you aren't going against my point I'll assume you agree that all naturalistic morality is, at its foundation, based on selfishness. A theistic system holds that there is a real and objective moral standard which is set and presided over by God. All people are held to this standard whether they agree or not. Now, it may be that people only follow this moral standard because of selfish intentions (or for whatever other reason), but that doesn't change the fact that the moral standard applies irregardless of that fact as opposed to the naturalist system where the moral rules, themselves, are created BECAUSE of the selfish intentions. Simply put: Under a naturalistic worldview subjective moral standards are caused by selfish intentions, whether conscious or subconscious. Under a theistic worldview objective moral standards are caused by God and the act of obeying those standards are what's in question.[/QUOTE] An interesting proposition, one that I find hard to disagree with. However, it is completely irrelevant because a system of morals is meaningless unless they can be followed.

[QUOTE=Explosions;42361797]An interesting proposition, one that I find hard to disagree with. However, it is completely irrelevant because a system of morals is meaningless unless they can be followed.[/QUOTE] Interestingly enough, the impossibility of humanity to follow the objective moral standard is the basis for the Christian perspective of salvation. All of humanity has fallen short of God's moral standard and therefore forgiveness is necessary. Christianity proposes that God has offered the forgiveness and all we need do is accept it.

I like what Dawkins is doing because when I was religious, I was completely ignorant of all the arguments and scientific evidence, I didn't really pay any kind of attention to it. The first time I actually cared is when my beliefs were challenged directly. The critical thought process sparked in my brain and I'm thankful for that, if not for dawkins I would have probably be living a delusion to this day. Sometimes it just takes the bitter and unforgiving side of the argument to make people think. And that's what Dawkins does best. Also, I don't think I ever saw him being disrespectful, he just tells the truth the way it is without holding back.

[QUOTE=sgman91;42361854]Interestingly enough, the impossibility of humanity to follow the objective moral standard is the basis for the Christian perspective of salvation. All of humanity has fallen short of God's moral standard and therefore forgiveness is necessary. Christianity proposes that God has offered the forgiveness and all we need do is accept it.[/QUOTE] so how do you believe you have a non theistic interpretation of morality for your argument here? Yes, I believe fully, that selfishness is an excellent system to go by for the most part and leads to many good rules.

[QUOTE=CMB Unit 01;42340019]Dawkins really comes across as the worst kind of atheist. Belittling other people's views doesn't make them turn to yours, Dick. [editline]...[/editline] Btw, I am an atheist.[/QUOTE] He makes money doing this shit, obviously he's going to continue doing it.

[QUOTE=sgman91;42361854]Interestingly enough, the impossibility of humanity to follow the objective moral standard is the basis for the Christian perspective of salvation. All of humanity has fallen short of God's moral standard and therefore forgiveness is necessary. Christianity proposes that God has offered the forgiveness and all we need do is accept it.[/QUOTE] This sentiment only serves to showcase the cruelty and disgusting nature of the Christian religion. God has created sick, broken people who have "fallen short of (his) moral standard" and then he promises to punish these people for eternity if they do not attempt to fix themselves according to his insane and idiotic guidelines. And what better way to "forgive" his broken subjects than through the bloody human sacrifice of his own son [b]for no reason[/b]. And we are forced to "accept" this "forgiveness" even though we had nothing to do with it and nothing to do with the treacherous and sinister concept of "original sin". Anyway, I disagree with your assertion that all atheistic morals are selfish. As I have stated countless times in this thread, humans have innate moral compulsions that have been instilled through thousands of generations of evolution. Humans do not have to make a calculated decision to not murder people. We know it is wrong. It is no more selfish than taking a piss is selfish. I suppose that you could argue that pissing is selfish because you only do it to satisfy your own needs, but that attitude destroys the meaning of the word entirely. You could construe breathing as selfish under your standards. Please correct me if I am mistaken here, but this is the definition of the word "selfish" I am inferring from your argument.

