A Fine Example of Theocracy Indeed

Sam Vimes

Zillah wrote: »

Maybe, just maybe atheists got the idea that Christians think the Bible is the source of morality because Christians constantly assert this. Now you can claim that they shouldn't, but they do, all the time. You can probably find a hundred posts on this very forum where some Christian has argued that the Bible is the source of our morality, and that without it we'd all be raping savages (and that I as an atheist am no better).

Another good point. You don't have to look very far, CDfm is asserting it right now, although isn't going as far as to say we'd be raping each other without it.

Sam Vimes

Think about it this way CDfm: You acknowledge that people are perfectly capable of being moral and ethical without the bible.

Firstly, that eliminates the bible as the source of morality because people have it who have not read the bible

And secondly, what is so fundamentally wrong with christians that they need a book to tell them right from wrong when everyone else can decide perfectly well on their own?

robindch

CDfm wrote: »

If everything was genetic we would come out of the womb walking

You mean, like most other animals do?

CDfm wrote: »

and talking

Difficult to learn to speak underwater. You could kind of see why kids would leave it until they start to breathe air.

CDfm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Think about it this way CDfm: You acknowledge that people are perfectly capable of being moral and ethical without the bible

It means thats fine for most areas.

Firstly, that eliminates the bible as the source of morality because people have it who have not read the bible

And secondly, what is so fundamentally wrong with christians that they need a book to tell them right from wrong when everyone else can decide perfectly well on their own?

Not all.

Sam Vimes

CDfm wrote: »

It means thats fine for most areas.

Which area is it not fine for? Which areas of morality are exclusive to christians?

CDfm wrote: »

Not all.

And all christians always believe and behave morally? I don't think it's ever been shown that christians are less likely to go to jail

I would have no doubt that the majority of christians have moral beliefs but the vast majority of people have moral beliefs regardless of which particular god they believe in or whether they believe in a god at all

CDfm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Which area is it not fine for? Which areas of morality are exclusive to christians?

Confession:D

And all christians always believe and behave morally? I don't think it's ever been shown that christians are less likely to go to jail

I believe you find lots on Death Row in the US.

Sam Vimes

CDfm wrote: »

I believe you find lots on Death Row in the US.

Exactly! Believing in your particular god has never been shown to make people more moral. The reality is that most people are good and some are bad regardless of religion, as would be expected in a world where morality comes from genetics and society

CDfm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Exactly! Believing in your particular god has never been shown to make people more moral. The reality is that most people are good and some are bad regardless of religion, as would be expected in a world where morality comes from genetics and society

So is your point that religion is morally neutral. So it shouldnt bother you if people are religious or not.

Sam Vimes

CDfm wrote: »

So is your point that religion is morally neutral. So it shouldnt bother you if people are religious or not.

Not exactly. I subscribe to the idea "some people are good and some are bad but for good people to do bad things you need religion". Think of the 9/11 highjackers and to a lesser extent the fact that a lot of muslims think it's right to support them. These people are not inherently bad but they think it's what their god wants

Or this guy who was taken by the authorities from his jewish parents because his maid baptised him as a baby when he was sick. She thought it was the right thing to do and the authorities did too, because their natural sense of morality was being corrupted by their religion

Believing that you get your morality from religion is dangerous because you can be made do things that go against your own sense of morality or have a warped sense because you think it's what the imaginary sky fairy wants. You personally don't do that because you have overruled the parts that don't fit with your natural morality but not everyone does this. An awful lot subscribe to the "it's right because god wants it" school of thought and fail to overrule those parts. Even your natural sense is warped to an extent because you don't even think you have it and you think you need this book to tell you right from wrong. Well you don't!
You're moral all on your own

Getting your morality from the bible is at best completely unnecessary and at worst harmful

Sam Vimes

Honestly CDfm, I'd say I share 99% of the same morality as you, except for the explicitly god related things like confession. Do you think I'm so much of a better person than you that I managed to figure out God's perfect morality all on my own but you'd be a homo hating, intolerant, unforgiving bastard if you didn't have this magical book to tell you right from wrong?

CDfm

Sam at this point in the week my head hurts.

