Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Strife26]

Glowcat, you're assuming that an absolute morality both exists and is discoverable by man, and I don't think that that's possible. When people are called to a higher mission, they always excel.

[Leafsnail]

I'd say that formalist morality like that is indeed always going to be inferior to morality built to ensure a more fulfilling human society. It is not enough to simply do, but to understand the reasons for morality. Otherwise we get tripe in our dialogue, such as visions of people going off on hedonistic binges of destruction after people realize there is no invisible master watching them 24/7.

Not understanding morality except as a binding proclamation also leads to acceptance of things based on proclamation alone. When that proclamation (or a similar behavioral endorsement) is itself harmful, and generally accepted throughout a society, it is extremely difficult to get rid of its influence in government.

I'd say that in virtually all cases, people do not derive their morality from their religion anyway.  I mean... if the majority of, say, Christians did, when you point at one of the slavery verses the standard response would be "Yup!  That's right!" rather than an explanation of why it's outdated.  Religious and nonreligious alike people realise these laws are outdated and to some extent abhorrent because they have their own understanding of morality and why it's needed.  I'd also think that this is why the basic instructions of most religions are quite similar - people have something of a natural understanding of a form of morality (possibly deriving from empathy).

I'd say two possible times when religion (not saying these two things are exclusive to deistic religions, though) can go wrong in terms of morality are:
1. When the entire thing is very firmly indoctrinated, causing that person to actually base their morality completely on it
2. If someone effectively cherry picks their religious ideas for support.  This can be harmless, but in the case of bigots it can have the effect of reinforcing their views in a kindof echo chamber (you go in thinking gays are bad, you come out thinking that gays and bad and that God agrees).

[Glowcat]

Glowcat, you're assuming that an absolute morality both exists and is discoverable by man, and I don't think that that's possible.

Incorrect. Formalist morality may be a form of absolute but the form of morality I endorse is recently getting some attention in the form of Sam Harris's "The Moral Landscape." It is a very utilitarian perspective on morality. There are, of course, difficulties in establishing what exactly the ultimate goal should be, and by no means will I suggest that a single morality is universal for all possible values -- notably with regards to crazy violent people who enjoy murder and don't care about their own well-being -- but people in general have many shared goals that are intrinsic to being human.

Real morality is something that we have to think about, not write some unyielding principles in a book, tell people to listen, and call it a day.

This, however, is getting a bit too off-topic.

...

I'd say that in virtually all cases, people do not derive their morality from their religion anyway.  I mean... if the majority of, say, Christians did, when you point at one of the slavery verses the standard response would be "Yup!  That's right!" rather than an explanation of why it's outdated.  Religious and nonreligious alike people realise these laws are outdated and to some extent abhorrent because they have their own understanding of morality and why it's needed.  I'd also think that this is why the basic instructions of most religions are quite similar - people have something of a natural understanding of a form of morality (possibly deriving from empathy).

I'd say two possible times when religion (not saying these two things are exclusive to deistic religions, though) can go wrong in terms of morality are:
1. When the entire thing is very firmly indoctrinated, causing that person to actually base their morality completely on it
2. If someone effectively cherry picks their religious ideas for support.  This can be harmless, but in the case of bigots it can have the effect of reinforcing their views in a kindof echo chamber (you go in thinking gays are bad, you come out thinking that gays and bad and that God agrees).

I was actually thinking of slavery's abolition when I wrote that "extremely difficult" part about changing minds. People don't derive their entire morality from religion, no, but it is a major part in how they decide what is and what isn't moral. Take for instance the Pew Poll about homosexual acceptance: more orthodox religious people who eschew secular values tend to have far greater rates of anti-homosexuality than people of a more secular influence.

I think that slavery may have only been overcome thanks to a competing set of values that spawned with the rise of Rationalism, not because human empathy finally decided to win out over long-held traditions at a moment that merely coincided with secular philosophy developments.

[freeformschooler]

Bias? Why?
I come from the far extreme of religion being a bad thing, I also come from the far extreme of absolute unwavering tightly bound faith. My biases should cancel each other out?

You basically just proved his entire point with this statement. The fact that you have never been anything but extreme makes you unsuitable for rational debate unless you're willing to look past your personal experiences. Everything you pull up is reactionary to your former situation, and thus you're a person lashing out at a former life.

I would have replied to him myself but I fell asleep and along comes Willfor to say what I was gonna say to him anyway. I don't think Nadaka's beliefs are "wrong" any more than my beliefs are "wrong" but the way he presents them is out of place in a rational debate such as this (at least, when we are not being poo throwing monkeys as these things sometimes turn into. Then really anything is fair game)

[Nadaka]

Bias? Why?
I come from the far extreme of religion being a bad thing, I also come from the far extreme of absolute unwavering tightly bound faith. My biases should cancel each other out?

You basically just proved his entire point with this statement. The fact that you have never been anything but extreme makes you unsuitable for rational debate unless you're willing to look past your personal experiences. Everything you pull up is reactionary to your former situation, and thus you're a person lashing out at a former life.

The hell? How am I lashing out at my former life? You are making a bullshit argument, a personal attack, so you can dismiss what I have to say.

The shit I brought up from my personal experience was a direct response to the attack that strife made against ME and not my arguments.

[Jackrabbit]

Your arguments are filled with extreme rage and anger, something that you said was brought about by the (completely horrific, I would never think otherwise) way you were exposed to organized religion. You admitted yourself that you are coming from an extreme point of view and this means your arguments are biased. Bias is not good if you're looking for meaningful debate as opposed to stupid shit like this:

[size=cruisecontrolforcool]THERE IS NO GOD, NOW LETS ALL BE NICE TO EACH OTHER AND ENJOY OUR LIVES[/size]

You're certainly not that bad, I just wanted to call him out on that.

