[QUOTE=draugur;42374353][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.[/QUOTE]
The crusades were a horrible time.
[QUOTE=draugur;42374353][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.[/QUOTE]
I don't understand this post.
[QUOTE=Explosions;42374637]I don't understand this post.[/QUOTE]
Maybe he is saying they will start a crusade?
[QUOTE=Explosions;42374637]I don't understand this post.[/QUOTE]
Ten commandments are scripture outlining basic laws composed with a rather universal sense of morals to them, the crusades, by contrast were a complete violation of pretty much all moral ground.
I was pointing out the fact that religion has both good morality and bad morality in it, like every ideology since forever.
[QUOTE=draugur;42374775]Ten commandments are scripture outlining basic laws composed with a rather universal sense of morals to them, the crusades, by contrast were a complete violation of pretty much all moral ground.
I was pointing out the fact that religion has both good morality and bad morality in it, like every ideology since forever.[/QUOTE]
How are the ten commandments "good" morality?
[QUOTE=draugur;42374775]Ten commandments are scripture outlining basic laws composed with a rather universal sense of morals to them, the crusades, by contrast were a complete violation of pretty much all moral ground.
I was pointing out the fact that religion has both good morality and bad morality in it, like every ideology since forever.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Explosions;42374803]How are the ten commandments "good" morality?[/QUOTE]
[video=youtube;CE8ooMBIyC8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CE8ooMBIyC8[/video]
[QUOTE=draugur;42374775]Ten commandments are scripture outlining basic laws composed with a rather universal sense of morals to them, the crusades, by contrast were a complete violation of pretty much all moral ground.
I was pointing out the fact that religion has both good morality and bad morality in it, like every ideology since forever.[/QUOTE]
the definitions of 'good' and 'bad' are subjective to the viewer's own morality, keep in mind.
conflicts arise when these definitions of good and bad do not align well with one another.
[QUOTE=Explosions;42372198]That is not up for you to say. Also, it does nothing to justify the horrific concept of original sin[/QUOTE]
Forget original sin, it isn't necessary to understand and agree with the point. It is obvious that everyone has done something they knew to be wrong at the time, mostly for personal gain.
[QUOTE]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]
I'm not arguing for theology. I was simply presenting the opinion, not arguing for it's truth. At this time I could care less whether you think Christianity is a pile of BS, which I'm sure you do. I care that people realize the vicarious position of atheism as it relates to morality.
[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.[/QUOTE]
Really? At least in the modern era I don't know of any absolute dictator who hasn't killed at least one person in opposition who didn't deserve death.
[QUOTE]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]
We can see the natural inclination to murder those in opposition by the fact that absolute dictators from across the globe, from cultures that never came in contact with each other, who never once influenced each other all still had the same problem with suppression, by death, of opposition.
To see what's natural we need to look at those who aren't hampered by social pressure. I can think of no one more in that position than an absolute dictator or monarch.
[QUOTE]So why is it that nobody can make a selfless decision without religion? I don't understand that.[/QUOTE]
I've never said that. I've said that no compelling reason exists to make a selfless decision. There is no logical, non-arbitrary, reason to be selfless within a naturalistic worldview.
[QUOTE=Explosions;42374803]How are the ten commandments "good" morality?[/QUOTE]
Well, the whole, don't murder people and don't be a lying thief are a pretty good basis for basic morals. The rest is obviously religious peddling, but what religion isn't going to peddle their beliefs into everything? It's how you intertwine religious practice and everyday life, by weaving it into the everyday basics of society.
[QUOTE=joes33431;42373808]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.
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]
Emotion and empathy aren't logical or compelling reasons for decision making.
[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.[/QUOTE]
You honestly don't think he knows about the horrid conditions of his people?
[QUOTE]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.[/QUOTE]
I'm not sure why this is relevant. Kim Jung Il is the one making the moral choices based on his selfishness, pride, etc. Is he or is he not justified in those choices? If not, why?
[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]
You give a completely selfishness based argument (on personal survival) and then say empathy is a key factor. Which is it? Selfishness is a logical and calculated choice, empathy is decidedly not logical.
