What is God to you?

Ickle Magoo

Tucker Flaky Blonde wrote: »

I'm sorry, but you're confusing morality with an animal's instincts and its need to survive.

I think you are confusing animal instincts & survival as being somehow separate from morality. If the monkeys were only interested in survival they would run away and to hell with the rest of the troupe, they certainly wouldn't be putting themselves in harms way to help another member.

My name is URL wrote:

You can be an antitheist who is also an atheist, but I don't think you can be an atheist who is also an antitheist. If you oppose the idea of God then you're an antitheist.. if you oppose the idea of God being a deity then you're an atheist

Atheists don't oppose the idea of god being a deity, they lack belief in a god full stop, regardless of what others choose to call or position they choose to give to their gods. Anti-theism typically refers to being against organised religion and belief in deities in general. It would be unusual to be anti-theistic and not an atheist tho many atheists are not anti-theistic.

ldxo15wus6fpgm

Einhard wrote: »

So, morality stems from religion. The Romans were religious. And often barbarous. Therefore....sorry what was your argument again?

Lol. I already pointed out that they were religious. The extent of our morality depends on the teachings of our religion. Roman religion didn't condemn their barbaric behaviour, and actually encouraged it during war. Therefore, they found it acceptable.

Terry wrote: »

We were actually quite civilised before St. Patrick set foot on these shores.
A bunch of idiot barbarians would not have been able to construct the likes of Newgrange, which is older than the great pyramid at Giza.

The whole of humanity would not exist were it not for co-operation between people. Man cannot live on bread alone.

More lol'ing. Ever hear of celtic polytheism?

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Feral children grow up devoid of any human contact, familial nurture or tribe mentality, not just segregated from organised religion.

There are also many remote tribes that have no exposure to religion as we know it * yet they have developed tribal roles, rules and forms of shared morality. Google it.

Even more lol'ing.
This is the only real way a person living today would never be exposed to religion in any way
So wolf packs do not have tribal mentality? They do not raise their young to survive? How strange.

*As we know it being key there. It is human nature to develop religious beliefs , be it for things we don't understand or other reasons.

InTheTrees

For me God is the person who is responsible for the banking crisis.

Opinicus

Tucker Flaky Blonde wrote: »

Lol. I already pointed out that they were religious. The extent of our morality depends on the teachings of our religion. Roman religion didn't condemn their barbaric behaviour, and actually encouraged it during war. Therefore, they found it acceptable.

Crusades/jihad anyone?

Opinicus

Tucker Flaky Blonde wrote: »

Even more lol'ing.
This is the only real way a person living today would never be exposed to religion in any way
So wolf packs do not have tribal mentality? They do not raise their young to survive? How strange.

This isn't the flippin Jungle Book

ldxo15wus6fpgm

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I think you are confusing animal instincts & survival as being somehow separate from morality. If the monkeys were only interested in survival they would run away and to hell with the rest of the troupe, they certainly wouldn't be putting themselves in harms way to help another member.

Or perhaps it is quite obvious that a lone monkey wouldn't survive on its own, and the only reason it is still alive is because it is with the tribe. It also would have very little opportunity to reproduce if it lived away from the tribe.

Opinicus wrote: »

Crusades/jihad anyone?

Crusades occured because the pope called for them. Simply put, the soldiers' religion was telling them it was ok to kill the infidels, and they therefore had no problem doing so. What's your point?

Einhard

Tucker Flaky Blonde wrote: »

Lol. I already pointed out that they were religious. The extent of our morality depends on the teachings of our religion. Roman religion didn't condemn their barbaric behaviour, and actually encouraged it during war. Therefore, they found it acceptable.

Some very selective quoting there. Respond to the rest of that post:


Morality stems from religion. Europeans have long been religious. Christianity has been the primary religion of Europe for over 1500 years. In that time, Europeans have waged three of the most horrific wars ever undertaken- The 30 Years War (of religion), WW I, and WW II. They have subjected much of the rest of the world to the brutality of colonialism. They have massacred and exterminated whole peoples; they have destroyed civilisations. They have raped and murdered and pillaged on a massive scale. It is clear therefore that, historically Europeans have not been moral. There can only be two conclusions from this, a) Europeans have not been Christian, or b) morality stems neither from religion in general, nor Christianity in particular.

MagicMarker

Tucker Flaky Blonde wrote: »

Or perhaps it is quite obvious that a lone monkey wouldn't survive on its own, and the only reason it is still alive is because it is with the tribe. It also would have very little opportunity to reproduce if it lived away from the tribe.

Just in case you missed it...

MagicMarker wrote: »

Care to provide links from a reputable source that prove feral children lack any sort of morality?

I'll wait.

The Mad Hatter

Tucker Flaky Blonde wrote: »

Or perhaps it is quite obvious that a lone monkey wouldn't survive on its own, and the only reason it is still alive is because it is with the tribe. It also would have very little opportunity to reproduce if it lived away from the tribe.

And that's the beginning of morality. No god required. Well done.

