What is God to you?

ldxo15wus6fpgm

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

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?

It has indeed, and I addressed that point. It is part of human nature to develop religions, to explain things we don't understand etc.
Whether it is organised religion or not, there is still religion/superstition etc. in tribes.

As for the rest of your post, I think you should re-read my post. I referred to "familial nurturing" in it. I asked you if wolves raise their young to survive. You have tried to say I ignored the "human" at the start of the list. How is a human family any different from a family of any other species? Humans are animals too, don't forget that. It does not have to refer to a human family. A feral child who grows up with a pack of wolves is (after a while) going to be treated by the mother the same as she treats her own cubs. Also, a wolf's tribal mentality is not explicit to only a wolf. Tribal mentality is the same across many species of animals. It could be argued that there are variations in behaviour and roles but the general concept remains the same: stick with the pack.

Also, I'd like some proof of those please.

MagicMarker wrote: »

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

I told you, all over the page I linked to you it referred to animal behavioural patterns and trains of thought. I have provided something to back up what I'm saying, its the page I linked you with, which you then went on to glance at, find a single case which was prven to be a hoax, and completely dismiss the page.

I wouldn't trust neatorama.com as a source, nevertheless, that's not morality, it's the need for survival and interaction with other organisms.

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

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.

Here we go. You HAVE to. This indicates a need. That need is the need to survive. Moral actions/thoughts are not brought about by needs. The animals are not acting morally, they are acting out of their need to survive and stay with the pack.

MagicMarker

Tucker Flaky Blonde wrote: »

I told you, all over the page I linked to you it referred to animal behavioural patterns and trains of thought. I have provided something to back up what I'm saying, its the page I linked you with, which you then went on to glance at, find a single case which was prven to be a hoax, and completely dismiss the page.

Animal behavioral patterns? What has this got to do with morality? This in no way confirms your point. I dismissed the page as it's just a wiki link giving general information on feral children and does not in any way go into specifics on the morality, or lack thereof, of same.

ldxo15wus6fpgm

MagicMarker wrote: »

Animal behavioral patterns? What has this got to do with morality? This in no way confirms your point. I dismissed the page as it's just a wiki link giving general information on feral children and does not in any way go into specifics on the morality, or lack thereof, of same.

Ok. How many animals do you know of that behave morally? :rolleyes:
Can you give an example of a feral child acting morally? I don't think so.

Einhard

Tucker Flaky Blonde wrote: »

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.

No, you stated quite clearly that morals stem from Christianity, and that the reason the Romans acted so barbarously is because they were pagan, and thus unreformed by Christian morality. My rebuttal is that Christian societies have proven themselves every bit as cruel and barbarous as their Roman forebears.

plein de force

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?

how would i know they're a christian?. i'd let them give me hand, just because i don't share their religious views doesn't make them some sort of person i disassociate from.
that's not god, it's a human offering someone a hand same way it would be when i do it

ldxo15wus6fpgm

Einhard wrote: »

No, you stated quite clearly that morals stem from Christianity, and that the reason the Romans acted so barbarously is because they were pagan, and thus unreformed by Christian morality. My rebuttal is that Christian societies have proven themselves every bit as cruel and barbarous as their Roman forebears.

No, I didn't. I stated that today's morals, in Irish society, stem from Christianity.

Do you honestly think that just because some people call themselves part of a religion they are going to instantly know about every teaching of that religion? That they will unquestionably follow its teachings to the letter? If you do you're a fool.

MagicMarker

Tucker Flaky Blonde wrote: »

Ok. How many animals do you know of that behave morally? :rolleyes:

• Dogs often adopt orphaned cats, squirrels, ducks and even tigers.
  
• Dolphins support sick or injured animals, swimming under them for hours at a time and pushing them to the surface so they can breathe.
  
• Wolves and wild dogs bring meat back to members of the pack not present at the kill.
  
• Male baboons threaten predators and cover the rear as the troop retreats.
  
• Gibbons and chimpanzees with food will, in response to a gesture, share their food with others of the group. Chimpanzees will help humans and Conspecifics without any reward in return.
  
• Bonobos have been observed aiding injured or handicapped bonobos.
• Vampire bats commonly regurgitate blood to share with unlucky or sick roost mates that have been unable to find a meal, often forming a buddy system.
  
