quote:

---

Religious belief can cause damage to a society, contributing towards high murder rates, abortion, sexual promiscuity and suicide, according to research published today.

---

quote:

---

In general, higher rates of belief in and worship of a creator correlate with higher rates of homicide, juvenile and early adult mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy and abortion in the prosperous democracies.

---

Exactly how did they come up with all this? I realize how fundamentalism can lead to some of these, but certainly not a simple belief in a higher power and adherance to a particular religion.

Maybe I'm an idiot, but to state the obvious, this article is, for the most part, just another exploitation of religion(you may agree or disagree with me on this).

Any comments?
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Biased site, bad research, propaganda reporting.

Do you have a link to CNN or the NYT?
 

---

Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
 
Extreme conservatism and fundamentalism does, I think. But spirituality, and reasonable religion, no....
It depends on what kind of creater a person believes in and how they worship them, ect.
You wouldn't want people to practice human sacrifices or something.
 

---

Posted by BGgurl (Member # 8541) on :
 
katharina - no, I don't, sorry. Obviously the article is rediculous, but I wanted to see what all of you had to say about it.
 

---

Posted by smitty (Member # 8855) on :
 
Are they saying the people of Faith are doing it, or we're driving other people to do it?
 

---

Posted by ricree101 (Member # 7749) on :
 
the study


an interview with the author.
 

---

Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
The article isn't obviously ridiculous, although it does way overstate the case. The comparions made are more or less accurate, although the suggested causal relationship is not strongly impelled by the data.

The idea that religious people within certain populations (generally western democracies) are in some ways less moral and that their societies tend to be less well strucutured in some ways than non has long been supported by the research. One of the things that this article fails to mention is that the trend is not linear, but rather curvilinear. That is to say that merely comparing the two groups, religious with non-religious, generally produces these results, but if you actually look into different types of relgious, you find that while most religious do have significnatly higher rates on many negative scales than non-religious, there is a minority that performs as well or better than the non-religious.

The problem is not so much religion (if religion is the primary cause, rather than many of the other social factors which generally correlate) as it is certain types of religion. However, as these types of religion are more prevelant, flat comparisons show this as a problem with the entire religious population.
 

---

Posted by etphonehome (Member # 999) on :
 
Correlation does not necessarily imply causation. Maybe there is more crime in areas where there is also a higher proportion of religious people, but that doesn't mean that the religion is causing the crime. In fact, it's entirely possible that a higher crime rate causes a certain amount of fear among the general public, which in turn causes a higher number of people to seek answers and comfort from religion. Or it's possible that the two are completely unrelated and the correlation exists by pure coincidence.
 

---

Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
 
ignoring the article:

I think that religious thought is at the foundation of inquiry. That is, belief in god is a byproduct of the human tendency to look for causes. Maybe the reason that we as a race are so unable to give up mysticism is that it's a fundamental element of intelligence.

Since the two are so closely integrated, I don't think it's really possible to say that belief in God is any more damaging to society than any of the other products of inquiry; science and technology, for example. Science and technology have certainly unleashed some pretty serious damage to society, and the planet as a whole. But on the whole, the intent was a positive one, and we've yet to see whether the damage is greater than the benefit.

But I'm willing to give it the benefit of the doubt.
 

---

Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
 
Correlation is not causation

Edit: Err, what ET said
 

---

Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
Even within the U.S. the areas where religion is obstensively most valued often have around the highest rates of prejudice, violent crime, spousal and child abuse, divorce, and a host of other social ills.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
The inner-cities?
 

---

Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
I'm speaking more of regions of the country bev.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
That's what I figured.
 

---

Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
 
I think the very idea of heaven and hell is damaging. Why worry about not killing people when you know there is an afterlife. Why worry about apologizing to people, when they can hear you after they die.
 

---

Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
I think I should point out that there is actually over 50 years of research put into these questions and that the answers that have resulted are generally much more complex than the simplistic assumptions that most people seem to put out.
 

---

Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
 
Glenn,

quote:

---

I think that religious thought is at the foundation of inquiry. That is, belief in god is a byproduct of the human tendency to look for causes.

---

quote:

---

I think the very idea of heaven and hell is damaging. Why worry about not killing people when you know there is an afterlife. Why worry about apologizing to people, when they can hear you after they die.

---

quote:

---

Although they are by no means utopias, the populations of secular democracies are clearly able to govern themselves and maintain societal cohesion. Indeed, the data examined in this study demonstrates that only the more secular, pro-evolution democracies have, for the first time in history, come closest to achieving practical “cultures of life” that feature low rates of lethal crime, juvenile-adult mortality, sex related dysfunction, and even abortion.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MrSquicky:
I think I should point out that there is actually over 50 years of research put into these questions and that the answers that have resulted are generally much more complex than the simplistic assumptions that most people seem to put out.

---

quote:

---

ooooookayyyyyy.....care to elaborate?

---

quote:

---

Everybody knows that they're not going to hell. It's always the other guy. After all, I've got my reasons for acting the way I do. The other guy has absolutely no excuse for acting that way.

---

quote:

---

GREGORY PAUL: Being a palaeontologist, I've for many years had to deal with the issue of creationism verus evolutionary science in this country.

...

In all the other prosperous democracies religion is much less popular now and evolution is highly accepted. So it's an issue, it's a problem I had to deal with.

...

The way to put it is the United States is the only first world nation that retains rights to religiosity and scepticism for evolution that otherwise are found only in the second and third world.

---

quote:

---

Considering that most religions doctrinally center around morality, when the people fail to follow it is either due to the failings of human nature or (sadly) error in their teachers/priests/whatever.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MrSquicky:
Also, bias, while a failure to live up the scientific ideal, is rarely completely absent in research. In my own research, I've have some pretty strong ideas (you could call them biases, especially if you disagreed with me). As long as you observe the objective rules of data collection and analysis, your own perosnal beleifs don not invalidate your results. Most researchers set out to prove something. I don't see what he did as "blasphemy" nor do I see it as making it so what he said can be dismissed without addressing it.

---

Of course people are not free of biases, but it's become almost a cop-out phrase for a biased study now. "Well, yeah it's a little biased, but everybody is biased." The scientific method starts out with a hypothesis which had to come from a person with an idea which may have come from a lifetime of experiences and be called bias.
All I'm saying is that my impression from the paper and the interview is that the guy had an 'axe to grind' as someone put it, therefore to me his conclusions are suspect. As I mentioned before, if a priest conducted a study on how religion is the reason for all things good about this country, I would also take very little stock in that study.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
To Squicky: You see, I'd chalk that up to the interpreters and teachers of the religion teaching incorrect information. Being religious, I believe that when true religion is taught, there is no disparity with reality. That this is often not the case is lamentable.
 

---

Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
Frm my perspective, that's one of the big epistemological problems. You start with the assumption that you are right and thus any poor results must be because people are doing it wrong.

edit: This also pretty much leaves you with no other methods to deal with conflicting information besides the medieval "set it or them on fire" method or the "la la la, I can't hear you" anti-intellectual method so popular in contemporary America.
 

---

Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
 
I enjoy fire.

-pH
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Assume that of me if you wish. As for myself, I scrutinize what is taught at the pulpit (any pulpit, including those of my own church) against what feels right to my own sense of morality. If something doesn't set right, I tend to be suspicious. I figure this is what we all must do--go by our own inner compass and try to be honest with ourselves. This is by no means limited to religious matters and the religious.
 

---

Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
 
Oohhhh..."epistemological." Thanks for teaching me a new word Squick
 

---

Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by ssywak:
Glenn,

quote:

---

I think that religious thought is at the foundation of inquiry. That is, belief in god is a byproduct of the human tendency to look for causes.

---

I thought that a belief in God was the reason people stopped looking for causes.

---

quote:

---

Birth of the universe? God caused it
First life forms? God caused it
Evolution? God caused it
The reason why everything works? God caused it

And on like that. It actually ends intellectual discourse. Not always, but mostly.

Why do the planets revolve around the sun? BLASPHEMER! The sun revolves around the earth! To the jail with him!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:

quote:

---

I think the very idea of heaven and hell is damaging. Why worry about not killing people when you know there is an afterlife. Why worry about apologizing to people, when they can hear you after they die.

---

Because of the belief that if you don't worry about it, you go to hell?

---

quote:

---

My personal bias is that it ("God") is a dead end

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MrSquicky:
The article isn't obviously ridiculous, although it does way overstate the case.

---

quote:

---

The comparions made are more or less accurate, although the suggested causal relationship is not strongly impelled by the data.

---

quote:

---

The problem is not so much religion (if religion is the primary cause, rather than many of the other social factors which generally correlate) as it is certain types of religion. However, as these types of religion are more prevelant, flat comparisons show this as a problem with the entire religious population.

---

Do you have links to these other studies and what types of religons are considered?

(BTW, I'm not trying to pick a fight with you; I hope this post doesn't sound accusatory or adversial. I'm just remarkably underwhelmed by this guy's analysis and was surprised you weren't more dismissive of it.)
 

---

Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
Senoj,
I honeslty don't see any major problems with the study except for my previously noted objection to the neglect of the classic curvilinear relationship. however, that was in response to the article written about it and journal article doesn't merit that criticism as it is beyond it's scope.

The journal artcile does not actually strike me as objectionable. The author's writing and method all seem within the bounds of responsibility. I wonder what are your specific problems with what he wrote?
 

---

Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
 
I'll go back and try to compile them if I have time (work, blech, but it must be done) <edit> work meaning my job, not the going back to find problems with the analysis. That's just fun. </edit>
 

---

Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
 
Bev,

quote:

---

My perspective: If one is always trying to better understand reality and how God fits into it, there is always searching, inquiry, and growth

---

quote:

---

I think the very idea of no heaven and hell is damaging. Why worry about not killing people when you know there is no eternal accountability. Why worry about apologizing to people, when it doesn't matter you after they die.

---

quote:

---

You see, I'd chalk that up to the interpreters and teachers of the religion teaching incorrect information. Being religious, I believe that when true religion is taught, there is no disparity with reality. That this is often not the case is lamentable.

---

quote:

---

But with that addition, you create a number of problems. First and foremost, your statement presumes that God exists, since He is somehow "fitting into reality". How much time should I devote to seeing how invisible turtles fit into reality, for instance?

---

quote:

---

I have yet to meet anyone that has adopted religion because they are scared of surrounding crime. I have more often seen people doubt G-d's existence because the crime exists.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amanecer:
I find this way of thinking very dangerous. It seems to assume that people operate solely based on fear of getting punished. I think this level of functioning is completely devoid of morality.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by camus:

Or crime and world events might cause some people to believe in certain Biblical prophecies, or it might cause people to search for a hope beyond complete nonexistence, or it might cause some people to question their assumptions about the meaning and purpose of life. There are a lot of possibilities that could end with someone turning to religion, maybe you haven't met examples of them, but that hardly means they don't exist.

---

quote:

---

If religion has receded in some western nations, what is the impact of this unprecedented transformation upon their populations?

---

quote:

---

Regression analyses were not executed because of the high variability of degree of correlation, because potential causal factors for rates of societal function are complex...
Nor were multivariate analyses used because they risk manipulating the data to produce errant or desired results, and because the fairly consistent characteristics of the sample automatically minimizes the need to correct for external multiple factors.

---

quote:

---

The U.S. is therefore the least efficient western nation in terms of converting wealth into cultural and physical health.

---

quote:

---

The especially low rates in the more Catholic European states are statistical noise due to yearly fluctuations incidental to this sample

---

quote:

---

Mass student murders in schools are rare, and have subsided somewhat since the 1990s, but the U.S. has experienced many more (National School Safety Center) than all the secular developed democracies combined.

---

How rare? If they truly are rare statistically then they shouldn't be used to draw conclusions. Also, is this per capita? He doesn't say. How severe were they? Absent. There's no analysis; it's a random fact.

