To those who see religion as harmless...

[Raziaar]

EDIT: Ugh double post.

 

[Raziaar]

Last I checked scientists invented small things like the atomic bomb and the nuclear bomb, both of which have the potential to wipe out mankind. Hiroshima was destroyed in 1945 thanks to science, not religion.

Shhh... only religious people use nuclear weapons.

That's why they're called Atom(Adam) Bombs. Gifts from god to Adam.

 

[Operational]

This serves my point. Your "fair" ethics come from your upbringing, one of which has roots in a religion.

Neither of my parents are religious and I consider myself to be a moral/ethical person, I am actually offended that you seem to think I need some kind of religious influence to be.

 

[Krynn72]

Last I checked scientists invented small things like the atomic bomb and the nuclear bomb, both of which have the potential to wipe out mankind. Hiroshima was destroyed in 1945 thanks to science, not religion.

Last time I checked science wasnt a philosophy or a code of morals and principals which told people whom to hate. Last time I checked, science simply came up with new inventions that people (including religious people) could use however they please.


Last time I checked.

 

[Cheomesh]

Neither of my parents are religious and I consider myself to be a moral/ethical person, I am actually offended that you seem to think I need some kind of religious influence to be.

Think back further. The ethics they where taught are grounded in a faith of some form.

 

[MJ12]

^ Well I would draw the line and say that faith is not the founder of ethics, but simply a reinforcer and manipulator of ethics.

Even apes and elephants have been able to show some sort of ethical behavior within their group, but they didn't learn that from faith.

 

[Wanted Bob]

Or did they????

 

[Jintor]

Last I checked scientists invented small things like the atomic bomb and the nuclear bomb, both of which have the potential to wipe out mankind. Hiroshima was destroyed in 1945 thanks to science, not religion.

And penecilin... and motorised transportation... and the steam engine, electricity, the internet, x-rays, medical techniques...

 

[Cheomesh]

And penecilin... and motorised transportation... and the steam engine, electricity, the internet, x-rays, medical techniques...

Mustard gas, solar panels, writing (is that *really* a scientific advancement? I think it comes more from artistic...that's a whole different topic.), napalm, metalworking...

 

[Operational]

Think back further. The ethics they where taught are grounded in a faith of some form.

Ethics are a branch of Philosophy, which uses rational thinking and can arise without any religious belief what so ever. Confucianism for example has nothing to say about God(s) but details ethical and moral behaviour for its followers.
Are you only an ethical person because that's what God tells you to do? What if God told you to be cruel and dishonest, after all your only goal is to do what he tells you what difference does it make?

In short I'd like to believe that most of the population doesn't need a fear/belief of God to be ethical, I'd hope humanity is better than that.

 

[Cheomesh]

Ethics are a branch of Philosophy, which uses rational thinking and can arise without any religious belief what so ever. Confucianism for example has nothing to say about God(s) but details ethical and moral behaviour for its followers.
Are you only an ethical person because that's what God tells you to do? What if God told you to be cruel and dishonest, after all your only goal is to do what he tells you what difference does it make?

In short I'd like to believe that most of the population doesn't need a fear/belief of God to be ethical, I'd hope humanity is better than that.

I don't believe in God.

Still, Ethics are founded in Religion. Go read Plato or Socrates sometime.

Modern Ethics have a great deal that could be considered Illogical, based on point of view. We've had that discussion, remember?

 

[Operational]

I don't believe in God.

You surprise me.

Still, Ethics are founded in Religion.

Ethics are a branch of Philosophy, which uses rational thinking and can arise without any religious belief what so ever. Confucianism for example has nothing to say about God(s) but details ethical and moral behaviour for its followers.

Go read Plato or Socrates sometime.

Is an action morally good because God commands it, or does God command it because it is morally good?

Modern Ethics have a great deal that could be considered Illogical, based on point of view. We've had that discussion, remember?

You'll have to link me, I rarely post in these sorts of threads and usually stop reading them when they turn into massive reply-quote fests.