CDfm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Honestly CDfm, I'd say I share 99% of the same morality as you, except for the explicitly god related things like confession. Do you think I'm so much of a better person than you that I managed to figure out God's perfect morality all on my own but you'd be a homo hating, intolerant, unforgiving bastard if you didn't have this magical book to tell you right from wrong?

No of course not. Id say we agree on most things but maybe we arrive at some of our conclusions differently.

Sam Vimes

CDfm wrote: »

No of course not. Id say we agree on most things but maybe we arrive at some of our conclusions differently.

Maybe we do. I decide something is moral if it doesn't hurt others and you decide that something is moral if it doesn't hurt others and if the sky fairy also approves of it. Unless you take beliefs from the sky fairy that do hurt others I don't see any difference between the way we arrive at our decisions other than you're giving someone else the credit tbh

Húrin

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Not exactly. I subscribe to the idea "some people are good and some are bad but for good people to do bad things you need religion". Think of the 9/11 highjackers and to a lesser extent the fact that a lot of muslims think it's right to support them. These people are not inherently bad but they think it's what their god wants

Or this guy who was taken by the authorities from his jewish parents because his maid baptised him as a baby when he was sick. She thought it was the right thing to do and the authorities did too, because their natural sense of morality was being corrupted by their religion

Believing that you get your morality from religion is dangerous because you can be made do things that go against your own sense of morality or have a warped sense because you think it's what the imaginary sky fairy wants. You personally don't do that because you have overruled the parts that don't fit with your natural morality but not everyone does this. An awful lot subscribe to the "it's right because god wants it" school of thought and fail to overrule those parts. Even your natural sense is warped to an extent because you don't even think you have it and you think you need this book to tell you right from wrong. Well you don't!
You're moral all on your own

Getting your morality from the bible is at best completely unnecessary and at worst harmful

In other words, people who do good due to religion (say Martin Luther King Jr) would be doing that good anyway, but that people who do bad due to religion would not be doing bad things anyway. Do you not see how biased and unconvincing this argument is?

As you say, people do good and bad things. But it is doing bad things that causes us to label some people as "bad people". The "good people doing bad things" are in fact mostly just "bad people". Otherwise you would have to accept the mirror statement that religion causes bad people to do good things.

Zillah wrote: »

I'm not even talking about history chica, as I've explained in detail before, we can see even now the legacy of vapid thoughts and small minded bigotry religion has left in it's wake.

You made a sweeping statement about history.

What exactly is false about it? Religion makes baseless and unfalsifiable claims about the nature of the universe and actively encourages belief without reason. That is absolute anti-science.

History teaches us that science emerged from cultures which believed in a rational God who created the universe, thus it was expected to have uniform laws. It is culturally and historically ignorant to think that the rise of science had nothing to do with Christianity, or that science has been suppressed mercilessly by all Christians everywhere. But that's what I see written and refuted time and again on this forum.

I'm sorry, you must be thinking of different arguments, and a different forum, and a different poster.

No I'm not. I'm highlighting the simplistic antitheist sloganeering that you usually engage in.

Well ok I'll concede the hate thing. Don't forget scorn, derision and contempt too.

It's quite silly that you think that adding more hate will somehow reduce the amount of suffering and bigotry in the world.

Maybe, just maybe atheists got the idea that Christians think the Bible is the source of morality because Christians constantly assert this. Now you can claim that they shouldn't, but they do, all the time.

Christians do not assert that there was nobody behaving morally before the Bible was written. Most of them seem to follow the same line that Lewis followed.

Sam Vimes

Húrin wrote: »

In other words, people who do good due to religion (say Martin Luther King Jr) would be doing that good anyway, but that people who do bad due to religion would not be doing bad things anyway. Do you not see how biased and unconvincing this argument is?

That's not exactly what I said. Lots of people will do bad would do it regardless of religion regardless of religion.

Húrin wrote: »

As you say, people do good and bad things. But it is doing bad things that causes us to label some people as "bad people". The "good people doing bad things" are in fact mostly just "bad people". Otherwise you would have to accept the mirror statement that religion causes bad people to do good things.