These were just a quick look through. If I printed it off to edit it, I would have covered the paper with red ink. I would be ashamed to submit something this muddled for publication, and the editor that chose to print it should be ashamed for having done so.
 

---

Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
 
Also, I don't believe there is anywhere in the bible that G-d says to create organized religion.
 

---

Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
I think you might want to read it again...or really I should just say read it.
 

---

Posted by BadGuy (Member # 8922) on :
 
I keep concluding this after examining researchers: They're under Satans control.


No seriously, just look at this 1 sided article:

1. Its primary purpose is to turn people away from God.
2. It propagandises evolution. Yes, this is my opinion only but I find evolution an invention of the communists. It works nicely though, "oh my we emerged from the monkehs!" Oh yeah? Prove it. I always keep getting this shit from materialists that "if God exists, prove it!" Well they can start proving their stupid evolution theory to me too.


How can someone tell from 2 discovered jaws that the "caveman" was THIS turtous, THIS hairy THIS ape skull shaped and that they couldn't speak.

Infact it doesn't even prove that it's from a human.


This wouldn't be an issue if materialists just kept to their own propaganda. Instead, they resort on rediculing people who believe.

Now on to the final point I'd like to make:

3. Once again, for the x'th time, the author of this article fails to see that it's not God who commits the crimes, but people in his name.


Now if I kill someone and I call myself a Christian- does it mean God is evil? No. God is still cool, I am just a fake.


Yet, our dear darwinists can't get past this and go:

OMG IF AT LEAST 1 CHRISTIAN IS COMMITTING SINS THEN GOD MUST NOT EXIST !!!

It has been long known to true followers of God that organised religion is not representing him. Note: It is still not right to hate anyone. For example I don't advise anyone to join the catholic/reformed/evangelical/babtist churches since for me there are many contradictions in their conventions but there are good brothers and sisters in those churches too. It is another question that the leaders in those churches don't really stand in Gods eyes .

"But hey, if I can throw shit at religious people I won't pass my chance!" - the scientist idea.

It is vital to note that the levels of slaughter amongst humans drastically increased after "evolution" became dominant. Lets put our creator aside, everything is allowed! See world wars, america policing the world (obviously not for "innocent lives, and justice")

Sorry everyone, I got a bit aired up. I hate it when (supposedly.) cultured, intelligent, crafty people devote time into writing obviously wrong and 1 sided articles.
 

---

Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
 
The journal article quotes Dostoyevsky "if God does not exist, then everything is permissible." I think bev has said something similar (as a response to an earlier post; I think an offhand comment is maybe getting too much attention Amanecer and KoM). But maybe I'm one of those that "really think that way," KoM.

I've asked this in other threads, perhaps unclearly, but I don't understand how atheists justify the concept of non-religious morality. What pupose does it serve? What impetus is there to do "good"? How do you even define "good" absent God? This is not intended disrespectfully; I sincerely don't understand.
 

---

Posted by BadGuy (Member # 8922) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by SenojRetep:

I've asked this in other threads, perhaps unclearly, but I don't understand how atheists justify the concept of non-religious morality. What pupose does it serve? What impetus is there to do "good"? How do you even define "good" absent God? This is not intended disrespectfully; I sincerely don't understand.

---

Coming from a mainly atheist family I can tell you my experiences regarding your question.

They don't go that far in thinking, infact, they don't wonder what their purpose in life is "why they exist".

A more radical difference is that they accept everything, even from the occult.

As long as it doesn't involve the god named Jehova, all is good. I can understand them, for most atheists (as i noted in my previous reply) are turned away by those whose wellfare depends on people not knowing what the god wants from them.

It's not hard, it takes a few historical notes of "holy wars" inquisition, witch hunting, yada yada.

Oh yes and the communist invention: Pictures of cavemans with stupid big bulky faces and clubs.


To sum it up: They don't care at all.
 

---

Posted by smitty (Member # 8855) on :
 
Senoj -
That's a question I've asked myself a million times. One of my best friends is atheist, and is a good, kind soul. There's obviously something other than the law that instills a sense of morality in people. I just don't know what it is.
 

---

Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
 

quote:

---

Yes, that's sort of the point being made.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amanecer:

quote:

---

Yes, that's sort of the point being made.

---

If you're saying that I'm supporting the main point of the study, that belief in god is damaging to a society, than I disagree. I think there are many benefits as well as some cons to such a belief, but I am unconvinced that the cons outweigh the benefits. I do not think that the line of reasoning I quoted is inseperable from faith. Many religious people on this forum have stated they do not think this way.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by smitty:
The earlier point about grouping is probably the most damning thing against the report. Maybe population plays into it as well, and urban/rural mix.

---

Uh what do you mean? I don't get it seriously, can you explain? (english is not my main language so it can get to me sometimes )
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 

quote:

---

How much time should I devote to seeing how invisible turtles fit into reality, for instance?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ssywak:


You misunderstand me. I never said that I believed that anyone felt that they weere "immune" to hell. But think: do you know of anyone who really thinks that they are going to hell? Not that, "If I do this, or if I don't do that, I am going to hell," but "I really, truly will be going to hell when I die."

---

quote:

---

And how many people do you know that you know full well that they are prime candidates for the eternal flames, but who themselves think that they are (somehow) OK?

---

quote:

---

I find this way of thinking very dangerous. It seems to assume that people operate solely based on fear of getting punished.

---

quote:

---

I don't think this is dependent on how a religion is taught, but is instead dependent on the type of person who is doing the learning.

---

quote:

---

If you need G-d to be a moral then you are doing something wrong.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stephan:
If you need G-d to be a moral then you are doing something wrong.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amanecer:


I don't think this is dependent on how a religion is taught, but is instead dependent on the type of person who is doing the learning.

---

quote:

---

Being religious, I believe that when true religion is taught, there is no disparity with reality. That this is often not the case is lamentable.

---

quote:

---

This wouldn't be an issue if materialists just kept to their own propaganda. Instead, they resort on rediculing people who believe.

---

quote:

---

There's obviously something other than the law that instills a sense of morality in people. I just don't know what it is.

---

quote:

---

This isn't true, for example the catholic church has a lot of fake teachings and a lot of kind but lazy people (who don't bother to read the Bible, yes, most catholics ignore the bible) are pulled into it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stephan:
If you need G-d to be a moral then you are doing something wrong.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by beverly:

quote:

---

There's obviously something other than the law that instills a sense of morality in people. I just don't know what it is.

---

The religion in which I put my faith doctrinally teaches that all people are born with a spark of the divine in them that guides them towards goodness--if they will listen to that part of them. Therefore, a belief in God is not required to live a moral, just life.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by BadGuy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stephan:
If you need G-d to be a moral then you are doing something wrong.

---

Eh, this is what I am talking about. A "wise" person comes up and tells us that we're doing something wrong if we need God to be moral.


I could reply with pages (of course, in my opinion) why is God and his TEACHINGS crucial.


I won't bother, if you think religious people only believe to be "moral", so be it, it is not my task to change your ideals.

Nice 1liner, by the way.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dagonee:
you are wrong about this, in many ways.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stephan:
my issues are with most organized religions.

---

That makes 2 of us then! It's a much better way to put it isn't it?


I AM willing to discuss organized religion here though as I stated in my previous post.
 

---

Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rakeesh:
Why should an atheist have morality, ssywak? If an atheist is correct about the nature (or lack thereof) of the divine, if there is no God or god or gods, then we really have no reason for being here. We just happened.

Why, without any deities, is being good a good thing? Why is it good to want to improve mankind? If there is no divine, then we all just happened-and why then should I feel any loyalty to anyone but myself?

An atheist can of course choose to be a good, honorable, and courageous human being. But why? The decision is essentially arbitrary if one is an atheist-I will be good, honorable, and courageous because I choose to be. The atheist is certainly not using any higher standard beyond their own whim.

---

quote:

---

But we have no "Spark of the divine." There is no "divine." It must be something else.

---

quote:

---

Listen if you tell me what ways I am wrong in I will accept your opinion, but I can't really reply nodding that "okay, I am wrong in many ways"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rakeesh:
Why should an atheist have morality, ssywak? If an atheist is correct about the nature (or lack thereof) of the divine, if there is no God or god or gods, then we really have no reason for being here. We just happened.

Why, without any deities, is being good a good thing? Why is it good to want to improve mankind? If there is no divine, then we all just happened-and why then should I feel any loyalty to anyone but myself?

An atheist can of course choose to be a good, honorable, and courageous human being. But why? The decision is essentially arbitrary if one is an atheist-I will be good, honorable, and courageous because I choose to be. The atheist is certainly not using any higher standard beyond their own whim.

---

I can only agree with your questions, now we need someone to answer them (apart from knowing we were given free will by God, I can't help you further, you need an atheist to answer those questions)
 

---

Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by BadGuy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dagonee:
you are wrong about this, in many ways.

---

So you're saying the catholic church (being the largest politically accepted church) doesn't falsely teach its lambs?

Listen if you tell me what ways I am wrong in I will accept your opinion, but I can't really reply nodding that "okay, I am wrong in many ways"


Perhaps explain?

---

quote:

---

Because a piece of you lives on forever through your children and their children. For me, if I were an atheist, this would be good enough. The desire to create a better world for your children should be instinctual.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by King of Men:
There are any number of things apart from gods that can give you morality. There's the primate sense of justice; children of three have a quite well-developed sense of what is fair, and so do chimpanzees. Then there's enlightened self-interest : I prefer a society with these kinds of laws, and therefore it is in my interest to follow and enforce those laws.

---

quote:

---

There is also the problem of where does morality come from if a god is involved : Is X good because your god says so? Then why can't Y be good because I say so? Conversely, if X is good independent of your god's dictation, then what is the need for the god in the first place? Morality from god is just a variant of morality from the guy with the biggest axe.

---

quote:

---

But is also assumes that life is precious, because it's all you got. There is no afterlife to make up for a crappy life here on earth. If you can act in a way that brings the most joy and happiness to the greatest number of people (including yourself), then you are doing something good.

---

quote:

---

Of course we are (I'll lump myself in even though I'm not dogmatic enough to be an atheist). Our higher standards include community, patriotism, family, self-image, and justice. None of those require a deity or an afterlife. My life and the lives of those around me are improved if I am trustworthy and good. If I choose to break the laws my society has created I will be outcast and will suffer.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rakeesh:

quote:

---

Because a piece of you lives on forever through your children and their children. For me, if I were an atheist, this would be good enough. The desire to create a better world for your children should be instinctual.

---

Nonsense. If you are an atheist in the sense that there is no supernatural, no divine, what motivation is there beyond the arbitrary to want to provide a better world for your children? If we all just happened-if our children are just self-aware heaps of tissue and bone, then the devotion and love we feel for them is no more and no less than the devotion and love a beast feels for its offspring. And a beast feels that devotion because its breeding demands it-if its ancestors to the nth degree hadn't felt that way, it would have never been born.

But caring about that requires caring about the betterment of one's species after we die, when if there is no divine, no supernatural, we have zero investment in it. We're not there. We're totally gone. So why care?

---

quote:

---

But is also assumes that life is precious, because it's all you got. There is no afterlife to make up for a crappy life here on earth.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dagonee:
Yet you seem fine just saying, "The Catholic Church is wrong in many ways."

Why is it OK for you to make a single-sentence conclusory post about a 2000-year old church without even bothering to explain yourself?

---

Hmm you're right, okay I start then.