• Raccoons inform conspecifics about feeding grounds by droppings left on commonly shared latrines. A similar information system has been observed to be used by common ravens.
  
• In numerous bird species, a breeding pair receives support in raising its young from other "helper" birds, including help with the feeding of its fledglings. Some will even go as far as protecting an unrelated bird's young from predators
  
• Most mammal carnivores like wolves or dogs have a habit of not harming pack members below certain age, of opposite sex or in surrendering position (in case of some animals, the behavior exists within entire species rather than one pack).
  
• Vervet Monkeys give alarm calls to warn fellow monkeys of the presence of predators, even though in doing so they attract attention to themselves, increasing their personal chance of being attacked.
  
• Walruses have been seen adopting orphans who lost their parents to predators.
  
• Some termites release a sticky secretion by fatally rupturing a gland near the skin in their neck. This autothysis defends against invading ants by creating a tar baby effect.
  
• Meerkats often have one standing guard to warn whilst the rest feed in case of predators attack.
  
• African buffalo will rescue a member of the herd captured by predators.

Tucker Flaky Blonde wrote: »

Can you give an example of a feral child acting morally? I don't think so.

No I can't, that doesn't mean they can't, or don't, or are incapable of doing so.

Ickle Magoo

My name is URL wrote: »

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?

You appear to be trying to give the word "god" your own meaning, disregarding the current dictionary definition and then insist your definitions of atheist and anti-theist are relevant according to your own definitions yet seem rather surprised that others who only have the dictionary definitions to go on, disagree with you.

raah! wrote:

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.

No, empathy doesn't make you feel bad if you do something so I think you need to check the definitions you are working with. Empathy gives you the capability to understand that someone else is sad/happy/angry/whatever when you see them being sad/happy/angry/whatever, quite distinct from pity or sympathy. Empathy is an emotional response to others behaviour, morality would be a kind of tribal code that polices our behaviour - very generally speaking of course.

They both help an individual survive long enough to pass on their genes which is why we have evolved to have things like empathy and developed general rules of conduct and so on - and why many animals also exhibit them.

Tucker Flaky Blonde wrote:

It has indeed, and I addressed that point. It is part of human nature to develop religions, to explain things we don't understand etc.
Whether it is organised religion or not, there is still religion/superstition etc. in tribes.

As for the rest of your post, I think you should re-read my post. I referred to "familial nurturing" in it. I asked you if wolves raise their young to survive. You have tried to say I ignored the "human" at the start of the list. How is a human family any different from a family of any other species? Humans are animals too, don't forget that. It does not have to refer to a human family. A feral child who grows up with a pack of wolves is (after a while) going to be treated by the mother the same as she treats her own cubs. Also, a wolf's tribal mentality is not explicit to only a wolf. Tribal mentality is the same across many species of animals. It could be argued that there are variations in behaviour and roles but the general concept remains the same: stick with the pack.

Also, I'd like some proof of those please.

Exactly, rules and superstitions develop regardless of the presence of religion.

Human families are very different to ant families and kangaroo families, do I really need to answer how humans differ from other species in the kind of tribal codes they pass on to each other? Sure some share some general traits in teaching survival but the overall special interaction can vary enormously. I'm actually not sure I understand what point you are making at all at this stage.

Humans have a code of conduct, as many other species do, it is not borne from organised religion it developed with a whole host of other evolutionary traits to increase chances of survival - the human behavioural code is much more complex than most other animals because we have much more complex relationships and societies.

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Science/2010/06/24/14509781.html
http://www.canyonsworldwide.com/tibet/lost_pygmy_tribe/index.htm

Oh and...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7428476.stm

ldxo15wus6fpgm

MagicMarker wrote: »

*list*

Most of those examples will eventually benefit the animal in question, or simply point back to the tribe thing.

No I can't, that doesn't mean they can't, or don't, or are incapable of doing so.

So what you're saying is, I have some small amounts of evidence to support my point, while you have absolutely nothing.

Good day, sir.

MagicMarker

Tucker Flaky Blonde wrote: »

Lawl, altruistic behaviour =/= morality.



So what you're saying is, I have some small amounts of evidence to support my point, while you have absolutely nothing.

Good day, sir.