But people who do bad things are often not bad people, they're just misguided, in most cases by religion or that other major world problem, patriotism. If someone is a bad person then telling them all about morality is not going to stop them being a bad person. The best you can hope is that fear of hell makes them not to bad things but that's not morality, that's fear. The one thing religion can do is make a good person do a bad thing by convincing him it's good

Basically religion cannot make a bad person good or make a good person bad but it can make a good person do bad by convincing them it's good and it can make bad people do good through fear. Both motivations are irrational and not actually moral.

I think it's better to talk about the reasons why something is good or bad, that should be enough. When you say something should be done because it's what god wants you're actually removing free will and tricking people into behaving in ways that are against their nature. They will do things that they would not normally do because they think it's what a higher power wants. For something to be called moral it should be able to stand on it's own merits without putting the authority of the creator of the universe behind it, an example being: don't kill makes sense regardless of god but telling women not to wear revealing clothing only works if you invoke the sky fairy and so should not be considered part of morality

CDfm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Another good point. You don't have to look very far, CDfm is asserting it right now, although isn't going as far as to say we'd be raping each other without it.

Well I havent said that or even infered it.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Maybe we do. I decide something is moral if it doesn't hurt others and you decide that something is moral if it doesn't hurt others and if the sky fairy also approves of it. Unless you take beliefs from the sky fairy that do hurt others I don't see any difference between the way we arrive at our decisions other than you're giving someone else the credit tbh

Not really true as moral is whats ethically right and wrong and you inately are aware of that and the essence of God is what is right . A moral act can be moral whether or not there is God.I really dont get your whole argument of what the basis of your moral beliefs are and how they are arrived at.

Zillah

Húrin wrote: »

History teaches us that science emerged from cultures which believed in a rational God who created the universe, thus it was expected to have uniform laws. It is culturally and historically ignorant to think that the rise of science had nothing to do with Christianity, or that science has been suppressed mercilessly by all Christians everywhere. But that's what I see written and refuted time and again on this forum.

There had to be a point at which a culture of rational thinking emerged from whatever came before it. The fact that religion was predominant before science in no way gives religion credit for it. Sure, of course Christianity and science were mixed up for a long time, that still doesn't mean that science owes anything to Christianity. And it certainly doesn't mean we should indulge in thinking that religion now has anything to offer.

CDfm

Zillah wrote: »

There had to be a point at which a culture of rational thinking emerged from whatever came before it. The fact that religion was predominant before science in no way gives religion credit for it. Sure, of course Christianity and science were mixed up for a long time, that still doesn't mean that science owes anything to Christianity. And it certainly doesn't mean we should indulge in thinking that religion now has anything to offer.

Thats a huge statement. How were science and religion mixed up?

Sam Vimes

CDfm wrote: »

Not really true as moral is whats ethically right and wrong and you inately are aware of that and the essence of God is what is right . A moral act will be moral whether or not there is God.Thats where the judging and mercy comes in.

What you just said is crucially important. Throughout history people have claimed that they got their morality from god but you have just acknowledged that a moral act is moral whether or not god exists.

God, as an omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, eternal being is so incomprehensible to the human mind so why do you feel the need to believe in such a being to back an idea of morality that would be just as valid if you didn't invoke this incomprehensible being?

Sam Vimes

CDfm wrote: »

Thats a huge statement. How were they mixed up?

An example would be how astrology and astronomy were considered the same field of science until Kepler (I think it was) showed astrology to be a load of crap. In the old days things with no scientific validity were considered to be as good as things that had a lot of validity because people didn't know enough to tell the difference. Thankfully that has mostly changed and I pessimistically hope it completely change at some point

Zillah

CDfm wrote: »

Thats a huge statement. How were science and religion mixed up?

Not as huge a statement as it may seem. There were plenty of priests who contributed to science, Mendel for example. Lots of institutions of education have had strong religious connections. These are simple facts of history.

Facts that in no way lessen the titanic divide between science and religion philosophically.

CDfm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

An example would be how astrology and astronomy were considered the same field of science until Kepler (I think it was) showed astrology to be a load of crap. In the old days things with no scientific validity were considered to be as good as things that had a lot of validity because people didn't know enough to tell the difference. Thankfully that has mostly changed and I pessimistically hope it completely change at some point

Thats not an example of religion and science being mixed up. Alchemy was also considered a field of study.

CDfm

Zillah wrote: »

Not as huge a statement as it may seem. There were plenty of priests who contributed to science, Mendel for example. Lots of institutions of education have had strong religious connections. These are simple facts of history.