-The acceptance of pagan festivities - This one is a good one, for example "christmas" was originally the birthday of the sun god. It was getting wildly popular way back, so the church decided to adopt it (ouch.) to keep their popularity (even though the Bible says:

'Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God.' James 4,4

Of course if one thinks fundamentally this would only apply to adulterers and adulteresses. It applies to everyone who in turn for popularity, acts against God. I can tell you he doesn't like it when a church decides to adopt a pagan festivity (and more, as time progressed)

-political influence (I don't reckon where but the Bible says somewhere that you must stand for the country [while speaking to churchs] but that doesn't mean the uttermost political influence the catholic church possesses.) In other words, they twist this part of the scripture.
-Historical facts about them doing things In the name of God instead of As commanded by God. This scares a lot of people away from God. They look at God as an enemy, thanks to this and see the belief in God as a "brainwash". The pope saluting with Hitler, the newest pope a member of the Hitlerjugend (Note, I am not picking Hitler out as the only man who slayed a lot. Every country had its devastator, even in the ancient rome. We tend to forget this (mainly the ignorant) and go at Hitler like he was the only brutal dictator in the history) Though he's a good example here because he started going into the occult after WWI. See results. My newbie conclusion is to avoid the occult.

-Their arrogance in declaring that "we are your advocate at God" What the hell? Who authorised them? Who on this earth was given the right to call himself my advocate at God? Needless to mention that this doesn't make God popular in the eyes of atheists (historical facts back this up)


These are the mainstream facts I really really don't like about the catholic church. As I stated previously, this doesn't mean that catholics are bad, I just don't like their principles.
 

---

Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
Beverly,

Oooh. I'm interested. For me, "the divine that is present in all of us" is a pretty good working definition of the Holy Spirit. I am curious as to how they differ in your theology.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 

quote:

---

Well I do give Catholics a lot of credit for improvement. Anyone correct me I'm wrong but their official doctrine seems to be getting more liberal then most Christians.

---

quote:

---

Jesus is the preferred path, but not the only one.

---

quote:

---

The bible should not be taken 100% literally.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by BadGuy:
I can tell you he doesn't like it when a church decides to adopt a pagan festivity (and more, as time progressed)

---

Because you know EXACTLY what God thinks? About everything? All the time?

...are you God?

-pH
 

---

Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
 
But you're a clever man, Chris. I think I am as well. Don't you think you and I could devote ourselves to lives of selfish hedonism, maybe even crime, and avoid the punishments society imposes for such activities? If I wanted to, if I devoted myself to it, I could travel to a convenience store a few counties over, study it, plan the effort, and rob it and I think I would avoid ever being caught and punished for the crime. Most crimes go unreported after all, and it's usually the less effective criminals who wind up in prison.

And then I would never be entirely comfortable around others for fear my secret would get out.

I think my desire to be a good man is representative of the fact that I am supremely selfish, so much so that I don't ever want to have to worry about whether anyone would trust me or if there's anything I have to hide from people. I want people to give me the benefit of the doubt and a reputation for honesty and trustworthiness makes that happen. I can't keep track of which people I might have lied to, so it's much easier to just never lie or do anything that requires lying.
 

---

Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
 
A quote from a famous atheist:

"An Atheist loves himself and his fellow man instead of a god. An Atheist knows that heaven is something for which we should work now - here on earth - for all men together to enjoy. An Atheist thinks that he can get no help through prayer but that he must find in himself the inner conviction and strength to meet life, to grapple with it, to subdue, and enjoy it. An Atheist thinks that only in a knowledge of himself and a knowledge of his fellow man can he find the understanding that will help to a life of fulfillment. Therefore, he seeks to know himself and his fellow man rather than to know a god. An Atheist knows that a hospital should be built instead of a church. An Atheist knows that a deed must be done instead of a prayer said. An Atheist strives for involvement in life and not escape into death. He wants disease conquered, poverty vanquished, war eliminated. He wants man to understand and love man. He wants an ethical way of life. He knows that we cannot rely on a god nor channel action into prayer nor hope for an end to troubles in the hereafter. He knows that we are our brother's keeper and keepers of our lives; that we are responsible persons, that the job is here and the time is now."
 

---

Posted by BadGuy (Member # 8922) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by pH:

quote:

---

Originally posted by BadGuy:
I can tell you he doesn't like it when a church decides to adopt a pagan festivity (and more, as time progressed)

---

Because you know EXACTLY what God thinks? About everything? All the time?

-pH

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by pH:

...are you God?

---

 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 

quote:

---

Why, without any deities, is being good a good thing? Why is it good to want to improve mankind? If there is no divine, then we all just happened-and why then should I feel any loyalty to anyone but myself?

---

quote:

---

He wants man to understand and love man.

---

And in this he differs significantly from religious groups opposed to same-sex marriage.


 

---

Posted by BadGuy (Member # 8922) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chris Bridges:
A quote from a famous atheist:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rakeesh:
Nonsense. If you are an atheist in the sense that there is no supernatural, no divine, what motivation is there beyond the arbitrary to want to provide a better world for your children? If we all just happened-if our children are just self-aware heaps of tissue and bone, then the devotion and love we feel for them is no more and no less than the devotion and love a beast feels for its offspring. And a beast feels that devotion because its breeding demands it-if its ancestors to the nth degree hadn't felt that way, it would have never been born.

But caring about that requires caring about the betterment of one's species after we die, when if there is no divine, no supernatural, we have zero investment in it. We're not there. We're totally gone. So why care?

---

quote:

---

The acceptance of pagan festivities - This one is a good one, for example "christmas" was originally the birthday of the sun god. It was getting wildly popular way back, so the church decided to adopt it (ouch.) to keep their popularity (even though the Bible says:

'Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God.' James 4,4

Of course if one thinks fundamentally this would only apply to adulterers and adulteresses. It applies to everyone who in turn for popularity, acts against God. I can tell you he doesn't like it when a church decides to adopt a pagan festivity (and more, as time progressed)

---

quote:

---

political influence (I don't reckon where but the Bible says somewhere that you must stand for the country [while speaking to churchs] but that doesn't mean the uttermost political influence the catholic church possesses.) In other words, they twist this part of the scripture.

---

quote:

---

Historical facts about them doing things In the name of God instead of As commanded by God. This scares a lot of people away from God. They look at God as an enemy, thanks to this and see the belief in God as a "brainwash".The pope saluting with Hitler,

---

quote:

---

the newest pope a member of the Hitlerjugend

---

quote:

---

Their arrogance in declaring that "we are your advocate at God" What the hell? Who authorised them? Who on this earth was given the right to call himself my advocate at God? Needless to mention that this doesn't make God popular in the eyes of atheists (historical facts back this up)

---

quote:

---

Beverly,

Oooh. I'm interested. For me, "the divine that is present in all of us" is a pretty good working definition of the Holy Spirit. I am curious as to how they differ in your theology.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by pH:
I just get very annoyed when people say things along the lines of, "I can tell you for a fact that God thinks..."

No, you can't. You didn't write the Bible (assuming that we're speaking of a Christian God), and you don't know what the intention of every verse was, and that thing has been translated so many times by so many different people with so many different agendas...

Whee, I'm a bad Christian.

-pH

---

quote:

---

A church can be a wooden hut in the swamp, as long as it is a place for people to gather and pray to God.


INSTEAD WE GOT THE SUPERDUPER GOLDSTATUEWHATTHE?! churches of a certain *cough* *cough* politically accepted church.

---

quote:

---

Why should you do this in the presence of a god?

---

quote:

---

Does your moral code exist independently of god?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dagonee:

quote:

---

The acceptance of pagan festivities - This one is a good one, for example "christmas" was originally the birthday of the sun god. It was getting wildly popular way back, so the church decided to adopt it (ouch.) to keep their popularity (even though the Bible says:

'Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God.' James 4,4

Of course if one thinks fundamentally this would only apply to adulterers and adulteresses. It applies to everyone who in turn for popularity, acts against God. I can tell you he doesn't like it when a church decides to adopt a pagan festivity (and more, as time progressed)

---

You say this verse applies to Christmas because you know God doesn't like us celebrating Christmas. Where is your evidence that he doesn't like us celebrating Christmas?

The Church does not formally hold that Christ was born on Christmas; rather, that is the day set aside to celebrate His birth.

quote:

---

political influence (I don't reckon where but the Bible says somewhere that you must stand for the country [while speaking to churchs] but that doesn't mean the uttermost political influence the catholic church possesses.) In other words, they twist this part of the scripture.

---

I have no idea what you're trying to say here.

quote:

---

Historical facts about them doing things In the name of God instead of As commanded by God. This scares a lot of people away from God. They look at God as an enemy, thanks to this and see the belief in God as a "brainwash".The pope saluting with Hitler,

---

What "fake teaching," exactly, does this represent? Are you cataloging things Catholics have done that you don't like or are you supporting your contentions that 1) Catholics ignore the Bible and 2) Catholics have many "fake teachings"?

quote:

---

the newest pope a member of the Hitlerjugend

---

Saul started out hunting down Christians; history is replete with people who were great sinners becoming champions for God. You're going to have to do better than this, especially since this isn't a "teaching."

quote:

---

Their arrogance in declaring that "we are your advocate at God" What the hell? Who authorised them? Who on this earth was given the right to call himself my advocate at God? Needless to mention that this doesn't make God popular in the eyes of atheists (historical facts back this up)

---

Could you explain where you got the impression that the Church declares itself "your advocate at God"?

---

I didn't say he doesn't like people celebrating Christmas, but moreso, that the church made it into a religious festivity to attract the pagans, this dates back to early centuries a.d. Anyway in common knowledge of most people Christmas isn't he "day set aside to celebrate His birth"

Jesus still told not to celebrate his birth. Now it's important to know how merciful and modest he was so it doesn't mean "god shall strike people if they celebrate me!", rather a kind request, a very kind at that one.

For a more localised example when Europe got Christianised our first consecrated king said this: I either take Christianity up or Hungary will diminish from this world.

He wasn't a saint exactly either, so why can he become one, by mere human priests?

He was a good leader, don't get me wrong (his hungarian name was Szent István, Saint Steven in english)

A king saying this around 1000 (circa 1005 years ago) shows how much of a pressure the church had on the countries across Europe.

The fake teachings come from the roots of this church. You must hunt down the ones that don't agree with you, you must turn away from those that don't agree with you. Scientology comes to mind.

Of course they improved over time, DOH. It was a lot easier to burn people when the ability to read was considered "special". Nowadays if they tried another "holy war" it would get them hammered quite fast.

Well, it isn't a teaching, more like a moral standard.


Lets have a happy day, it is only the makeup of my paranoid mind.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Jenna, I agree.
 

---

Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
 
Madalyn Murray O'Hair.
 

---

Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
 
Nevermind:

Dr. Madalyn M. O'Hair

http://www.positiveatheism.org/india/s1990c46.htm
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 

quote:

---

I didn't say he doesn't like people celebrating Christmas, but moreso, that the church made it into a religious festivity to attract the pagans, this dates back to early centuries a.d.

---

quote:

---

A king saying this around 1000 (circa 1005 years ago) shows how much of a pressure the church had on the countries across Europe.

---

quote:

---

The fake teachings come from the roots of this church. You must hunt down the ones that don't agree with you, you must turn away from those that don't agree with you. Scientology comes to mind.

---

quote:

---

They said so.

---

quote:

---

I understand why you would call that the Holy Spirit but I think LDS believe differently about the Holy Spirit than others do ... so yes, what you mean by the Holy Spirit is probably the same thing.

---

quote:

---

I guess the difference is that we believe that the Holy Spirit is a part of God and the Light of Christ (as we call it) is a part of us.

---

That was the piece I was missing. For me the two are kind of mushed together - the part of me that is a part of God. Sort of.

And, yes, I am Kate. (and a woman) (hee)
 

---

Posted by BadGuy (Member # 8922) on :
 
Jeez I didn't say the catholic church of today is EQUAL TO SCIENTOLOGY. As you go back in time, they become more and more similar. Disconnection, suppressive people.

The difference is, that thankfully, the catholic church was able to get past this. At least this, but again, they would still do it if it was possible

I made it more easier to read, not perfect, but bear with me. Our ideals are clearly totally different so lets agree to disagree.

I accept that you think I am wrong in every topic I spoke about.