So you think none of that behavior points to morality, and the wiki link you posted actually contains evidence to back up your point?

Good day indeed.

Terry

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.



More lol'ing. Ever hear of celtic polytheism?



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.

Yes, but the OP put everything down to Christianity.
Ever hear of reading a thread before posting?

dr.bollocko wrote: »

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.

Cheers.

My name is URL

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

You appear to be trying to give the word "god" your own meaning, disregarding the current dictionary definition and then insist your definitions of atheist and anti-theist are relevant according to your own definitions yet seem rather surprised that others who only have the dictionary definitions to go on, disagree with you.

Who do you think came up with the definition of God? That's what is in the dictionary!.. I don't agree with that definition and have no faith in whatever connotation the definition has. In what way does that differ from you?

ldxo15wus6fpgm

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Exactly, rules and superstitions develop regardless of the presence of religion.

Human families are very different to ant families and kangaroo families, do I really need to answer how humans differ from other species in the kind of tribal codes they pass on to each other? Sure some share some general traits in teaching survival but the overall special interaction can vary enormously. I'm actually not sure I understand what point you are making at all at this stage.

Humans have a code of conduct, as many other species do, it is not borne from organised religion it developed with a whole host of other evolutionary traits to increase chances of survival - the human behavioural code is much more complex than most other animals because we have much more complex relationships and societies.

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Science/2010/06/24/14509781.html
http://www.canyonsworldwide.com/tibet/lost_pygmy_tribe/index.htm

Oh and...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7428476.stm

Except for the fact that religion is present? You don't seem to be reading my posts at all. The basic principles of family life are the same across most, if not all species.

The "code of conduct" you refer to is a development of the tribal mentality - you have to be nice if you want to stay in the tribe.

None of those links have anything to do with what I asked you to prove. I don't think I'm going to bother replying to you much longer, as you're not really reading my posts, and anything you do read you seem to ignore and mis-interpret.


EDIT:

Terry wrote: »

Yes, but the OP put everything down to Christianity.
Ever hear of reading a thread before posting?

I am not the OP.

You quoted me saying how Christianity is the dominant religion in Ireland and that is has taught a certain set of morals.
You then said that we were quite civilised before St. Patrick came to Ireland. (btw, the first person to bring Christianity to Ireland was St. Palladius, but that's beside the point)
You also said barbarians would not have been able to construct Newgrange etc.

I asked you if you had ever heard of Celtic polytheism. I asked this because you seemed to think that there was no religion in Ireland before Christianity (you would not be the first person to have expressed such thoughts to me) yet the Irish people still had morals. Of course they did, but they were not the same set of morals people today would have.

Ickle Magoo

My name is URL wrote: »

Who do you think came up with the definition of God? That's what is in the dictionary!.. I don't agree with that definition and have no faith in whatever connotation the definition has. In what way does that differ from you?

It differs from me because I accept the dictionary containing the generally accepted definition of words and use the english language accordingly. Hence when using anti-theist, I accept that anti has a specific meaning as a prefix and theist, from the greek theismos also has a specific meaning. I could start demanding words get my own personal definitions or that they are tailor-made for me but then as we can see, things start getting rather confusing.

baltimore sun

MagicMarker wrote: »

• Dogs often adopt orphaned cats, squirrels, ducks and even tigers.
  
• Dolphins support sick or injured animals, swimming under them for hours at a time and pushing them to the surface so they can breathe.
  
• Wolves and wild dogs bring meat back to members of the pack not present at the kill.
  
• Male baboons threaten predators and cover the rear as the troop retreats.
  
• Gibbons and chimpanzees with food will, in response to a gesture, share their food with others of the group. Chimpanzees will help humans and Conspecifics without any reward in return.
  
• Bonobos have been observed aiding injured or handicapped bonobos.
• Vampire bats commonly regurgitate blood to share with unlucky or sick roost mates that have been unable to find a meal, often forming a buddy system.
  
• Raccoons inform conspecifics about feeding grounds by droppings left on commonly shared latrines. A similar information system has been observed to be used by common ravens.
  
• In numerous bird species, a breeding pair receives support in raising its young from other "helper" birds, including help with the feeding of its fledglings. Some will even go as far as protecting an unrelated bird's young from predators
  
• Most mammal carnivores like wolves or dogs have a habit of not harming pack members below certain age, of opposite sex or in surrendering position (in case of some animals, the behavior exists within entire species rather than one pack).
  