[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]
My statement has no reference to religious laws. I said that people have done things that THEY, THEMSELVES, knew were wrong. People can't even live by their own standards.
[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
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]
It sure is easy to dismiss an entire group by calling them disturbed. I love how you call for a pee-reviewed source on a fairly obvious point and then make specific claims about the state of people's minds.
Think of all the absolute dictators/monarchs you know of. Can you think of any who didn't murder a single innocent person?
[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.[/QUOTE]
You made those definitions up on the spot. Selfishness has nothing to do with being short-sited. One can very logically plan a course of action with a selfish motivation.
[QUOTE]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.[/QUOTE]
Why don't you read the end of the apology of Aristides to see what kind of morality was seen in the original Christian church? It is the single oldest apology that we know of (early 2nd century) written to the Roman emperor Hadrian.
If the teachings have no moral foundation then why did it spurn moral living that was completely different form the culture around them? I agree that the church today is an abomination of what it should be.
[QUOTE]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.[/QUOTE]
Can I please have a specific example? It's hard to address general ideas without knowing exactly what you're talking about.
[QUOTE=sgman91;42375302]Forget original sin, it isn't necessary to understand and agree with the point. It is obvious that everyone has done something they knew to be wrong at the time, mostly for personal gain.
I'm not arguing for theology. I was simply presenting the opinion, not arguing for it's truth. At this time I could care less whether you think Christianity is a pile of BS, which I'm sure you do. I care that people realize the vicarious position of atheism as it relates to morality.[/quote]
Well it's a useless presentation if you aren't going to support it in any way.
And I don't see how religious morality is any less selfish than atheistic morality. There appears to be no way of doing good without being selfish. The word has become meaningless, it seems.
[quote]Really? At least in the modern era I don't know of any absolute dictator who hasn't killed at least one person in opposition who didn't deserve death.
We can see the natural inclination to murder those in opposition by the fact that absolute dictators from across the globe, from cultures that never came in contact with each other, who never once influenced each other all still had the same problem with suppression, by death, of opposition.
To see what's natural we need to look at those who aren't hampered by social pressure. I can think of no one more in that position than an absolute dictator or monarch.[/quote]
Check your history then.
joes33431 already covered this better than I. Basically, immoral men are the ones who become absolute rulers, absolute rulers do not make bad men.
[quote]I've never said that. I've said that no compelling reason exists to make a selfless decision. There is no logical, non-arbitrary, reason to be selfless within a naturalistic worldview.[/QUOTE]
I have stated this numerous times. There is scientific evidence pointing towards compulsory cooperation within a society. Somebody a while back posted a link to a study about this. And there is quite a lot of logical reasons to be selfless "within a naturalistic worldview". They all relate to the betterment of the whole.
Under your worldview, it is impossible to explain any type of self sacrifice because nobody would do such a thing if there were only selfish reasons to act.
[QUOTE=draugur;42375366]Well, the whole, don't murder people and don't be a lying thief are a pretty good basis for basic morals. The rest is obviously religious peddling, but what religion isn't going to peddle their beliefs into everything? It's how you intertwine religious practice and everyday life, by weaving it into the everyday basics of society.[/QUOTE]
See, what you just did there was dispel the need for any such commandments. You took your already existing morals, lined them up with the commandments, and threw away the ones that don't match. So you're justifying the Decalogue with your own morals, not the other way around. Why do you need them? What is the purpose of trying to "intertwine religious practice and everyday life" when, in the end, you are only going by your own morals? Why not cut out the bullshit? There is no reason to attach yourself to the sexism, slavery, and thought-crime prescribed by the Ten Commandments?
[QUOTE=Explosions;42375482]Well it's a useless presentation if you aren't going to support it in any way.[/QUOTE]
Ugh... I was arguing for the internal consistency and possibility of an objective moral system, not the truth of any specific system. People do this all the time in science where a hypothesis must be internally consistent even if it isn't proven.