We're both able to continue this arguement but I don't see the point to do so.
 

---

Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
 
BadGuy,
There is a big difference between "fake teachings" and "teachings that you don't agree with." Please don't confuse the two.
 

---

Posted by BadGuy (Member # 8922) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dan_raven:

Lets keep it like that. I find it incredible.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by camus:
BadGuy,
There is a big difference between "fake teachings" and "teachings that you don't agree with." Please don't confuse the two.

---

True, I could've defined it more peacefully and presentable.

At least consider the things I said, even if you're convinced that I am wrong, at least look after it
 

---

Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
 
Dan_Raven, I agree. I've always been fascinated by Hatrack being a place where people neither ignore religion nor spout the angry rhetoric famous on other sites, but just explain and listen.

I *heart* Hatrack.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 

quote:

---

We're both able to continue this arguement but I don't see the point to do so.

---

I'd just like to see you substantiate one freaking thing you've said about "fake teachings" or most Catholics ignoring the Bible.
 

---

Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
You and Beverly were just a very good example of that.
 

---

Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
 
Hee hee. Beverly and I are good examples of Catholics who ignore the Bible?

Ooh, awkward page turn.
 

---

Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
I just don't type fast enough! You know what I mean. Or you wouldn't have known I was refering to you. So there!
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Thank you kindly, Kate.

(FYI, I have to leave for the rest of the evening now.)
 

---

Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
So do I. have a great weekend. I am going to be busily ignoring the Bible.
 

---

Posted by Nato (Member # 1448) on :
 
I think atheists are perfectly capable of developing a moral code and adhering to it without a basis in any sort of scripture.

An atheist moral code relies on reason. It values human relationships and our relationship with the rest of the planet. And every atheist has his or her own, built from reading, learning, and experiences, even if it is never written down. You don't automatically lose a sense of right and wrong if you don't have a religious moral anchor.

It rejects the "do it because I said so" morality developed by religious, parental, or political figures. What is "right" is not bounded by laws specifically, but by reason. Human beings, like nearly all animals, are born ready to form relationships with others of their kind. Everybody, everywhere can recognize that an ideal world would be one without killing and violence. You don't need commandments to lay that out.

An atheist moral code relies on our natural sense of empathy and fairness. We have the ability to understand others, and learning what is "moral" means considering the the physical and emotional impact of your actions. Instead of learning what behavior is moral through the application and enforcement of rules, this morality fosters an understanding of the whys behind acceptable behavior. Similarly, rules don't create fairness, people create it in their own interactions through cooperation. Empathy allows for further understanding of what is fair.

These values lead into others, such as self-control and duty. It is not necessary to introduce an exteernal factor to declare that these things are "right." They can be seen as moral through their own virtue.

A morality based on an atheist perspective would probably suffer fewer of the societal ills that the original poster's article described. For example, look at sexual relationships. Where (I would say) religion-based morality leads to the prevalence of abstinence-only sex-ed, an atheist would look at the issue entirely differently. We recognize the complexity of sexual relationships and the consequences of specific sexual actions, but we do not outright reject premarital sex, because there is no moral authority to say that that is always the "right" thing to do. Instead, we recognize that marriages provide many great benefits, especially the stability that is so important when children become involved. Atheists recognize that sex can be fun and enriching outside of marriage as well, and when people spend their time thinking about the consequences of their actions, they generally make decent choices. Athiest morality wouldn't lead to less premarital sex, but that wouldn't be the goal. Without an authoritarian moral framework, one is free to rationally examine all possibilities for action and choose the one that best matches his or her individual situation.

This morality doesn't make the claim that it knows best for everybody. It recognizes some universal human goals, such as peace and understanding, and it trusts us to make our own choices to bring those goals about.

quote:

---

The foundation of morality should not be made dependent on myth nor tied to any authority lest doubt about the myth or about the legitimacy of the authority imperil the foundation of sound judgment and action.

Albert Einstein

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by beverly:
(To KoM)

quote:

---

Why should you do this in the presence of a god?

---

I don't think it is about the existance of God as much as about the immortality of the soul and the idea of eternally regretting one's mortal behavior--which is, BTW, what I believe hell actually is.

---

quote:

---

I think atheists are perfectly capable of developing a moral code and adhering to it without a basis in any sort of scripture.

An atheist moral code relies on reason.

---

quote:

---

...completely arbitrary. What makes a creator of universes special?

---

quote:

---

I'm kind of asking the theists to back up that statement.

---

For a lot of theists, this is definitional. In other words, something is "good" only because God wants it (and "evil" because He does not) -- or, from the Mormon point of view, God cannot be God if He does or wants anything "evil," so anything God does while remaining God is "good."
 

---

Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
 
I wasn't really making an argument. I don't have any way of proving that human choices are more than operative conditioning in action, but I find the idea distasteful.

I consider it a good thing to attempt to transcend the carrot/stick approach, whether it's imposed by an outside force or self imposed. Maybe instead of saying "I'd like to think we're more complex than that" I should have said, "I admire people who try to base their decisions on more than that." Or something.
 

---

Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
 
I reckon I'm the only one here. I want someplace in between all the rules and structure of religion and the... coldness... of atheism...
 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
Tom, I'm aware that I'm challenging an axiom here; I just don't think it makes a difference. After all, I could perfectly well define a god as being purely evil, but I wouldn't expect a theist to accept that without me making some kind of argument. So why should I accept their definition?
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 

quote:

---

So why should I accept their definition?

---

Well, at some point somebody has to accept somebody else's premises to have a discussion. So what you can do is say "Okay, let's temporarily and conditionally grant that God is good. God has given us these laws of behavior, which are also Good. God has acted in direct opposition to these laws of behavior, according to your own scripture, in the following dozen or so instances. Were there ameliorating circumstances we don't understand, were these laws not meant to apply to God, or...?"

And then they pick one of the above, any one of which is of course unprovable, and you both go on your merry way.

I've witnessed that particular conversation a couple thousand times.
 

---

Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by King of Men:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amanecer:
I find this way of thinking very dangerous. It seems to assume that people operate solely based on fear of getting punished. I think this level of functioning is completely devoid of morality.

---

Yes, that's sort of the point being made. You can find any number of religious people who argue that religion must be retained because otherwise there is no morality. Either those people haven't thought it through, or they really do think this way.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dagonee:

quote:

---

This isn't true, for example the catholic church has a lot of fake teachings and a lot of kind but lazy people (who don't bother to read the Bible, yes, most catholics ignore the bible) are pulled into it.

---

you are wrong about this, in many ways.

---

At least he makes it clear which team he's playing on. Jack Chick, anyone?
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
I'm thinking odds are ten to one that's he's not an evangelical Christian at all, personally. Much less Hungarian.
 

---

Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
 

quote:

---

-The acceptance of pagan festivities - This one is a good one, for example "christmas" was originally the birthday of the sun god. It was getting wildly popular way back, so the church decided to adopt it (ouch.) to keep their popularity

---

quote:

---

KOM, my feeling here is that if someone says that without the fear of God there would be nothing to keep them moral: PLEASE KEEP YOUR BELIEF IN GOD, because if that's all that's keeping them in check, then they need all the faith they can muster.

---

quote:

---

What are the cons ? I'm willing to discuss, so don't worry, this isn't flamebait.

---

quote:

---

I never claimed this to be the way *I* thought. But I don't see how it is OK to say it one way and not OK the other.

---

Fair enough.
 

---

Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
 
I don't think morality is dependent on religion.

The way I see it, religion, like civilization (think Lord of the Flies), is one way of keeping people from regressing to primitive, animalistic ways. Obviously not the only, but a very useful one.

As much as I would like to think that the majority of people would naturally do Good even without the fear of punishment/reward, I'm still very grateful for the law enforcement and judicial system that is in place.
 

---

Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
 
There might be some world in which one needs to claim God's backing to do horrible things to others; this clearly isn't it. (Mao and Stalin wee living proof.) We *are* in a world in which people who want to dominate others will seize on any excuse.
 

---

Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
 
Will B- I suspect that is in response to me. I agree that people don't need God's backing to do horrible things. I also think they don't need religion to have a sense of purpose or a community. However, I do think that religion fosters a sense of purpose, a community, and sadly a sense of authority to inflict one's view of God's will on to others.
 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Glenn Arnold:
KOM, my feeling here is that if someone says that without the fear of God there would be nothing to keep them moral: PLEASE KEEP YOUR BELIEF IN GOD, because if that's all that's keeping them in check, then they need all the faith they can muster.

---

quote:

---

I think Jeff's argument has been -- although he hasn't said as much -- that reason itself, in the absence of a God, is really just the arbitrary firing of neurons and therefore meaningless in the big scheme of things.

---

quote:

---

And then I would never be entirely comfortable around others for fear my secret would get out.

---

quote:

---

I think my desire to be a good man is representative of the fact that I am supremely selfish, so much so that I don't ever want to have to worry about whether anyone would trust me or if there's anything I have to hide from people.

---

quote:

---

I asked this earlier, but you apparently missed it : Does your moral code exist independently of god? If so, why is your god needed?

---

quote:

---

Um, no. Wrong. You cannot stand aside from your own emotions like that. So what if love, say, is only programmed into our brains by our genes? The fact remains that we feel the emotion, and act on it.

---

quote:

---

The only difference is that theists assume that morality exists because of God, and based on that assumption they also assume that atheists must be amoral.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by King of Men:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Glenn Arnold:
KOM, my feeling here is that if someone says that without the fear of God there would be nothing to keep them moral: PLEASE KEEP YOUR BELIEF IN GOD, because if that's all that's keeping them in check, then they need all the faith they can muster.

---

On the contrary, let them instead lose their faith instantly. If their religion is really their only moral compass, then I would just as soon have such monsters exposed immediately. Especially since most religions aren't actually very nice; people who say this kind of thing rarely have any idea what their supposed moral compass is actually preaching. Once they find out, they'll be a much worse danger to society than a person who is merely completely amoral.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dagonee:

quote:

---

The only difference is that theists assume that morality exists because of God, and based on that assumption they also assume that atheists must be amoral.

---

The one doesn't follow from the other.

I believe morality exists because of God. I do not believe that atheists cannot be what we would generally describe as a moral person, excepting those portions of morality that deal with one's obligations to God.

But, I still believe that the morality they express comes from God, just as I believe the air they breathe comes from God. I don't believe atheists don't breathe, just as I don't believe atheists cannot act morally.

---

quote:

---

Of course it's rational. Emotions exist. It's irrational to base an argument on something that can't be demonstrated, but emotions are demonstrably real, even if they aren't transferable.

---

quote:

---

When you follow a religion, do you not do it because it makes you feel good in one way or another?

---

quote:

---

You object that in calling something right or wrong, an atheist is merely succumbing to biological drives (feeling good), and lacks any transcendent reason for doing so.

---

quote:

---

Why should morality be any different in this regard? I trust my biological brain to tell me which things are red, and to reason out math problems. I also trust it to figure out what's right and wrong. Why should the latter form of knowledge require God's input, when the former clearly doesn't?

---

quote:

---

Well this certainly falls apart after a little bit of scrutiny. A human being raised in New Zealand will think that a given rose is the same color as a human being raised in Nova Scotia. Because our bodies work in the same way, our eyes take in the visual and our brains show that to us. And we can actually examine the red rose and find out why exactly we see it as red. It reflects light differently than, say, a pink rose does, that's why.

---

quote:

---

You can trust your biological brain to decide between right and wrong, but you have to admit that the decision it reaches will be arbitrary. When asked, "Why did you decide this way?" ultimately you'll have to respond with, "Because I felt like it." Which is fine, but it places us on par with animals.

---

That's just the thing though, religion is also arbitrary, just take a look at the incredibly wide range of beliefs out there. In the end, theists are also making an arbitrary decision by choosing their religion, if there were only one single all-encompassing religion out there your argument would work, but as it stands, the decision of which religion to follow and therefore which set of morals you adhere to is as arbitrary as the decision of doing things "because you felt like it" or because you were raised that way.
 