My name is URL

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Atheists don't oppose the idea of god being a deity, they lack belief in a god full stop, regardless of what others choose to call or position they choose to give to their gods. Anti-theism typically refers to being against organised religion and belief in deities in general. It would be unusual to be anti-theistic and not an atheist tho many atheists are not anti-theistic.

If I give the word 'God' my own definition.. for example: the reason why people try to do right, regardless of their creed, then there's no reason for an atheist to reject that definition. Only an antitheist would do so.

You're not rejecting theism by rejecting my belief. You're rejecting an idea which contains an element that you don't share.. you're anti-whatever-that-element-is.. which in the broadest of terms is theism

Biggins

AskMyChocolate wrote: »

...Btw, if you're an atheist and you're struggling to carry a 36" television down four flights of stairs and a christian turns to you and says," Do you want a hand with that mate?" What do you say?

I say "yes please".

I don't care if he's called christian, tom, dick or harry!

ldxo15wus6fpgm

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

And that's the beginning of morality. No god required. Well done.

Again, that's not morality. That's basic tribal mentality and animal instinct. Care to explain how a monkey's desire to survive = morality?

Einhard wrote: »

Some very selective quoting there. Respond to the rest of that post:

*long paragraph*

Hardly.

What you're saying there is that just because someone is religious, doesn't mean they will have morals. That's not what I'm talking about. The point I am trying to make is that IMO if there were no religion there would be no morals.

MagicMarker wrote: »

Just in case you missed it...

Sorry.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feral_child

All I can say is read through the documented cases. Plenty of references to animal behaviour, generally in sync with the animals that raised them. I don't know of any wolves or wild dogs that have morals, do you? :P

dr.bollocko

Askmychocolate has been banned for insulting other posters.
Which kind of makes this thread a bit pointless for the next 7 days or so.
But hey. I'm turning nihilist so it's still open.

MagicMarker

Tucker Flaky Blonde wrote: »

Sorry.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feral_child

All I can say is read through the documented cases. Plenty of references to animal behaviour, generally in sync with the animals that raised them. I don't know of any wolves or wild dogs that have morals, do you? :P

Well the only case there regarding a feral child being raised by wolves was proved to be a hoax. Plus there is no mention at all about morality.

Doesn't exactly reinforce your opinion in fairness.

Opinicus

Tucker Flaky Blonde wrote: »

Crusades occured because the pope called for them. Simply put, the soldiers' religion was telling them it was ok to kill the infidels, and they therefore had no problem doing so. What's your point?

So if tomorrow morning the pope ordered the Swiss Guards to invade Palestine and kill every non-christian it is morally hunky dory?

Abrasax

dr.bollocko wrote: »

Askmychocolate has been banned for insulting other posters.

AskMyChocolate wrote: »

To me, God is when:

3) When you don't fight your corner and realise afterwards that you saved people you love a needless pain.

Lovin the irony.

A Godless thread.

raah!

Morality differntiates between good and bad (a simple definition)

Empathy dictates what feels good, and what feels bad. For empathy to be morality an extra sentence such as "thigns that feel good are good" or "this chemical release is good" and "thing sthat feel bad are bad".

People aren't born with sentences in their brains, morality is a construct of the mind, and language.

Obviously the two are connected, but not the same thing. Arguments about the inferiority of an empathy based morality stem from it's being completely self serving. It is in place before the word good or bad ever sprang from anyones mouth. Based on this system of chemical rewards, someone who saves a little child is no better than someone who takes loads of heroin. Maybe the heroin user is superior even.

ldxo15wus6fpgm

MagicMarker wrote: »

Well the only case there regarding a feral child being raised by wolves was proved to be a hoax. Plus there is no mention at all about morality.

Doesn't exactly reinforce your opinion in fairness.

What about :

Lyokha, 2007.
The Hessian wolf children, 1300's
Ivan Mishukov, 1998
etc.

Stercus Accidit

My name is URL wrote: »

You can be an antitheist who is also an atheist, but I don't think you can be an atheist who is also an antitheist. If you oppose the idea of God then you're an antitheist.. if you oppose the idea of God being a deity then you're an atheist

Not really, how can you "oppose the idea of God being a deity" and be an atheist? Accepting the notion of a god is theism. This is dictionary defined stuff.

Opinicus

My name is URL wrote: »

If I give the word 'God' my own definition.. for example: the reason why people try to do right, regardless of their creed, then there's no reason for an atheist to reject that definition. Only an antitheist would do so.

You're not rejecting theism by rejecting my belief. You're rejecting an idea which contains an element that you don't share.. you're anti-whatever-that-element-is.. which in the broadest of terms is theism

If you start giving words your own definition you will very quickly find that no-one will be making any sense to you at all

Smokin_Aces

Labias. The man upstairs knew what he was doing.

starlit

snuggles285 wrote: »

an invisible being in the sky!

ah you agree with me for once!