Facts that in no way lessen the titanic divide between science and religion philosophically.

Well Lemaitre and the Big Bang hardly supports that now does it and he was an Honourary Prelate was accorded the same rank within the Church as a Bishop by the Pope.

Sam Vimes

When people ask me where I get my morality, I say "if I wouldn't like it done to me, I wouldn't do it to others"

People are often amazed by that idea. They ask me "what if no one would ever know so you'd never be punished?" and "why do good if there is no reward?" and I say "I do not do good because of the threat of punishment or the promise of reward, I do good because it is good and even if doing good inconveniences me, it is still good".

The way I see it, religious 'morality' appeals to selfishness, do good because you'll be rewarded, don't do bad because you'll be punished. Without this carrot and stick situation the only motivation people have to do good is that it is good and this terrifies many because they have no faith in people to do good without a selfish motivation. Well I say you need to have more faith in your fellow man

CDfm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

What you just said is crucially important. Throughout history people have claimed that they got their morality from god but you have just acknowledged that a moral act is moral whether or not god exists.

God, as an omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, eternal being is so incomprehensible to the human mind so why do you feel the need to believe in such a being to back an idea of morality that would be just as valid if you didn't invoke this incomprehensible being?

But you already said that in natural sciences you cant prove or disprove the supernatural.

CDfm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

When people ask me where I get my morality, I say "if I would like it done to me, I wouldn't do it to others"

People are often amazed by that idea. They ask me "what if no one would ever know so you'd never be punished?" and "why do good if there is no reward?" and I say "I do not do good because of the threat of punishment or the promise of reward, I do good because it is good and even if doing good inconveniences me, it is still good".

The way I see it, religious 'morality' appeals to selfishness, do good because you'll be rewarded, don't do bad because you'll be punished. Without this carrot and stick situation the only motivation people have to do good is that it is good and this terrifies many because they have no faith in people to do good without a selfish motivation. Well I say you need to have more faith in your fellow man

Very nietzschean Sam.

MrPudding

May well be. But it is also very simple, apparently too simple for the religious to understand. ONe of the things that annoys we most about you lot is that you claim to have all this faith in your stupid sky wizard story, and you claim faith is a virtue, but you can't seem to find a single gramme of faith in your fellow man.

I find it really sad. I would hate to have to go through life thinking that people are incapable of doing good with the same carrot and stick as the religious appear to think they, and everyone else need.

You might mock it and try to belittle it but doing good simply because you think it is correct makes a better person than someone that does it simply to avoid hell or receive a reward.

MrP

CDfm

MrPudding wrote: »

I find it really sad. I would hate to have to go through life thinking that people are incapable of doing good with the same carrot and stick as the religious appear to think they, and everyone else need.

But I havent said that what I think is that essentially it derives from God.

You might mock it and try to belittle it but doing good simply because you think it is correct makes a better person than someone that does it simply to avoid hell or receive a reward.

No sense of superiority here.

Its been years since I read Nietsche but wasnt he also anti -Plato or am i mixing him up with someone else.

Sam Vimes

CDfm wrote: »

But you already said that in natural sciences you cant prove or disprove the supernatural.

What's your point? What I'm saying is basically Occam's razor, the simplest solution is usually the right one. God is the most complex thing imaginable so why do you insist that he must have had a hand in morality when morality would be just as valid without him?


Why insist that something must have a supernatural explanation when there is a perfectly rational natural explanation of it?

CDfm wrote: »

Very nietzschean Sam.

What's your point?

CDfm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

What's your point? What I'm saying is basically Occam's razor, the simplest solution is usually the right one. God is the most complex thing imaginable so why do you insist that he must have had a hand in morality when morality would be just as valid without him?

Occams razor does not postulate that the simplest solution is the correct one.

Why insist that something must have a supernatural explanation when there is a perfectly rational natural explanation of it?

If you yourself admit you dont have the technology or the data -why so sure? If you are unsure and dont have the data why not say it.

There is nothing wrong with saying you have no scientific explanation but just dont believe rather than borrow theories.

What's your point?

If you are following Nietschean logic he also discounted Plato.I am asking you to explain your logic. I cant see it.