---

Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
From the outside looking in, of course the decision seems arbitrary, Rico. You are aware, though, that the people in religions don't feel that way, aren't you? They have faith that their decision isn't arbitrary. People don't select religions by throwing a dart.
 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
Well, duh, and now you are going to claim that atheist morality feels arbitrary? Outside looking in is the only standard that can possibly apply, and you have quite correctly applied it to atheism. Now apply it to theism.
 

---

Posted by Rico (Member # 7533) on :
 
Yeah I realize that, but can you see why from an agnostic perspective, your line of reasoning seems to fall in exactly the same category as mine?


 

---

Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
I have applied it to theism. I've admitted repeatedly that the degree of arbitrariness between a theist and an atheist is only seperated, because ultimately the same questions must be asked of God.

But the difference lies in the degree of knowledge and experience the...umm...decider has. Atheists have only themselves and other human beings to look to. Theists have faith in a being that has vastly, and in some cases infinitely, more experience and wisdom, thus that being's decisions can-in their opinion-be trusted to be less arbitrary.

But just as you don't hear theists talking in such terms very often, you rarely hear atheists talking in such terms, either.

My point remains that atheists have no response to the standard I'm using except, "It feels good." Now you may argue that a theist has no real response aside from that either, with the degree of seperation...but that's not what they actually believe. They believe that their morality isn't arbitrary, because of their faith in God or other deities. They have an answer for why, whereas the atheist answer is, "It feels good," and that alone is the answer.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
*waves*

KoM, I think dkw put it very well. I don't think that anything about eternal punishment is arbitrary. I think that things are set up the way they are and that's the way it is. I believe God simply knows more about it than we do. So He tells us about how things are in the hopes that we will trust and put our faith in that and live now so as not to suffer the consequences of our actions. It is very much like a parent encouraging their child in the path of wisdom for their own happiness.

Why would regret be eternal? I honestly don't understand it enough to tell you. I speculate on it from time to time, wonder, but I don't know. That is why for me it is a matter of faith rather than understanding.
 

---

Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
 
Rakeesh, I find myself stronging disagreeing with you.
What about doing the right thing because it's the right thing to do?.
Not because of punishment from a higher authority earthly or even heavenly but because doing wrong really does hurt all of society as well as the invidual. There may be less rules when it comes to sexuality other than rape is wrong because it is damaging, but I fail to see how not believing in God will automatically make a person wild, frivolous and hedonistic.
It's not a matter of something feeling good, but knowing that what you do could hurt another person and hurt yourself and hurting other people really feels a lot worse than hurting yourself.
That involves empathy though and I've had arguments with an atheist friend about the existence of empathy as he doesn't believe in anything spiritual at all.
 

---

Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
 

quote:

---

From the outside looking in, of course the decision seems arbitrary, Rico. You are aware, though, that the people in religions don't feel that way, aren't you?

---

quote:

---

My point remains that atheists have no response to the standard I'm using except, "It feels good."

---

quote:

---

But the difference lies in the degree of knowledge and experience the...umm...decider has. Atheists have only themselves and other human beings to look to. Theists have faith in a being that has vastly, and in some cases infinitely, more experience and wisdom, thus that being's decisions can-in their opinion-be trusted to be less arbitrary.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Destineer:
Um... this is totally false. Read any book on 20th Century ethical theory to see why. How about any of the following rationales:

-Wrong actions are the ones that are unfair to someone (John Rawls).

-Wrong actions are the ones that can't be justified by a rule that everyone should accept (Kant).

-Right actions are the ones that bring about the most overall good (most modern ethicists).

-Wrong actions are the ones that infringe someone's right to freely use his property as he sees fit (Robert Nozick).
[/QB]

---

quote:

---

Okay, so now take away the eternal perspective. We are products of evolution, our desires programmed into us, there is no ghost in the machine, and nothing on a higher plane to elevate us. Why, in this situation, forgo immediate gratification, even if other people get hurtif they're not capable of hurting you back? Why should one rationally care about the state of the world for one's children? Is there a rational reason to regret consequences to others when there will be no negative consequences to yourself?

---

quote:

---

We are products of evolution, our desires programmed into us, there is no ghost in the machine, and nothing on a higher plane to elevate us. Why, in this situation, forgo immediate gratification, even if other people get hurtif they're not capable of hurting you back? Why should one rationally care about the state of the world for one's children? Is there a rational reason to regret consequences to others when there will be no negative consequences to yourself?

---

Actually, people are naturally social and gregarious. To be mentally and physically healthy, people need some kind of emotional support. Look at Harry Harlow's work.

Socially, most people who are selfish and don't think of others run out of friends, or get killed. So, because they need friends and to be loved, because it is 'logical' to do so, they correct their behavior.

Don't forget that there is also a biological component in empathy. See, for instance, the curious case of Phineas Gage.

Of course, people fight. People naturally want to get angry and beat the crap out of others, to a greater or lesser degree. Again, this desire is self-correcting in almost any community. Edit: What I meant to say, rather than self-correcting, was that the reasons for behaving are self-evident for most people, both in and out of a community, though of course being in a community where your actions are accountable helps.

[ December 17, 2005, 11:23 PM: Message edited by: Storm Saxon ]
 

---

Posted by human_2.0 (Member # 6006) on :
 
Been away from hatrack and so my comments are a bit late. From the start:

An article that says a belief in god damages society sounds like the funniest conclusion in the world and is absolutly ridiculous. How long have people been believing in god? If the conclusion is correct, why are any of us even here?

Now I shall give lots of support to his conclusion. I'm Christian (to Mormons, to most other Christians I'm not because Mormons don't believe in the Trinity), so I still don't agree with the conclusion because I'm going to talk about the bad of religion, and not what I get out of it.

Ironically, I prefer non-religious friends because I can't stand religious hypocracy. Non-religious people I know tend to have more morality than the religious people I know.

I happen to have a past full of very evil "religious" people and very good religious people and so my expeirences aren't "normal" because I don't think most people really see "evil" at work. Usually people who are "very" religious tend to bring out the very worst in evil people.

I couldn't believe a statement in Harry Potter 6 that basically says evil people will not rest while good people exist. I've actually seen this happen with real people. They can not stand to let good people exist and will do everything in their power to hurt them.

Most Mormons can't accept that some of their own flock are wolves, and, like now, I tend to make it my first point of religious conversations, so they don't like me. Where non-religious people, this seems to be their number one objection to religion, so we get along.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chris Bridges:
A quote from a famous atheist:

"An Atheist loves himself and his fellow man instead of a god.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Glenn Arnold:
But none of us experience God. Some of us experience belief in God, but none of us actually experience the thing itself.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TomDavidson:
[QUOTE]reason itself, in the absence of a God, is really just the arbitrary firing of neurons and therefore meaningless in the big scheme of things.

*shrug* I'm content appealing to physics, but I can understand why other people might not be.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by human_2.0:
How many people have known things they couldn't know without the help of some sort of non-chemical reaction?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by King of Men:
Why should you do this in the presence of a god? I mean, we've agreed that the fear of punishment is not real morality.....

---

quote:

---

....so what makes 'good' good just because your god says so?

---

quote:

---

That's just the thing though, religion is also arbitrary, just take a look at the incredibly wide range of beliefs out there. In the end, theists are also making an arbitrary decision by choosing their religion, if there were only one single all-encompassing religion out there your argument would work, but as it stands, the decision of which religion to follow and therefore which set of morals you adhere to is as arbitrary as the decision of doing things "because you felt like it" or because you were raised that way.

---

quote:

---

All these thinkers offer secular justifications for their views that in no way boil down to "it feels good."

---

quote:

---

Theists only have themselves and other human beings to look to, as well. They also have a belief in a being that they claim has more experience and wisdom, but they have absolutely no evidence that this is true. Instead, they rely on how they think this being would respond (WWJD) which is no more than relying on themselves, or they rely on ancient and semi-ancient texts, written by OTHER PEOPLE, and interpreted BY OTHER PEOPLE. But then they claim that they somehow have a higher standard that they adhere to, making their decisions, somehow, "better," when, in fact, they are measurably just as "arbitrary"* as an atheist's decision.

---

quote:

---

*And I would disagree that any of the decisions are really arbitrary. They all boil down to carrying the intent to continue the health and well-being of the human species as a whole. But at least the atheist takes the responsibility for understanding why he or she acts or thinks or behaves in a certain way. We don't rely on some ancient or semi-ancient, multi- and mis-interrpreted text as our basis.

---

quote:

---

That doesn't negate that Destineer has pointed out several examples of people judging morality not based on what "feels good", at least in the immediate sense. Now, granted, anything can be turned into a question of "because that seemed best" given sufficient degrees of indirection, but this only serves as an example of how anything can be made totally meaningless if you add sufficient degrees of indirection.

---

quote:

---

What seems to be getting dismissed is that my own code of ethics is as binding to me as any theist code is to anyone else. By consistantly labeling it as arbitrary the implication is that it's casually arrived at and easily cast aside when inconvenient. I hope you can appreciate how insulting that might be.

---

quote:

---

Since I'm about to go to work and won't be here until tomorrow probably, let me make it clear: I think the decision to be a good, honorable, compassionate and courageous person is a noble and worthy thing, whether or not it's arbitrary. And in some ways, sometimes, I think the arbitrary decision-just because one chooses to do so-is the best.

---

quote:

---

As long as humans have been writing things down, they've been discussing the best ways to act and I have all of that to draw from. I also have my own life and the lives of those around me to show me immediate reasons for ethical behavior.

---

quote:

---

After the 20th Century, it's hard to imagine people saying evil is a hallucination; yet they do.

---

quote:

---

Refutations that destroy the refuter's own position.

---

quote:

---

From my point of view, the theist is relying on what has been written about an incredibly wise, ancient, and powerful force that has vastly more learning, experience, and wisdom than the entire human race, which is a different thing.

---

quote:

---

The theist when asked why makes some reference to God, and all of the other reasons mentioned by Destineer and yourself-which are, I think, either evolutionary or emotional in basis.

---

quote:

---

I guess what it boils down to is yes, my decision to be an ethical person is entirely arbitrary, with some basis in evolutionary and biological imperatives along with social peer pressure. That choice was as informed as I could make it and my code develops and deepens with every new experience I have or hear about. And despite my lack of all-powerful, all-good role model or disciplanarian, my ethics are binding and meaningful to me.

---

quote:

---

If it's really the case that all beliefs about God are arbitrary, then it logically follows that yours -- no matter what they may be -- are also arbitrary. You became an atheist, agnostic, or theist because you felt like it or because you were raised that way.

There are many perspectives on religious issues; therefore they're all aritrary. (Including this one? But this is a variation on the Epiminides paradox: "This statement is false.")

We get a lot of that in discussions like that. Refutations that destroy the refuter's own position.

---

quote:

---

Ultimately, they do. Call it totally false, but if there's no reason we're here, why care about our fellow man? Loyalty to the herd? Indirect selfishness, as Chris suggested? Well, direct selfishness pays off more for the individual.

---

quote:

---

That's just the thing though, I have never claimed my beliefs to be anything but arbitrary. I fully admitted to the fact that my upbringing, past beliefs, and society, have shaped my idea of what being "good" means.

(I believe the particular post is back in page 4 of this thread.)

I am entirely aware of the fact of how arbitrary my decision is, that doesn't mean that my code of morals is any worse than anyone else's or that it means less than a theist point of view.

---

quote:

---

Conversely, if there's no reason we're here, why care about ourselves? Why should something's paying off for me be a reason for me to do it?

People who say there's an evolutionary reason for being selfish are just misreading evolution. The only thing we have an "evolutionary reason" to do (if that notion even makes sense) is reproduce.