• Vervet Monkeys give alarm calls to warn fellow monkeys of the presence of predators, even though in doing so they attract attention to themselves, increasing their personal chance of being attacked.
  
• Walruses have been seen adopting orphans who lost their parents to predators.
  
• Some termites release a sticky secretion by fatally rupturing a gland near the skin in their neck. This autothysis defends against invading ants by creating a tar baby effect.
  
• Meerkats often have one standing guard to warn whilst the rest feed in case of predators attack.
  
• African buffalo will rescue a member of the herd captured by predators.

Your on the button

Opinicus

My name is URL wrote: »

Who do you think came up with the definition of God? That's what is in the dictionary!.. I don't agree with that definition and have no faith in whatever connotation the definition has. In what way does that differ from you?

When how many from please laboratory speaker cup telephone water pad board printer pen receipt where button shirt icon heat kelvin paper then?

Yeah that's what I thought

PS: Also, Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?

raah!

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

No, empathy doesn't make you feel bad if you do something so I think you need to check the definitions you are working with. Empathy gives you the capability to understand that someone else is sad/happy/angry/whatever when you see them being sad/happy/angry/whatever, quite distinct from pity or sympathy. Empathy is an emotional response to others behaviour, morality would be a kind of tribal code that polices our behaviour - very generally speaking of course.

They both help an individual survive long enough to pass on their genes which is why we have evolved to have things like empathy and developed general rules of conduct and so on - and why many animals also exhibit them.

Ok well, then your use of it like this is an argument against it's being a source of morality. If the word only meant recognising sadness in others then it would be completely worthless, and atheists would not be so quick to cite it as a source of morality.

Also you've contradicted yourself too, you said first it's understanding, and not to do with sympathy or pity, and then you say it's an emotional response.

Also, earlier you said it was an ability to share in someone elses emotions. For me this is the most important aspect of the word. But you've contradicted yourself in striping this away and then re-attributing it twice.

What's more, it doesn't matter if it's just empathy, or empathy combined with sympathy or some other collection of emotional responses. The argument is that these are not morality.

Yes they can lead to morality, but they are not the same.

General rules of conduct are different form empathy, as has been argued, I think you have contradicted yourself here as well.

Exactly, rules and superstitions develop regardless of the presence of religion.

One could argue that these rules and superstitions are no different from religion. You are using the word religion to mean less than it does. Religion does not mean christianity.

Again you say empathy leads to morality, but all you have evidence for is empathy leading to the evolutional imperitive of survival and gene propogation.

You seem to be conflating religion with religions you know, and moral action with morality.

Edit: And to be honest, I think a definition of empathy as just understanding other peoples feelings is a possible one, but I think it's a less accurate use of the word in this context.

ldxo15wus6fpgm

Opinicus wrote: »

When how many from please laboratory speaker cup telephone water pad board printer pen receipt where button shirt icon heat kelvin paper then?

Yeah that's what I thought

PS: Also, Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?

You’ve got to be kidding me. I’ve been further even more decided to use even go need to do look more as anyone can. Can you really be far even as decided half as much to use go wish for that? My guess is that when one really been far even as decided once to use even go want, it is then that he has really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like. It’s just common sense. :pac:

Royal Irish

I pray to Joe Pesci. He is a guy that can get things done.

MagicMarker

Tucker Flaky Blonde wrote: »

Most of those examples will eventually benefit the animal in question, or simply point back to the tribe thing.

I see you've edited your post since I quoted you. First you refer to altruistic behaviour and now you say that most of the things I listed eventually benefit the animal in question. Which is it?

ldxo15wus6fpgm

MagicMarker wrote: »

I see you've edited your post since I quoted you. First you refer to altruistic behaviour and now you say that most of the things I listed eventually benefit the animal in question. Which is it?

You quoted me literally seconds before I edited the post. Get over it.

MagicMarker

Tucker Flaky Blonde wrote: »

You quoted me literally seconds before I edited the post. Get over it.

Oh I see, and you contradicted yourself in all the confusion?

ldxo15wus6fpgm

MagicMarker wrote: »

Oh I see, and you contradicted yourself in all the confusion?