Sea Sharp

God is a concept that represents the ultimate alpha being. Such a concept helped suppress people's dominating instincts therefore providing a catalyst for human societies to unite and hence evolve away from small conflicting clans/families into the global 21st century we have to day.

Ironically, as an atheist, I think religion was the best thing to ever happen to humanity. However in my opinion it has become obsolete only in the last century.

Ickle Magoo

Tucker Flaky Blonde wrote: »

This is the only real way a person living today would never be exposed to religion in any way
So wolf packs do not have tribal mentality? They do not raise their young to survive? How strange.

*As we know it being key there. It is human nature to develop religious beliefs , be it for things we don't understand or other reasons.

It has never occurred to you that there are villages so remote that organised religion has yet to get its claws in?

I have no doubt that wolves have a tribal mentality explicit to wolves and of course they raise their young to survive - I presume you deliberately ignored the word human at the start of that list? I assume you knew that familial could only be other humans so seized on the tribal mentality because it was the single item on the list that hadn't been explicitly suffixed with some humanistic type expression - forgive me for assuming I didn't have to hold your hand. Regardless, I still don't follow your point. How does any of that change the fact that HUMAN morality pre-dates religion and exists today in lieu of religion - and morality also exists in the animal world who have no notion of religion?

My name is URL wrote:

If I give the word 'God' my own definition.. for example: the reason why people try to do right, regardless of their creed, then there's no reason for an atheist to reject that definition. Only an antitheist would do so.

You're not rejecting theism by rejecting my belief. You're rejecting an idea which contains an element that you don't share.. you're anti-whatever-that-element-is.. which in the broadest of terms is theism

If you give a word your own personal definition then it loses meaning to everyone bar you. There are already words to describe people being good or trying to do the right thing, if you want to apply your own definition by using a word that already has it's own connotations and excepted definition then you knock yourself out, but you can't then insist everyone adopt your version and alter their associated vocabulary accordingly. :cool:

MagicMarker

Tucker Flaky Blonde wrote: »

What about :

Lyokha, 2007.
The Hessian wolf children, 1300's
Ivan Mishukov, 1998
etc.

What about them? Who is to say they had no sense of morality? You haven't provided anything to back up what you're saying.

In fact, in relation to Ivan Mishukov.

http://www.neatorama.com/tag/ivan-mishukov/

In 1996, 4-year-old Ivan Mishukov ran away from his abusive parents to become one of the 2 million homeless children living on the streets in Russia.

After begging for food and rifling through garbage bins for leftovers, he'd share his scraps with a pack of stray dogs. In turn, the dogs offered Ivan protection and warmth on Moscow's bitterly cold nights and made him their leader.

Two years later, police captured the boy by luring him into the back of a restaurant kitchen. Snarling and biting, he was taken ito a children's home, where he quickly began to adjust to the human world and started school. Now, Ivan lives a fairly normal life, although he still dreams of dogs.

Sounds like morality to me, from both the kid and the dogs!

The Mad Hatter

Tucker Flaky Blonde wrote: »

Again, that's not morality. That's basic tribal mentality and animal instinct. Care to explain how a monkey's desire to survive = morality?

You're putting the cart before the horse. Morality is a function of the desire to survive. When you're part of a group, you have to act morally towards other members of that group - otherwise the group falls apart, and when the group falls apart, its individuals are killed separately.

InTheTrees

GaNjaHaN wrote: »

God is a concept that represents the ultimate alpha being. Such a concept helped suppress people's dominating instincts therefore providing a catalyst for human societies to unite and hence evolve away from small conflicting clans/families into the global 21st century we have to day.

Ironically, as an atheist, I think religion was the best thing to ever happen to humanity. However in my opinion it has become obsolete only in the last century.

Yup, it was a way of providing some stability and continuity in society after the fall of the roman empire and the start of the dark ages.

My name is URL

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

if you want to apply your own definition by using a word that already has it's own connotations and excepted definition then you knock yourself out, but you can't then insist everyone adopt your version and alter their associated vocabulary accordingly. :cool:

Who insisted that anybody should adapt to anything? What connotations do you speak of.. you mean the connotations attached to the meaning of a word which you reject completely?

Ickle Magoo

raah! wrote: »

Morality differntiates between good and bad (a simple definition)

Empathy dictates what feels good, and what feels bad. For empathy to be morality an extra sentence such as "thigns that feel good are good" or "this chemical release is good" and "thing sthat feel bad are bad"..

Good to see you didn't really storm off in a huff.

Unfortunately we still seem to be having issues with definitions and desperately trying to shoe-horn personal beliefs into current understanding.

Empathy is the capability to share in someone's feelings or emotions. It doesn't dictate anything about feeling good or bad.

raah!

Yes well, I did in fact unsubscribe

So if empathy is the capability to share in someone's feelings and nothing more, then it wouldn't be a good basis for morality. Empathy makes you feel bad if you do a bad thing to someone in your tribe.

You said it is the capability to share in someone's feelings, if they feel bad it dictates that you should feel bad.

I am working only from definitions of the words, not shoe horning anything.