---

quote:

---

One of the things we learn from science is that I'm no different from you, or anyone else, in this way. We all have interests. So my interests don't matter any more than yours do. The world is better when things go better for humans, and when we all have our fair share. That's where morality comes from, and it has nothing to do with God.

---

quote:

---

Problem: if your sense of what "good" is, is arbitrary, doesn't this mean that your judgment (that your sense of "good" is just as good as others') is arbitrary? So a competing belief that your sense of good is not as good would be just as valid.

---

quote:

---

My interests matter to me more than yours do to me. I'm not sure what science brings you to a different conclusion. The world for humans is better when things go well for humans. But...which humans? USA humans? Chinese humans? Zimbabwe humans? What is good for the one is not necessarily good for the other.

---

quote:

---

I was asking why does an atheist do things? I suggested that an atheist does things for two reasons: emotional response, and evolutionary reasons.

---

quote:

---

I contrast this with atheist guy who has physical relationships with girls with no intention of marrying them.

---

*gasp*

All those ruined girls.
 

---

Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 
Sorry for the snarkiness, human, but that last paragraph scans really weirdly to me.
 

---

Posted by human_2.0 (Member # 6006) on :
 
Scans? You mean skim reading? Hm.. I guess it does look odd.
 

---

Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
 

quote:

---

I actually take pride in the fact that my morality is arbitrary. ... It is the constant search for self improvement that drives me to be a better person.

---

This puzzles me. Better, and improved, by what standard? If moral value is arbitrary, it would be just as true to say that your change is for the worse as to say it's for the better. Aren't you measuring these arbitrary moral standards by another non-arbitrary moral standard? If not, does it mean anything to call changing your standard an improvement?

(Not to denigrate your self-improvement; I think it's a worthy goal! -- according to what I consider a non-arbitrary moral standard.)
 

---

Posted by Rico (Member # 7533) on :
 
There is no such thing as a non-arbitrary moral standard, that's my point.

In the end my definition of good can match someone else's definition of evil. Are drugs evil? Is alcohol? Is sex? Isn't it all up to circumstance and the eye of the beholder?

When I say better and improved I say so judging by my standards. Remember, my argument here is that there is no such thing as non-arbitrary moral standards so for me to judge my behavior based on things I don't believe exist would be a bit silly. Perhaps a better question would be this: Why do you consider your standards anything but arbitrary? Do you honestly believe that your definition of morality is the only one that's correct or do you ever see room for self-improvement?

Morality isn't absolute. Take a look at the world around you, do you honestly believe that the people you may consider to be bad or evil think of themselves in these terms?

We are all righteous in our beliefs. Since there is no absolute, the only thing I can do is judge based on what I believe to be right because in the end, that's the only thing I have direct control over. It doesn't mean that my morality is "correct". I admit to the possibility of being wrong and I think that's also part of what makes me good

[ December 19, 2005, 02:42 AM: Message edited by: Rico ]
 

---

Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 
Well said, Rico.
 

---

Posted by Zotto! (Member # 4689) on :
 
I think that every single religion or philosophy is going to be at least partly flat-out incorrect about some aspect of human experience. There isn’t going to be one single moral code that can deal with every variable in every event that occurs in our lives.

I think many of us get stuck because we stop holding the truth in abeyance while we examine an idea and thereby refuse to acknowledge that there are oftentimes many different names for the same thing. Assuming there really is some sort of objective reality that we’re all immersed in, we all look at an event that happens in life and come up with a causal story that imposes a structural order on the experience of living through the event. All our cultures have built story upon story through all the years humans have been able to communicate with each other, and so we all have different viewpoints to look at events from, depending on which community we originate from.

But we oftentimes mistake the story we believe in for the actual reality, when really the story is only one way to look at some particular set of certain aspects of the events in front of us. When we believe our story accounts for everything, we come into conflict with other people who think that their story explains everything. I think this is a mistake, and instead of taking offense when people unsurprisingly don’t fit into our preconceived vision of the world (which automatically shuts down conversation, since they can’t offer alternative viewpoints without “offending” you) we should instead be looking at our beliefs as useful structures that explain many things and allow us the ability to act, but which can and must be altered whenever new information becomes available to us. Not that we should just casually chuck whatever precepts we’ve built our belief structure on, just that we should always strive to reconcile all the information we have into one huge meta-story.

The scientific, biological view of life is a story we tell each other about a certain set of causation we observe in our lives as evolved chimps. The purpose of life in this story is to live and reproduce. This does not contradict the mystical, religious stories we tell ourselves about the purpose of life. It is merely looking at one aspect of the events we’re living through. Just because there is a biological cause of an event doesn’t mean that there isn’t also a just as significant spiritual component to it. If we’re studying the biological aspects of the event, we’re not going to find much evidence for the spiritual, because we’ve decided to focus on one area of causation for the event. Likewise, when we’re searching for spiritual truths, we’re not going to immediately and obviously find a whole lot of scientifically verifiable evidence for it, because we’ve stopped looking at that aspect of the situation. But there are so many causes hidden behind causes hidden behind causes inherent in every second of life that it would be foolish to assume that one perspective is enough to account for everything. There are some things that religions just can’t account for right now, period, just as there are some things that science just can’t deal with yet.

Now, I believe that at some point, the line between spirituality and secular objective science and morality is necessarily going to be blurred, because I think that there must be an objective “scientific” reason for our spirituality and a similar “spiritual” cause for the exact same event. I think that the more we compartmentalize our beliefs, the more useless they become. We should be looking for the reasons everything fits together, not try to fit everything into whatever story we’ve come to believe. For instance, many religious people say they have “feelings” which tell them that they’re experiencing a spiritual moment. The scientist will look at the event and notice that there is a physical cause for the emotion, which is a chemically-induced response in the brain which is stimulated by whatever the religious person was doing, because they had strong pleasant psychological associations with it. That is one structure that we’re fitting the event into. But I would think that the religious person should use this as further proof that their experience was real. Of course there was a real, objective cause for the response. But there was another component to the event, which would be the spiritual aspect. It’s just another name.

The world of spirituality, of ideas and philosophy, they don’t contradict the findings of science; they in fact converge with them, are inextricable from them. Some of us compartmentalize beliefs so much that we’re incapable of seeing an event except from the single lens of our religion or our science. But why does calling a “bad action” a “sin” make it any less scientific than if we called it “informed self-interest”? They’re different names for the same thing, coming at the same event from different perspectives.

The problem arises when a system of organization we have invented does its job with competence at the very least, and some of those within the community of believers forget or never realize that the system is, in itself, nothing more than a collection of stories told from person to person asserting causality and responsibility. The authority of our stories comes not from some divine power in heaven, but from the collective acceptance of the people who believe in the story enough to act on it, since people have no authority except that which other people bestow upon them.

The current political and divisive religious climate is such that our systems of organizations are being led and advertised by loudly vocal people who believe in their personal community’s story so much that they think that anyone who does not believe the same story is fundamentally and extremely wrong, even dangerous to their way of life and the integrity of their self-story. Because they are afraid of the strangeness inherent in a differing belief system, they twist the story of individual conscience and free will by asserting that the people who disagree with them have not gone through the exact same process of searching for meaningful causative stories that they have.

"I'm right, and anyone who disagrees with me must, by definition, be either an idiot, or uneducated.” We call them bigots, we call them racists, we call them Devils or Fundamentalists. We call them Republicans, we call them Liberals or Democrats, but what we are really doing is naming people who disagree with us with an exclusionary term denoting them to be of a different community which is then used as a scapegoat to cut off any attempt at communication or compromise. Once someone has been determined to be of another tribe, no one leaves the issue of truth in abeyance to examine their actual ideas before denouncing the person who holds such an idea as being off their proverbial rocker and unworthy of continued conversation.

But there is no “them”. It’s easy to turn people who disagree with us into a faceless mob of unintelligible “others”, a vast conspiracy of aliens in human form, but they are in fact only people who believe something different from us. It’s easy to look at our “opponents” and decide that the only ones on the other team who are “good” are the ones that conform to our personal idiosyncratic definition of the term, rather than evaluating their character based on whatever moral system they themselves follow. It’s easy to stifle honest dialogue by taking needless offense and thereby effectively ending conversation, or framing everything as a “debate”, with clear winners and losers, rather than the much more important but by far more challenging exchange of differing perspectives without rancor.

Rationalizing our animalistic tribalism, intellectualizing it, padding it with the psychobabble that we've learned from bad television writing and pretentious books, it makes it so being part of a group that is being oppressed by the big, scary conspiracy of Republicans or Liberals or Religious Nuts or Athiestic Communists is a badge of honor, something that is meant to be seen as tragic and ennobling by the others around us, a sacred story that we believe in because there is a certain unassailable moral superiority to playing the victim.

Endlessly talking or writing about the inherent evilness of our opponents doesn’t actually help solve the problems. Writing up strawman arguments and propaganda in place of honestly and earnestly discussing areas of moral ambiguity merely supports our personal sacred story by subtly implying that all the histrionics we put ourselves through are worthy of being written down, enshrined on the paper for all time, detritus gleaned from our lofty brows that is meant to be worshiped by the lowly Others who are loved in return only in proportion to the empirically-measured amount that they agree with us. We’re merely babbling to ourselves; clarifying our ideas, no doubt, but nevertheless still forcing others to abide within the strict confines of our interpretation of their actions.

Our preconcieved notions about what a person is like based not on the evidence in front of us but by their affiliation with a different group or religion might be pleasing to our egos, but it has nothing to do with the reality, which might very well be unpleasant, but which will have the distinct advantage of being real.

This is why I believe religions have done no more and no less harm than any other thought system, and can actually be beneficial to the believers. In every culture, in every system of thought, there are going to be moral dead-ends, mistakes, blatant masturbatory rationalizations for twisting stories into justifications for evil personal actions. But we shouldn’t separate what we learn from religion from what we learn from science; they’re both trying to structure reality based on almost hopelessly inaccurate or incomplete information, due to the fact that it is so hard for our human brains, constrained by our hideously inadequate senses, to comprehend the whole of existence. So I don’t think that secular culture is any “better” than religious culture, I think that they merely define things differently and have different problems that spring up from the assumptions that their community is founded on. I do believe that eventually we’ll find that one belief structure or another is more “correct” than the others, and has the best definitions of “good” and “evil” for humans, and if some secularists or religious people think that their structure is that correct way, I can only hope to learn from them. I think that with new advances made in our understanding of the world, ever-changing moral situations will come up that have never been dealt with before, and we need to use every bit of information we have, religious and scientific both, to discover reliable belief structures so that we can have the freedom to act and choose to live our lives the way we believe we should.

[ December 19, 2005, 06:22 AM: Message edited by: Zotto! ]
 

---

Posted by human_2.0 (Member # 6006) on :
 
My little story of the 2 guys illustrates my belief. You can have 2 different people and one of them can be more moral in many people's eyes, the guy who abstains from sex, but in reality he is very amoral as his behavior is more destructive than the guy who is "wasting so many girls".

I think hurting other people on purpose is not relative and is non-arbitrary. There is a black and white.

And there are a lot of people who will go to the ends of the earth to camouflage their behavior so that it doesn't appear that they are hurting other people on purpose, but they really are.

I think the whole guy thing saying to spouses, "I cheated on you because I couldn't help it, because I was weak, and you know I'm a guy and guys can't control their hormones, but I didn't really want to hurt you," is just an elaborate camouflage perpetuated by guys and girls who don't want to admit the guy they love deliberately hurt them. "Boys will be boys" is a lie. Not all boys needlessly hurt the women in their world.

But I also believe that the same behavior does not mean the same degree of intended hurt. A guy who cheats and comes from a culture that is very strong on being faithful and treating women fairly is much worse than a guy who cheats but whose culture just isn't very strong on being faithful. Yeah, this is relative, but it admits that both behaviors are bad, but that one is certainly worse because of motive.