[QUOTE]And I don't see how religious morality is any less selfish than atheistic morality. There appears to be no way of doing good without being selfish. The word has become meaningless, it seems.[/QUOTE]
Like I said the before, the difference is the foundation of the morals. In one case the foundation is selfishness itself, the morals are born out of selfishness. In the other case the morals are objective and exist outside of human interest, but people may follow them out of selfishness. There is a massive difference because on one hand a single set of morals exist at all times and on the other hand there is NO logical argument to be made for a moral rule to apply to everyone equally (besides to always make the choice that provides yourself with the most overall benefit).
[QUOTE]Check your history then.[/QUOTE]
So you can't think of a single one, got it.
[QUOTE]joes33431 already covered this better than I. Basically, immoral men are the ones who become absolute rulers, absolute rulers do not make bad men.[/QUOTE]
Is there any other group that is absolved of society pressure that we can look at?
If not then they are our best and only group to focus on.
Another proof might be the continuous wars that have plagued humanity from its earliest days which were oftentimes in the name of societal selfishness.
[QUOTE]I have stated this numerous times. There is scientific evidence pointing towards compulsory cooperation within a society. Somebody a while back posted a link to a study about this. And there is quite a lot of logical reasons to be selfless "within a naturalistic worldview". They all relate to the betterment of the whole.[/QUOTE]
Is it logical for a person to make a choice that personally hurts them, but helps the community. If so, please give me the argument.
[QUOTE]Under your worldview, it is impossible to explain any type of self sacrifice because nobody would do such a thing if there were only selfish reasons to act.[/QUOTE]
People do illogical things all the time, like following emotions when making decisions.
Again, I've never said atheists CAN'T make selfless decisions, but that it wouldn't be logical to make selfless decisions.
[QUOTE=sgman91;42375531]Like I said the before, the difference is the foundation of the morals. In one case the foundation is selfishness itself, the morals are born out of selfishness. In the other case the morals are objective and exist outside of human interest, but people may follow them out of selfishness. There is a massive difference because on one hand a single set of morals exist at all times and on the other hand there is NO logical argument to be made for a moral rule to apply to everyone equally (besides to always make the choice that provides yourself with the most overall benefit).[/quote]
Religious morals exist to serve the god who issues them, so they are selfish in that way. Furthermore, I disagree that atheistic morals are inherently selfish, because human some morals are innate. Another point of contention is the fact that, as you say, "in the other case the morals are objective and exist outside of human interest". So by their very description they are not human morals, but morals of some metaphysical being who is not human. They cannot and do not pertain to human morality, even if he created us, because he is of a different moral standard than humans. It is not possible to follow such morals, so they cannot be considered human morals.
[quote]So you can't think of a single one, got it.
Is there any other group that is absolved of society pressure that we can look at?
If not then they are our best and only group to focus on.[/quote]
Attaturk, Musharrif, Chavez, Turkmenbashi, Tito (debatable), to name a few modern ones.
[quote]Is it logical for a person to make a choice that personally hurts them, but helps the community. If so, please give me the argument.
People do illogical things all the time, like following emotions when making decisions.
Again, I've never said atheists CAN'T make selfless decisions, but that it wouldn't be logical.[/QUOTE]
Yes. For instance, sacrificing your own food supply to sustain your family or those in a group you are surviving with is logical if it will benefit the group as a whole. I don't see how this needs much explaining. Humans are pack animals, and we work together for the benefit of the whole.
[QUOTE=sgman91;42375444]Emotion and empathy aren't logical or compelling reasons for decision making.[/quote]
uh yes they are
empathy can be used to understand people, their behaviors, and their motivations.
do you not know what empathy is?
[QUOTE]You honestly don't think he knows about the horrid conditions of his people?[/QUOTE]
you probably know that someone's being raped and murdered in africa right now while their children watch, but you and i aren't affected all that much, because we're [B]disconnected[/B] from it. we don't [I]see[/I] it, so although we're [I]aware[/I] of it, we aren't [I]affected[/I] by it.
[QUOTE]I'm not sure why this is relevant. Kim Jung Il is the one making the moral choices based on his selfishness, pride, etc. Is he or is he not justified in those choices? If not, why?[/QUOTE]
well that depends on your own morality
morality is subjective, but it is not reliant upon theistic belief to exist.
in our society as it exists, people not murdering each other is generally a good thing, because it keeps society orderly. we develop constructs like rights and have philosophical discussions about justice and equality so that we can create a society that promotes optimal balances of stability, organization, happiness and physical well-being.
ultimately, it doesn't mean much if anything at all, but we hold value in these things because they make us feel good.