[QUOTE=Explosions;42362736]This sentiment only serves to showcase the cruelty and disgusting nature of the Christian religion. God has created sick, broken people who have "fallen short of (his) moral standard" and then he promises to punish these people for eternity if they do not attempt to fix themselves according to his insane and idiotic guidelines. And what better way to "forgive" his broken subjects than through the bloody human sacrifice of his own son [B]for no reason[/B]. And we are forced to "accept" this "forgiveness" even though we had nothing to do with it and nothing to do with the treacherous and sinister concept of "original sin".[/QUOTE] The people weren't created broken, they chose to break themselves. [QUOTE]Anyway, I disagree with your assertion that all atheistic morals are selfish. As I have stated countless times in this thread, humans have innate moral compulsions that have been instilled through thousands of generations of evolution. Humans do not have to make a calculated decision to not murder people. We know it is wrong. It is no more selfish than taking a piss is selfish. I suppose that you could argue that pissing is selfish because you only do it to satisfy your own needs, but that attitude destroys the meaning of the word entirely. You could construe breathing as selfish under your standards. Please correct me if I am mistaken here, but this is the definition of the word "selfish" I am inferring from your argument.[/QUOTE] Of course people have to choose not to murder. How else do you explain the history of political murder of rivals that has been an almost constant in human civilization. Murder just happens to also be very bad for your health for most people, but when you give them the ability to murder without reprisal they seem to jump at the chance. Peeing isn't a choice. So it doesn't relate to anything moral. [editline]30th September 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=HumanAbyss;42362508]Yes, I believe fully, that selfishness is an excellent system to go by for the most part and leads to many good rules.[/QUOTE] That's fine, but that justifies any action of selfishness that helps the individual. For example, Kim Jung Ill is perfectly justified in forcing his country to live in abject poverty because he obviously gets ridiculous positives for himself out of it. A system built on selfishness would say he is making the right choices.

[QUOTE=sgman91;42365084]The people weren't created broken, they chose to break themselves. Of course people have to choose not to murder. How else do you explain the history of political murder of rivals that has been an almost constant in human civilization. Murder just happens to also be very bad for your health for most people, but when you give them the ability to murder without reprisal they seem to jump at the chance. Peeing isn't a choice. So it doesn't relate to anything moral. [editline]30th September 2013[/editline] That's fine, but that justifies any action of selfishness that helps the individual. For example, Kim Jung Ill is perfectly justified in forcing his country to live in abject poverty because he obviously gets ridiculous positives for himself out of it. A system built on selfishness would say he is making the right choices.[/QUOTE] Yes, when you take something to an extreme, it is ridiculous. You have not really made your logic work out for me to believe in your system for even a moment.

Well, he's right...

[QUOTE=sgman91;42365084] That's fine, but that justifies any action of selfishness that helps the individual. For example, Kim Jung Ill is perfectly justified in forcing his country to live in abject poverty because he obviously gets ridiculous positives for himself out of it. A system built on selfishness would say he is making the right choices.[/QUOTE] Except it doesn't justify that. Why? Because "fuck I wouldn't want to live in that country, as I wouldn't be Kim Il-sung (let's go by the creator)". You seem to conveniently forget that the concept of "selfishness" only works from a standpoint of each given individual, and from that standpoint - how can that lead to me saying that some of the Kims made the right choices? I wouldn't want to live in their system, so at the very-very least, I wouldn't give a fuck about them (which I honestly don't). Society based on selfishness (all of them are), ideally, takes into cosideration the comfort of each of individual "selves" inside of it. When it fails to do so, to a point where most of the individuals society consists of have troubles reaching minimum comfort for extended periods of time, boom goes society.

[QUOTE=sgman91;42365084]The people weren't created broken, they chose to break themselves.[/quote] Explain this one, pally. I didn't make any choice. And how does human sacrifice somehow absolve me of my supposed wrongdoings? [quote]Of course people have to choose not to murder. How else do you explain the history of political murder of rivals that has been an almost constant in human civilization. Murder just happens to also be very bad for your health for most people, but when you give them the ability to murder without reprisal they seem to jump at the chance.[/quote] You have it backwards. People don't have to choose not to murder, people have to choose to murder. Murdering people isn't an innate compulsion we all have. [quote]Peeing isn't a choice. So it doesn't relate to anything moral.[/quote] Eating is selfish then, by your standards. You have to make a conscious choice to eat. Literally every choice you make has a moral connotation. Choosing to jump out of the way of a bus that's coming towards you is selfish, right? You're only doing it for your own personal gain. Stepping underneath an overhang to get out of the rain is selfish. This definition destroys the meaning of the word selfish.

i feel like this has been said so many times before, doesn't warrant a thread really