So people that know the difference between good and bad have more ability to be good and bad. But someone who honestly does not have strong good or bad values is not as bad if they choose to do bad things. Knowing if someone really has those values is always a mystery, and at least my religion claims that God knows everyones' hearts and will judge them according to what their motives were.

I think the law even agrees with this on crimes. There are various degrees of murder, and the division between them is the motive of the perpetrator.

And I think the law draws the line that anything that hurts another person past a certain degree is a crime, like stealing their property, libel, murder, etc.

How can anyone say that hurting another person intentionally isn't bad?

And many times it seems to me that people in my culture, American culture, are constantly trying to change my culture so that bad behavior of the past is no longer bad. Certainly "free love" fits this category. And they justify it by saying that we've exposed and done away with so many accepted bad culture behaviors from the past like slavery, the restrictions on sex is another one of those bad culture behaviors and it must be done away with. I don't agree.

To me they are trading one culturally accepted destructive and hurtful behavoir and trying to replace it by making another culturally unaccepted destrucive and hurtful behavoir acceptable. In the end, they have ballanced the scales and society hasn't improved at all. And it is probable they have made more bad behavoirs acceptable than they have eliminated previously acceptable bad behavior.

By bad, I mean intentionally hurtful. For these people, they know it is wrong. For the generation that grows up in the culture that was created for them, they have less of a conviction that their culture is wrong, and they aren't to be blamed as much as the people who created the culture.

And it applies for both slavery and sex. The people who started slavery in USA are much more guilty than the people who just went along with what everyone else was doing. And the people who fought to keep slavery in the face of everyone telling them it was wrong, are much more guilty than the people who just went along with what everyone else was doing.

Certianly neither of them was noble. But motive matters.

And that makes people who are trying to manipulate our modern culture to make it more acceptable to hurt other people, or pave the way for it to be acceptable down the road, are fully guilty of hurting other people. And that is what I think the article that started this thread is attempting to do by attacking one institution that tries to do good to people (with admittedly a spotty record, but it is does a good enough job IMO).

Sorry for the long rant. I just don't get how anyone can say there is no good or bad.

[ December 19, 2005, 06:35 AM: Message edited by: human_2.0 ]
 

---

Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by human_2.0:
Mormon leaders have said the real trials of faith come when they are blessed with abundance (money, safety, and security), because then you don't have fear dictating your every move.

Mormons actually believe the plan of salvation according to Satan is: make everyone behave using any means possible, especially fear.

---

quote:

---

Why do you consider your standards anything but arbitrary?

---

quote:

---

Do you honestly believe that your definition of morality is the only one that's correct or do you ever see room for self-improvement?

---

quote:

---

Morality isn't absolute. Take a look at the world around you, do you honestly believe that the people you may consider to be bad or evil think of themselves in these terms?

---

quote:

---

Since there is no absolute, the only thing I can do is judge based on what I believe to be right because in the end, that's the only thing I have direct control over. It doesn't mean that my morality is "correct". I admit to the possibility of being wrong and I think that's also part of what makes me good

---

quote:

---

please don't pigeonhole atheism by saying it goes naturally with the idea that there's no absolute morality

---

quote:

---

If there's no truth about what's right and wrong, how could it be possible for you to be wrong about it?

---

You're using "right" and "wrong" differently within the same sentence. In other words, you're using "wrong" to mean "something we should not do" AND "factually incorrect" at the same time, and you probably shouldn't.
 

---

Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
 
That's how I intended it, Tom. I probably should've used two different words, but replace the second instance of 'wrong' with 'mistaken and you get:

quote:

---

If there's no truth about what's right and wrong, how could it be possible for you to be mistaken about it?

---

quote:

---

Do you honestly believe that your definition of morality is the only one that's correct or do you ever see room for self-improvement?

---

quote:

---

Morality isn't absolute. Take a look at the world around you, do you honestly believe that the people you may consider to be bad or evil think of themselves in these terms?

---

quote:

---

If there's no truth about what's right and wrong, how could it be possible for you to be mistaken about it?

---

Well, for one thing, if you believe there IS a truth about what's right and wrong, and there ISN'T one, you're mistaken.
 

---

Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
 
You're being a bit obtuse here. I'm saying that it's impossible to believe that

a) There's no right answer to moral questions.

b) I could be wrong about some moral questions.

That's what Rico said, and I claim that it's self-contradictory.
 

---

Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 

quote:

---

An atheist moral code relies on our natural sense of empathy and fairness. We have the ability to understand others, and learning what is "moral" means considering the the physical and emotional impact of your actions. Instead of learning what behavior is moral through the application and enforcement of rules, this morality fosters an understanding of the whys behind acceptable behavior.

(snip)

For example, look at sexual relationships. Where (I would say) religion-based morality leads to the prevalence of abstinence-only sex-ed, an atheist would look at the issue entirely differently. We recognize the complexity of sexual relationships and the consequences of specific sexual actions, but we do not outright reject premarital sex, because there is no moral authority to say that that is always the "right" thing to do. Instead, we recognize that marriages provide many great benefits, especially the stability that is so important when children become involved. Atheists recognize that sex can be fun and enriching outside of marriage as well, and when people spend their time thinking about the consequences of their actions, they generally make decent choices. Athiest morality wouldn't lead to less premarital sex, but that wouldn't be the goal. Without an authoritarian moral framework, one is free to rationally examine all possibilities for action and choose the one that best matches his or her individual situation.

This morality doesn't make the claim that it knows best for everybody. It recognizes some universal human goals, such as peace and understanding, and it trusts us to make our own choices to bring those goals about.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quidscribis:

quote:

---

Originally posted by human_2.0:
Mormon leaders have said the real trials of faith come when they are blessed with abundance (money, safety, and security), because then you don't have fear dictating your every move.

Mormons actually believe the plan of salvation according to Satan is: make everyone behave using any means possible, especially fear.

---

Where do you get that from? I gotta tell you, I've been going to and been a member of the LDS church for decades, and never have I heard either of those things said, nor do I believe them.

It is true that our leaders have warned us against the sin of pride, and we do believe that Satan proposed a plan that involved him making all of us behave. But neither of those statements involve fear. That would be your own conclusion you're adding.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zotto!:
Edit: this was responding to human, not quid.

Edit #2: Rereading your post, I think I totally misunderstood you when I typed this one. Sigh. I'll leave it up, tho.

Hm. I hope you don't think I'm one of the people saying that there is no good or bad.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Destineer:
You're being a bit obtuse here. I'm saying that it's impossible to believe that

a) There's no right answer to moral questions.

b) I could be wrong about some moral questions.

That's what Rico said, and I claim that it's self-contradictory.

---

quote:

---

But Destineer, what if someone says, "I don't care that we shouldn't do this; I'm going to do it anyway."? Demonstrating to them that it's true we shouldn't do this isn't going to make them change their mind, because they just said they don't care about that.

---

quote:

---

I may be doing something I think is right, but when someone presents me with new information I can take that new info and merge it with my existing belief.

---

quote:

---

I don't know all the facts, I can't see all the perspectives and I certainly haven't thought about everything there is to think about. I don't believe my definition of good is wrong right now, but if someone comes to me with new information that upon analysis leads me to believe my actions were incorrect in the past, I'd be morally inclined to fixing my behavior so that it once again matches my definition of "good".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by human_2.0:
If religions' definition is destroyed, what is to stop people from destroying society's definitions? You can see the consequences of this in Nazi Germany, where it became acceptable to intentionally hurt Jews.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ssywak:
The goal, I thought, was to recognize the reality of morals and ethics as they have existed over time, and as they exist now, and then see how they might be adjusted to work better.

---

quote:

---

I don't think many people think of themselves as evil. I don't get the connection of that to morality being absolute. I think you may be talking about the issue of personal worth, whereas I was talking about standards of right and wrong action.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rico:
Easy example: Abortion.

Do you honestly believe that the people for either side of the argument think that what they're doing is "wrong"? If this were true, it wouldn't be an issue.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by human_2.0:
Some people make wrong things easier to do by rationalizing them, making them no longer "wrong". I call this lying to oneself and think everyone does it.

---

quote:

---

I have my own standards of right and wrong, but I don't insist that they are 100% correct and if new information comes to light that I didn't know or think about before, I'm likely to make some alterations to my beliefs.

---

quote:

---

Again, I'm judging right and wrong based on the things that shaped my current morality. I have my own standards of right and wrong, but I don't insist that they are 100% correct and if new information comes to light that I didn't know or think about before, I'm likely to make some alterations to my beliefs.

How is that not relative?

---

quote:

---

Therefore, what's good for you also makes the world better, so I have to consider your interests as well as my own. The same goes for everyone alive.

---

quote:

---

I disagree. There are all sorts of things that I do for other reasons besides these two. When I do a math problem, do I get the right answer for evolutionary reasons? Only in a very indirect sense, because it was evolutionarily useful that my ancestors be able to understand math. There's a better way of explaining why I get the right result: because it's true, and my way of discovering mathematical truths is reliable.

---

quote:

---

Now think about a moral situation; say I'm deciding whether to betray my friend. Just like in the mathematical situation, I use my faculties -- in this case, my sense of empathy for my friend and my notion of duty -- to reach an answer. The right answer.

---

quote:

---

These moral faculties, empathy and sense of duty, are evolved faculties, I grant. And in some ways they evolved imperfectly -- for example, I have a much stronger natural sense of duty for my neighbors than for people in China, even though I know the Chinese people matter just as much. But overall my moral faculties are reliable, and where they're not I can correct them by learning more about ethics. Moral knowledge is not so different from any other sort of knowledge.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by pH:

quote:

---

Originally posted by human_2.0:
Some people make wrong things easier to do by rationalizing them, making them no longer "wrong". I call this lying to oneself and think everyone does it.

---

That's pretty harsh, there. So it's entirely impossible that some people don't believe that abortion is automatically wrong?

I'd really like to see this arbitrary moral code of yours entirely written out so that I can figure out how often I lie to myself, O Great Moral Leader.

-pH

---

quote:

---

I could be the one lying to myself you know. Not like I'm trying to slam everyone out there.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rico:

quote:

---

I could be the one lying to myself you know. Not like I'm trying to slam everyone out there.

---

So... doesn't that just prove the point I was trying to make?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by pH:
I think that if a person "doesn't know" that doing X is wrong, then it's not wrong for that person.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by human_2.0:
at least what they can get away with in their culture and by nullifiying their own guilt by lying to themselves to make it go away. I would label blowing up abortion clinics in this category.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ssywak:
Besides, what's wrong with taking the "power" to define morals away from religion?

---

quote:

---

Currently, I really do not like the particular brand of religion that the current Republican administration is using to define morality.[/QB]

---

I think their answer to evolution is... stupid too. And they do push the bounds of being a police state. I don't want to really take this into politics, since I would lose that discussion quickly...

quote:

---

There are other questions to ask, besides:
...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by pH:
It sounds like a huge contradiction for you to say, "Well, if you don't know it's wrong, then it's not wrong" but also say, "There is an objective moral code that can be applied universally."

---

quote:

---

Who is defining morals if religions don't? Media outlets? Universities? Politcial leaders? Hollywood? I'm much less fond of any of these sources than any religion I can think of.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by pH:
What does it say about the people of Jaslkfh if they don't believe him? They've been informed. Are they all sinners now because they won't wear red tophats?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by pH:

quote:

---

Who is defining morals if religions don't? Media outlets? Universities? Politcial leaders? Hollywood? I'm much less fond of any of these sources than any religion I can think of.

---

Than any religion YOU LIKE that you can think of.

I can think of many ancient religions that you would claim violated this objective moral code.

-pH

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by human_2.0:
In the absense of religion or religious unity, you got the great thinkers like the ones who came up with the US Constitution.

---

quote:

---

And it wasn't life long and their childern were not put in slavery either.