[QUOTE]You give a completely selfishness based argument (on personal survival) and then say empathy is a key factor. Which is it? Selfishness is a logical and calculated choice, empathy is decidedly not logical.[/QUOTE]
how is empathy not logical?
furthermore, how are they mutually exclusive? human beings are hard-wired with both promotion of self-interest ('i must eat, hence i will do x to get food') and empathy (i would not want a man to shoot me in the foot, so i will not shoot a man in the foot').
and again, it's [U]self-interest[/U], not [U]selfishness[/U]. self-interest can most certainly coincide with a care for others, since cooperation has benefits. selfishness relies on the [I]self[/I], alone, without anyone else.
[QUOTE]My statement has no reference to religious laws. I said that people have done things that THEY, THEMSELVES, knew were wrong. People can't even live by their own standards.[/QUOTE]
except that you are referring to religious philosophy - the 'broken' people that 'broke themselves'. they only view themselves as 'broken' through the moral lens that was likely majorly influenced by their religion and their society at large.
it is true that people have done things that they believe are wrong, but they call those 'mistakes', or otherwise feel that they were justified in some manner.
[QUOTE]It sure is easy to dismiss an entire group by calling them disturbed. I love how you call for a pee-reviewed source on a fairly obvious point and then make specific claims about the state of people's minds.
Think of all the absolute dictators/monarchs you know of. Can you think of any who didn't murder a single innocent person?[/QUOTE]
that's kind of pointless to argue since democratic world leaders are responsible for countless deaths as well.
i pose a question to you: wouldn't you call someone who tries to systematically slaughter political opponents either deranged or raised to think a way that breeds that kind of behavior?
at least i provided specific arguments and examples, the only thing you've said on the subject is that "if people have the ability to kill people then they will even though there really isn't any reason but i swear it's true!"
something you need to understand here is that human beings are not in vaccums. yes, a person can abuse their power to their ends. however, most people in the western world recognize democracy as the most moral form of government. this is important to recognize in the sense that human beings will accept whatever form of morality is around them as a part of developing and fitting in, and it benefits the collective to have democratic government - everyone can vote in a democracy, but only one person can be dictator in a dictatorship, so overall it's best to have the former over the latter, because nobody wants to be oppressed.
[QUOTE]You made those definitions up on the spot. Selfishness has nothing to do with being short-sited. One can very logically plan a course of action with a selfish motivation.[/QUOTE]
self·ish
ˈselfiSH/Submit
adjective
1.
(of a person, action, or motive) lacking consideration for others; concerned chiefly with one's own personal profit or pleasure.
self-in·ter·est
noun
1.
one's personal interest or advantage
total selfishness with disregard for others is short-sighted in the sense that considering the well-being of others has distinct benefits in one's self-interest.
[QUOTE]Why don't you read the end of the apology of Aristides to see what kind of morality was seen in the original Christian church? It is the single oldest apology that we know of (early 2nd century) written to the Roman emperor Hadrian.
If the teachings have no moral foundation then why did it spurn moral living that was completely different form the culture around them? I agree that the church today is an abomination of what it should be.[/QUOTE]
it [I]has[/I] a moral code, but it does not [I]enforce[/I] it, because according to Christian theology, you don't go to heaven or hell based on acts, but instead whether or not you accept Jesus as messiah.
[QUOTE]Can I please have a specific example? It's hard to address general ideas without knowing exactly what you're talking about.[/QUOTE]
"Originally, if you didn't follow the 10 Commandments, you were ultimately doomed to condemnation in Hell. Hence, Christ died so that you don't have to follow these laws, just accept him and you'll go to Heaven."
[editline]2nd October 2013[/editline]
ultimately, scientific study of human innate behavior throughout our evolutionary history is our best gauge for objective morality, but self-interest is at the core of the behaviors of literally every single organism on the planet.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