Nobody is attacking you personally, people are just trying to say that if you're going to have an argument, try not to come in from an extreme. Extremes are not good.

e: Can I just say something here? If you're trying to debate someone, no matter how annoying they are or how much you think they're wrong, there's two things that'll just drive the argument into mud-slinging territory: sarcasm and passive-aggressive attacks - "I cannot believe your ignorance" "you can't possibly be that stupid" "I expected better" blah blah blah, no. It's not helping get your point across, it's riling up your opponent needlessly and, frankly, childishly. Nobody needs to be like that and if someone debating you doesn't realize that, it's not that hard to be the bigger person. I'm completely guilty of this myself, obviously, but I'm making a big effort to tone it down and I think it's helping a lot.

[freeformschooler]

e: Can I just say something here? If you're trying to debate someone, no matter how annoying they are or how much you think they're wrong, there's two things that'll just drive the argument into mud-slinging territory: sarcasm and passive-aggressive attacks - "I cannot believe your ignorance" "you can't possibly be that stupid" "I expected better" blah blah blah, no. It's not helping get your point across, it's riling up your opponent needlessly and, frankly, childishly. Nobody needs to be like that and if someone debating you doesn't realize that, it's not that hard to be the bigger person. I'm completely guilty of this myself, obviously, but I'm making a big effort to tone it down and I think it's helping a lot.

I am particularly guilty of this but also have been looking for ways to tone it down. Thank you Jackrabbit for pointing that out. It's really helpful and I'd like to work harder, etc etc

On another note, something I've learned to help arguments/debates in the same air: if you're arguing with someone but they have a point that you agree with, say so. Like even if you believe the rest of their message is BS but they say something you agree with, don't forget to say "that's a valid point" or "I agree" before moving on into the rest of your arguments. Makes you seem like a civil person, and throws the perceived internet hostility out the window, even just for a minute.

I am not talking to anyone in particular here, so very sorry for derailing this otherwise pretty okay I guess thread into THE ETHICS OF DEBATING.

[Astral]

The whole website reminds me of this simple video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jk6ILZAaAMI&feature=related

The problem with the site itself is that it tries to logically dictate why people shouldn't believe. If you could be rational with religious people, there would be no religious people.

(I'm spiritualistic with the belief that there probably is more out there than we could possibly understand within our limited worldview, but I love dropping that House quote.)

[ArKFallen]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jk6ILZAaAMI&feature=related

Whoa. That's the the guy who made the topic website.
Congrats Astral you voiced your belief, opinion on the website, and stayed on topic while being relevant to the side discussion. Nice!

[Astral]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jk6ILZAaAMI&feature=related

Whoa. That's the the guy who made the topic website.
Congrats Astral you voiced your belief, opinion on the website, and stayed on topic while being relevant to the side discussion. Nice!

Heh, I try not to do it too often. And I didn't go through enough of the site to realize that was actually on it. 

[Bohandas]

As I said before, if the benefits of religion can be replaced by other means then regardless of its merits, religion is obsolete. This would be obvious if were to use another car analogy comparing an old gas guzzler with an electronic car that was just as effective but didn't cause the pollution. I could take it even further, and compare the moral benefit said to be found in religious texts with that of humanist philosophy. You get all the good fuzzy feelings without the condemnation of homosexuals as unnatural sins against the order established by our Lord On High. Yet it is only belief-powered human behavior that can thwart both obvious answers and arrive at the conclusion that destroying our world is in the best interest of humanity. For Apocalypse hopefuls, literally.

...

We don't need religion, and it is, by itself, harmful. Magic thinking, is harmful. Protecting religion or helping people go through their lives without their ideas being challenged, is harmful. Obviously going around killing religious people would be even more harmful, but that's going into the how of removing religion, not the truth value of its

status as a negative effect on humanity.

...

People are capable of compartmentalizing extremely well, but when they are serious about a foundational principle of their entire life outlook it will seep into every idea that ever pops into their head.
[/quote]

You need an arbitrary foundational principle in your life because no logical reason exists to do anything; Even basic things such as keeping yourself alive. Most justifications can only be reasoned up to some arbitrary unproven starting point, and those that don't either require an infinite series of proofs and thus canot be known to be valid, or else rely on circular reasoning.

On a slightly lighter note, check out these tangentally related links:
Why Mr.Anderson?
Skull-King

People are capable of compartmentalizing extremely well, but when they are serious about a foundational principle of their entire life outlook it will seep into every idea that ever pops into their head. When I was still religious my entire outlook on morality and how the world worked was contingent on some very frail pillars that made inane nonsense such as "unnatural acts" or "fetuses are people" make sense within my mental framework at the time. It is the complete and utter distortion of reality which is religion's greatest evil, and it is one embedded at the concept's heart.

I object to the implication that the argument that fetuses are people is a purely a religious one. From my prespective, which is is not very religious a all, the only differences between a fetus and a fully formed human being is that the fetus s a slightly smaller sac of proteins and lipids, and unlike the fully formed human, the fetus is only able to be an inconvenience a maximum of only one other person, whereas the fully formed human can inconvenience many people at a time.

[Glowcat]

@Bohandas: Are you replying to me?

You quote me, but it seems you're either off on a loosely related tangent or objecting to something I never said.

[Bohandas]

@Bohandas: Are you replying to me?

You quote me, but it seems you're either off on a loosely related tangent or objecting to something I never said.

Yeah, by the time I realized that it was only loosely related (and the fact that some parts of my response were only related to each other) I had already typed most of the response and apent about a half hour finding those links didn't want to just throw them out.