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;42365649]Yes, when you take something to an extreme, it is ridiculous. You have not really made your logic work out for me to believe in your system for even a moment.[/QUOTE] Calling something ridiculous isn't an argument. If you want to actually tell me why I'm wrong please do. So far I've only argued for the possibility of an objective moral system under a theistic worldview and the impossibility under a naturalistic worldview. I wouldn't expect you to agree with me on the theistic system because I haven't given any arguments for it. I've only tried to shown the consistency of it. [QUOTE]Except it doesn't justify that. Why? Because "fuck I wouldn't want to live in that country, as I wouldn't be Kim Il-sung (let's go by the creator)". You seem to conveniently forget that the concept of "selfishness" only works from a standpoint of each given individual, and from that standpoint - how can that lead to me saying that some of the Kims made the right choices? I wouldn't want to live in their system, so at the very-very least, I wouldn't give a fuck about them (which I honestly don't).[/QUOTE] Individuals make moral choices, not societies. What compelling reason does Kim Jung Ill have to let go of his position? [QUOTE]Society based on selfishness (all of them are), ideally, takes into cosideration the comfort of each of individual "selves" inside of it. When it fails to do so, to a point where most of the individuals society consists of have troubles reaching minimum comfort for extended periods of time, boom goes society.[/QUOTE] You say it's based on selfishness and then give a definition of selflessness. I'm sorry, but I don't understand your argument. Selfishness is to make a choice that is the most beneficial to YOU, not anyone else. To consider other people above yourself is to be the opposite of selfish. [QUOTE]Explain this one, pally. I didn't make any choice.[/QUOTE] Everyone has actively chosen to do something that they knew was wrong. No one is completely guiltless. [QUOTE]You have it backwards. People don't have to choose not to murder, people have to choose to murder. Murdering people isn't an innate compulsion we all have.[/QUOTE] When people are given absolute power murder and disdain for human life often follows, as shown by the dictators of past and present human race. How can you explain that if the compulsion to not murder is what's natural? In short, people who are able to murder without reprisal often become murderers and the more power they have the more likely it is to happen. [QUOTE]Eating is selfish then, by your standards. You have to make a conscious choice to eat. Literally every choice you make has a moral connotation. Choosing to jump out of the way of a bus that's coming towards you is selfish, right? You're only doing it for your own personal gain. Stepping underneath an overhang to get out of the rain is selfish. This definition destroys the meaning of the word selfish.[/QUOTE] None of the situations you gave are moral in nature. Making a choice that helps one's self is not the same thing as being selfish. Now, let us say there are two people walking in the rain and only one is able to be covered. The selfish decision would be to make yourself covered, or possibly to allow the other person to be covered in order to gain report with them for a larger future benefit (maybe it's your girlfriend and you know she won't sleep with you if you make her stand in the rain). The selfless decision would be to let them be covered even though you know you will gain absolutely nothing from it. For something to be selfish it must either be detrimental for others or have a lack of concern for others. In my example, the boyfriend didn't really care about helping his girlfriend, his choice was made in reference to his own desires, not hers.

[QUOTE=sgman91;42371170]Everyone has actively chosen to do something that they knew was wrong. No one is completely guiltless.[/quote] That is not up for you to say. Also, it does nothing to justify the horrific concept of original sin However, even if you are correct, that does not explain how vicarious redemption through brutal human sacrifice is supposed to "forgive" us somehow. And it does not explain why I am compelled to accept this human sacrifice lest I be eternally condemned to hellfire. [quote]When people are given absolute power murder and disdain for human life often follows, as shown by the dictators of past and present human race. How can you explain that if the compulsion to not murder is what's natural? In short, people who are able to murder without reprisal often become murderers and the more power they have the more likely it is to happen.[/quote] This is wild and unsubstantiated conjecture. There have been countless people with power who have done nothing to harm or hinder the life or liberty of others. Regardless, even if it were true that people in power always become horrific killers, that does not explain away the fact that we are naturally compelled to [b]not[/b] murder. [quote]None of the situations you gave are moral in nature. Making a choice that helps one's self is not the same thing as being selfish. Now, let us say there are two people walking in the rain and only one is able to be covered. The selfish decision would be to make yourself covered, or possibly to allow the other person to be covered in order to gain report with them for a larger future benefit (maybe it's your girlfriend and you know she won't sleep with you if you make her stand in the rain). The selfless decision would be to let them be covered even though you know you will gain absolutely nothing from it. For something to be selfish it must either be detrimental for others or have a lack of concern for others. In my example, the boyfriend didn't really care about helping his girlfriend, his choice was made in reference to his own desires, not hers.[/QUOTE] So why is it that nobody can make a selfless decision without religion? I don't understand that.