---

So ... what was the deal with Moses and the Pharaoh, then?
 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
Comrade human, you speak nonsense. In the first place, the main source of slaves (by the time of the New Testament) was wars. In the second place, the children of slaves were indeed slaves.
 

---

Posted by human_2.0 (Member # 6006) on :
 
I don't think the Pharaoh read the scriptures... or liked them anyway. Not too sure the whole law of Moses thing was around then either... However, Moses did kill a man...
 

---

Posted by human_2.0 (Member # 6006) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by King of Men:
Comrade human, you speak nonsense. In the first place, the main source of slaves (by the time of the New Testament) was wars. In the second place, the children of slaves were indeed slaves.

---

quote:

---

Ah so; that does not explain why most Christians are so down on homosexuality; the prohibition against men lying with men appears in Leviticus. Jesus says nothing about it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ssywak:
But seriously, I know that homosexuality is bad because the Bible tells me so.

---

quote:

---

And as to the discussion of specific moral codes, well, if you're going to claim "We are absolutely right, and everyone else is wrong," then you should be prepared to defend yourself.

---

I'm curious as to what such a defense would consist of.

The only way to debate moral codes is by an appeal to shared values. This may be easily seen. If I say that my moral code is better than yours because it allows more personal freedom, the argument will only carry weight if both you and I value personal freedom.

What I see quite a bit of on this thread is attacking moral codes in the places where they do not overlap. Such an argument can get nowhere. Such subtext as "Your moral code is dumb because it depends on the Bible while my moral code is great because it does not" is ridiculous.

Even the modern day belief that different moral codes work best for different people requires a few important underlying beliefs. Things such as the idea that being able to choose your morals is more important than the specific morals you choose (Choice is the cardinal virtue) with the corollary that coercion of any sort is inherently bad. If the person being debated does not agree with these basic assumptions to some degree then the discussion can only be a bash fest.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
Different specific rules for different cultures does not necessarily mean that the different cultures in question have different moral codes. Almost any moral code recognizes the importance of circumstance in specific rules. For example, "it's not wrong to have sex; it's wrong to have sex with someone other than your spouse."

Culture can be a circumstance. For example, some people believe standards of dress are more related to charity than chastity. It's not necessarily immoral for a woman to walk around topless in some cultures, whereas in some cultures it is. These are different specific rules. But, if the actual moral rule is that dress which shocks the generally prevalent sensibilities of the expected viewer should be avoided, then neither culture is following a different rule.

This cannot explain all differences in specific rules, of course, and it requires a formulation of the actual principle, not the specific rule manifested because of the principle. But there are many cases where this is true.
 

---

Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
 
Dagonee- I agree.
 

---

Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
 
My only point was that there are absolutely no "absolute" moral codes. Period. It's all relative (or, as others have said, "arbitrary")
 

---

Posted by human_2.0 (Member # 6006) on :
 
But isn't that an absolute?
 

---

Posted by human_2.0 (Member # 6006) on :
 
My point is that hurting other people intentionally for personal gratification, like theft, is wrong, no matter what culture you come from. If doing this is part of the culture norm, then that culture has very bad morals.

I agree when cultures clash that there are other things that determine what is right and wrong, and perhaps right and wrong don't even apply anymore, it is politics.

For example, if a visiting dignitary whose culture norm is to go topless visits a place where going topless is immodest, the behavior of the dignitary is more likely to be political based rather than moral based, as the dignitary can choose which culture to yield to and likely neither would be wrong.

However, vise versa is interesting though. AFAIK, cultures that really do go topless haven't minded Westerners who wear tops. But that Westerner will never belong as the Westerner's wearing of tops is a reminder to the culture that the Westerner thinks that the culture is doing something wrong, or at least can't accept their version of right and wrong.
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
ssywak's not asserting there are no absolutes, merely that no moral code is absolute. His statement is not moral, it is at best meta-moral.

As for your example of hurting people intentionally, perhaps you have not watched Football lately? Even if the game is played without fouls, people most definitely get hurt. Of course, they view that hurt as acceptable, but presumably so would those people receiving it in a moral system where some other form of hurt was considered morally ok .
 

---

Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
 
Yeah, Human. That's the joke.
 

---

Posted by human_2.0 (Member # 6006) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by fugu13:
As for your example of hurting people intentionally, perhaps you have not watched Football lately?

---

Ok. Um. I guess I would change it to "intentionally hurt where the hurt isn't wanted"... ?

Let me explain why I'm sticking with this definition. First, our culture has "wrongs" that even I consider stupid. But in none of those would I consder them to actually hurt someone intentionally. In fact, racism and sexism are examples of not just stupid accepted morals, but bad morals because they do hurt people.

Second, I never want to see a moral code that allows people to intentionally hurt other people or makes it easier for people to get away with hurting others.

Redefining morals feels like moving towards that end. I haven't thought much about why (don't have time now). Maybe irrational fear.

I know getting rid of racism and sexism are good examples of why we should redefine morals. But there are signs that things are being pushed too far. like making it a cultural norm that belief in God is actually damaging, which is the push of many people (author of article) who want to redefine morals.

Well, the idea just occured to me that the people who will get hurt are religious people. It isn't like religion hasn't been the target of many people. Usually it comes from other religions, and as such the Constitution has been set up to protect those types of attacks.

But I don't think the Constitution has words in it to protect religions from the types of attacks that non-religious people (who were not very numberous when the Constitution was written AFAIK) can perform. I suppose I could say the opposite is true too. It doesn't protect atheists from religious people..

Anyway, that is what is ticking my thoughts. I'm not a Constitutional expert, so don't take my comments as something based in actual knowledge, just speculation.
 

---

Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
 
Me: ...in deciding whether your moral standard is correct, what measure of validity will you use?

Rico: The values I have acquired over time and what I was raised with.

So you are using your values to judge your values. You will find that they match perfectly -- of course! So improvement is not logically possible. You can't get any closer to a set of values than that set of values itself!

The reason I can imagine an improvement in my set of values is that I believe there is an external set, which I know only imperfectly, which is valid. Mine isn't it, but it's as close as I know how to make it, for now.

That is, absolutism allows for the possibility of improvement; relativism makes "improvement" meaningless.

[ December 20, 2005, 08:16 PM: Message edited by: Will B ]
 

---

Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
 

quote:

---

I'm curious as to what such a defense would consist of.

The only way to debate moral codes is by an appeal to shared values.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ssywak:
An absolute moral code is one that comes from an (allegedly) external source. Typically, that external source is presented as being, to some degree or interpretation, "perfect." Fundamentalists present "God" as the source of their absolute moral values. An absolute moral code, then allows for NO improvement. It starts and finishes as being perfect. Any "imperfections" are thought of as misinterpretations, or attributed to the (supposed) limits on human knowledge.

---

Another way of looking at it is that the perfect external source wants us to figure as much out on our own as we can and gives us enough information to make morals enough that we wont kill each other in a few days, but leaves things vague enough that we are really flexible with the morals, showing exactly what type of people we choose to be.
 

---

Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
 
It sounds to me like the belief in God is far less damaging than the belief that certain books and/or churches give the infallible Word of God and must be followed absolutely to govern all our behavior.
 

---

Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
 
"various absolute moral codes"

something odd about that phrase...
 

---

Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 

quote:

---

Any "imperfections" are thought of as misinterpretations, or attributed to the (supposed) limits on human knowledge. Review the previous posts re. the Old and New Testament's take on slavery. You'll find apologies, denials ("Never did like the Old Testament, anyway"), and changing the subject.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ssywak:
"various absolute moral codes"

something odd about that phrase...

---

quote:

---

A primary criticism of moral absolutism regards how we come to know what the "absolute" morals are. The authorities that are quoted as sources of absolute morality are all subject to human interpretation, and multiple views abound on them. For morals to be truly absolute, they would have to have a universally unquestioned source, interpretation and authority. Therefore, so critics say, there is no conceivable source of such morals, and none can be called "absolute". So even if there are absolute morals, there will never be universal agreement on just what those morals are, making them by definition unknowable.

---

quote:

---

Second, I never want to see a moral code that allows people to intentionally hurt other people or makes it easier for people to get away with hurting others.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ssywak:
And what good are morals that are inherently unknowable? (And unquestionable, too?)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ssywak:
Human,

quote:

---

Second, I never want to see a moral code that allows people to intentionally hurt other people or makes it easier for people to get away with hurting others.

---

See any recent legal documents written by Alberto Gonzalez, or listen to any recent complaints by Dick Cheney.

--Steve (SSMS: 8.2)

---

quote:

---

An absolute moral code, then allows for NO improvement.

---

quote:

---

On the other hand, a relative moral stance acknowledges that morality is developed by humans, for humans, and as such may (and will) change as societies change.

---

quote:

---

It may be corrected where it is found lacking

---

quote:

---

I'm saying that if there is an absolute moral code, then *my* moral code can improve.

.....

Something that is neither right nor wrong can't be corrected. It can't be lacking.

---

quote:

---

Where people who do not believe in moral absolutes speak of improvements to moral codes, they speak of fairer, more predictive, more beneficial codes, not ones that are closer to a hypothetical ideal. It is certainly possible, even in a universe lacking absolute morality, for some moral codes to be better in some situations than others.

---

quote:

---

An absolute moral code is one that comes from an (allegedly) external source.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tresopax:
This is precisely why the failure to believe in an absolute morality leads to self-righteousnesss and an unwillingness to refine one's moral beliefs... because if there is no absolute morality against which to judge your morality then your morality is infallible, no matter what it says.

---

quote:

---

How can one moral code be "better" than any other if there is no absolute moral truth with which to determine what is "better"? Why is fairer better? Why is "effective" better?

---

quote:

---

"Cheat everyone you can without getting caught" is pretty effective for that.

---

The question here is "what are you attempting to achieve by cheating?" If there are other options which are more effective at achieving this goal and less detrimental in other ways, an ethical system built around this concept is seriously flawed.
 

---

Posted by human_2.0 (Member # 6006) on :
 
You mean, it is more effective to build and grow by cooperating, rather than by cheating? What if the person's goal was to destroy everything?
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
Then there are probably better ways to do that, if that's really a goal. Although I don't think that's the case.

In general, DOING things -- like cheating, or cooperating, or destroying things -- isn't the focus of a code of ethics. Rather, the decision to do or not do something springs from a higher-order appeal to an ideal of some sort. If, for example, someone believes that the world is a distracting illusion preventing us from realizing our true potential as spirit beings, he might well choose to put that ideal into practice by attempting to destroy everything. But he might not.
 

---

Posted by human_2.0 (Member # 6006) on :
 
Abner Doon
 

---

Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
 
"Treso,

Has anyone, thoughout recorded history, ever posited an "Absolute Moral Code" as you described without refering it to some ultimate being or source (or...God)?"

Sswyak-
I have. I spent about 18 months battling with David Bowles here about morality.
 

---

Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
 
Rather than me asking all the questions that I'm sure you've already answered...you got a link?
 

---

Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
 
*Shrug* I don't know how to find stuff on hatrack from 2001-2002. So no, I don't.
 

---

Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
 
So what did you base your Absolute Moral Code on, then?

Actually, is that even a question...considering we're talking about an "Absolute" moral code???
 

---

Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
 
My claim was that, given intelligence, there would be a single code of behavior that could be derived through logic and science that would minimize harmful conflict while not hindering positive interaction.
 

---

Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
 
How close did you come to finding it?

(Keeps thinking...Prime Directive)
 

---

Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
 
Why should i actually have to find it? My argument was simply that there IS one. I think there is a strong chain of logic that leads to the statement I made, and so its reasonable, even if I can't fill in all the details.

David also convinced me that there are better terms for the above then "absolute morality."
 

---

Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
 
All this about benefiting society begs the question. Why should I want to benefit society? When you answer that, you appeal to another moral standard.
 

---

Posted by Omega M. (Member # 7924) on :
 
I don't see why you would want to benefit society if it wouldn't benefit you yourself in some way.
 

---