No, I predicted a long winded, half-witted attempt at turning altriustic behaviour into morality. Thankfully you didn't give one.

Again I say, good day sir!

MagicMarker

Tucker Flaky Blonde wrote: »

No, I predicted a long winded, half-witted attempt at turning altriustic behaviour into morality. Thankfully you didn't give one.

Again I say, good day sir!

Okay, so you contradicted yourself on purpose?

Makes sense I suppose.

Ickle Magoo

raah! wrote: »

Ok well, then your use of it like this is an argument against it's being a source of morality. If the word only meant recognising sadness in others then it would be completely worthless, and atheists would not be so quick to cite it as a source of morality.

Also you've contradicted yourself too, you said first it's understanding, and not to do with sympathy or pity, and then you say it's an emotional response.

Also, earlier you said it was an ability to share in someone elses emotions. For me this is the most important aspect of the word. But you've contradicted yourself in striping this away and then re-attributing it twice.

What's more, it doesn't matter if it's just empathy, or empathy combined with sympathy or some other collection of emotional responses. The argument is that these are not morality.

Yes they can lead to morality, but they are not the same.

General rules of conduct are different form empathy, as has been argued, I think you have contradicted yourself here as well.

Understanding someone is sad is not the same as sharing their sadness or even being sad they are sad, capiche? Humans, among other animals, feel sympathy and pity as well as empathy. We have developed lots and lots of different - and overlapping - techniques for making friends, staying safe, making sure we are not kicked out of the clan and ensuring the clan protects us. Part of that whole complex tribal system is developing some kind of shared moral code above and beyond personal survival - we also learn how to be part of a complex social group. People don't want to be friends with you if you steal from them, or rape them or kill their parents and so on...many animals learn quickly what is considered right or wrong in a social sense as distinct from any personal interpretations.

raah! wrote: »

One could argue that these rules and superstitions are no different from religion. You are using the word religion to mean less than it does. Religion does not mean christianity.

The OP was arguing that religion - specifically christianity - gives humans morals, I disagree. I think it's quite obvious that a moral code would have to exist to allow people to live together and it will have existed for as long as people have been living in larger groups - which pre-dates any organised religion now preaching morality. You can try to argue that the rules and superstitions are no different to religion but that doesn't actually make them religion - I think religion is more likely to have developed from early moral codes to enable humans to live in greater numbers than the other way around.

raah! wrote: »

Again you say empathy leads to morality, but all you have evidence for is empathy leading to the evolutional imperitive of survival and gene propogation.

You seem to be conflating religion with religions you know, and moral action with morality.

Where did I say empathy leads to morality? As it happens I would suggest that having the ability to read emotions is very much related to having a code of conduct and both of which are related to being able to live in a larger group and take advantage of all that offers - certainly more so than any holy book, which is the debate at hand.

You seem to be conflating morality with religion and are reluctant to accept it is a trait that evolved with us, rather than one preached at us. :cool:

My name is URL

Opinicus wrote: »

When how many from please laboratory speaker cup telephone water pad board printer pen receipt where button shirt icon heat kelvin paper then?

Yeah that's what I thought

PS: Also, Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?

Oh look, it's someone trying to feign logic at the expense of reason

ldxo15wus6fpgm

MagicMarker wrote: »

Okay, so you contradicted yourself on purpose?

Makes sense I suppose.

Are you really that stupid that you can't see I mean I changed it because I predicted that? I am not here for petty little quarrels, which is what you seem to be here for.

MagicMarker

Tucker Flaky Blonde wrote: »

Are you really that stupid that you can't see I mean I changed it because I predicted that? I am not here for petty little quarrels, which is what you seem to be here for.

No need for name calling. I was just curious as to why you would say one thing, and then edit your post and say the opposite.

RonMexico

I view the belief in god as a sign of human weakness.

ldxo15wus6fpgm

MagicMarker wrote: »

No need for name calling. I was just curious as to why you would say one thing, and then edit your post and say the opposite.

How is it saying the opposite? I originally said altruistic behaviour is not the same as moral behaviour. I then said that most of those examples eventually benefit the animals in question or point back to the tribal mentality point. They don't really form opposites.

You're being petty for the sake of being petty.