[QUOTE=sgman91;42371170]Calling something ridiculous isn't an argument. If you want to actually tell me why I'm wrong please do. So far I've only argued for the possibility of an objective moral system under a theistic worldview and the impossibility under a naturalistic worldview. I wouldn't expect you to agree with me on the theistic system because I haven't given any arguments for it. I've only tried to shown the consistency of it.[/quote] human beings act in self-interest and self-interest promotes cooperation because, as you may very well know, trying to kill a person will lead to them trying to kill you in return. people do not need to be told that their vengeful desert sky-king will throw them in a lava pit for the rest of time to realize that murdering their best friend has consequences. human beings have emotions and become attached to individuals and do not want to lose them, that is also a factor, and then there's empathy, which is coded into our psychologies at the base level. [QUOTE]Individuals make moral choices, not societies. What compelling reason does Kim Jung Ill have to let go of his position?[/QUOTE] kim jung il was raised to believe that he is the son of a dictator god-king and thus had the right to rule north korea to best suit him. kim jung il sat in a palace all day, not really having to pay any attention to the plight of those he governed. kim jung il may very well have had a psychological disorder. also you totally sidestepped his argument - everyone has their own self-interest and thus nobody would actually want to live in kim jung il's north korea because they all know it'd hurt them to do so. furthermore it is the society that instills morals and influences moral choices made by individuals [QUOTE]You say it's based on selfishness and then give a definition of selflessness. I'm sorry, but I don't understand your argument. Selfishness is to make a choice that is the most beneficial to YOU, not anyone else. To consider other people above yourself is to be the opposite of selfish.[/QUOTE] logically, cooperation among yourself and others is preferable to simply shooting them in the back of the head and taking their shit. like i said before, people don't like being killed, and are aware that others will defend themselves if they try. simultaneously, you stand to gain more in the long term from a friendly relationship with a well-off individual than you would by stealing their wallet. empathy is a key factor here. [QUOTE]Everyone has actively chosen to do something that they knew was wrong. No one is completely guiltless.[/QUOTE] except that the subjective definitions of 'right' and 'wrong' are the ones defined in the religion, the ones that they are told are right and wrong from a young age, regardless of how misguided they are. [QUOTE]When people are given absolute power murder and disdain for human life often follows, as shown by the dictators of past and present human race. How can you explain that if the compulsion to not murder is what's natural?[/quote] because murderous dictators are normally disturbed individuals who either: a.) have psychiatric disorders, b.) were brought up to believe that their actions or just or, c.) are oblivious and disconnected with the outside world or, d.) any combination of two or all three in the case of b, it is the upbringing-instilled morality that over-rid empathetic thought, and in c they're just ignorant. let me sit you down and give you a history lesson dictators like stalin and hitler came to power in times of economic despair - they were only able to attain their power due to the desperate states of things in their country. dictatorships are then sustained through dynasty. both hitler and stalin were mentally-disturbed individuals; they did not go crazy and murder people because of power, they craved power and murdered people because they were crazy and, in Hitler's case, he actually believed that he was destined by god to bring germany into a 'golden age' as he defined it in his mind. [quote]In short, people who are able to murder without reprisal often become murderers and the more power they have the more likely it is to happen.[/QUOTE] cite a peer-reviewed psychological study on that and come back to us. [QUOTE]None of the situations you gave are moral in nature. Making a choice that helps one's self is not the same thing as being selfish. Now, let us say there are two people walking in the rain and only one is able to be covered. The selfish decision would be to make yourself covered, or possibly to allow the other person to be covered in order to gain report with them for a larger future benefit (maybe it's your girlfriend and you know she won't sleep with you if you make her stand in the rain). The selfless decision would be to let them be covered even though you know you will gain absolutely nothing from it. For something to be selfish it must either be detrimental for others or have a lack of concern for others. In my example, the boyfriend didn't really care about helping his girlfriend, his choice was made in reference to his own desires, not hers.[/QUOTE] your problem is that you and the person you're debating with are using two different definitions of selfishness. [B]self-interest[/B] is a guiding principle of all organisms, due to natural selection, and this is promoted through cooperation. [B]selfishness[/B] is the lack of consideration for others in favor of one's own short-sighted self-interest. what he is arguing with is self-interest, not selfishness. but even then. [B]even then.[/B] chistianity in no way actually enforces a moral code. according to the bible, as long as you believe that Jesus is messiah, you can go out and murder and rape and plunder and pillage as many people as you want. christianity, in its relation to judaism, has nothing to do with being moral - christian thought as we know it today simply creates a loophole to get around punishment for doing things that their moral system claims is wrong. but why would an all-powerful god do something like that? why wouldn't he just change the rules? if he's unable to, then that means that there is something more powerful than god. if god supposedly knows everything that's happened, is happening, and will happen, wouldn't he just predict that human beings would fall from 'his will'?

Maybe people need to grow up and stop believing in Santa.. I mean god. Same thing, same fake ideals behind it and yet no grown people believe in Santa, he's better than god, brings us iphones and shit.

[IMG]http://www.charismaministries.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/10-commandments.jpg[/IMG] [IMG]http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/05/magazine_enl_1115205720/img/1.jpg[/IMG] Your move Dawkins.