 

[Jintor]

Still, Ethics are founded in Religion. Go read Plato or Socrates sometime.

Plants grow better in shit, too.

 

[Cheomesh]

You surprise me.

Why?

Ethics are a branch of Philosophy, which uses rational thinking and can arise without any religious belief what so ever. Confucianism for example has nothing to say about God(s) but details ethical and moral behaviour for its followers.

Did he draw on ideologies already in place by religious groups?

Is an action morally good because God commands it, or does God command it because it is morally good?

Ask a Christian, I'm not one.

You'll have to link me, I rarely post in these sorts of threads and usually stop reading them when they turn into massive reply-quote fests.

Basically, it boiled down to a "pure science and logic" question asked by me that didn't get an asnwer; particularly why we allow people who have no contributed to scientific advancement to live and consume resources and energy if they're not really contributing to anything? (I think this is called the Hive Theroy? Not sure.)

 

[Stigmata]

Basically, it boiled down to a "pure science and logic" question asked by me that didn't get an asnwer; particularly why we allow people who have no contributed to scientific advancement to live and consume resources and energy if they're not really contributing to anything? (I think this is called the Hive Theroy? Not sure.)

Easy: Because we have no accurate way to quantify a given person's worth in terms of advancement of the species. The fact that we are even debating this question and its ramifications is proof enough that we're in now way ready as a species to start that kind of activity.

Now I have a question for you, in a hypothetical situation. Let's pretend I grew up in a religious environment, getting all my moral teachings from the Bible, going to church, and all that. Then one day, after some thinking, I decide it's not quite moral to, say, kill someone for believing in someone other than Jesus.

Where did this new idea of morality come from? You say all morality stems from religion, but I didn't get that from the Bible, because the Bible didn't tell me to not kill non-believers. And my morality had to come from somewhere. Nobody told me to think this way; I came to the conclusion on my own. Don't you think "my brain" would be a pretty reasonable answer?

 

[Atomic_Piggy]

This serves my point. Your "fair" ethics come from your upbringing, one of which has roots in a religion.

B-b-b-bullshit.

My parents never forced me to be a christian. They never sent me to Sunday school, or church or anything like that. The worst they did was baptise me. They didn't give a shit when I became an atheist. Typical liberal christians.

So, if I had no exposure to religion in my youth, then where did my morals come from?

Oh wait, there are perfectly sound biological and enviromental explanations, one of which is that, since we evolved in groups, it made sense to make friends with the others in the group. Thus ethics were born (this is of course, an oversimplification).

 

[Stigmata]

Oh yeah, and one more thing Cheo: The Bible was written by people. The Bible could not predate written language, which in turn could not predate society (as only a functioning society could support such a thing as written language). And society could not predate morality, because morality is a very fundamental idea to society (i.e. without morality, there is no social code to prevent the society from destroying itself in some form). So it follows that morality predates the Bible. Thus, any morality derived from the Bible is in fact derived from human morality.

 

[Operational]

Why?

It's just odd that an atheist would say without the influence of religion he'd be a savage. In fact, if you are an atheist then you must accept that at some point religion, and therefore the morality attached to religion, was made up by some person. If a person can make up religion with morality then why can't a person make up morality just by itself?

Did he draw on ideologies already in place by religious groups?

I have no idea what religions were around at the time, Confucius refused to discuss "magic, devils, hell, and Heaven". But surely the huge numbers of people who have followed it and the large influence it has had over two millenia proves that ethics don't need religion?

Is an action morally good because God commands it, or does God command it because it is morally good?

Ask a Christian, I'm not one.

But your answer really matters.

If actions are morally good when God/Religion says so then morality is arbitrary because God/Religion defines what good and evil are.

If God commands things because they are morally good then it proves that God and Morality are separate things and therefore you can have Morality/Ethics without God.

Basically, it boiled down to a "pure science and logic" question asked by me that didn't get an asnwer; particularly why we allow people who have no contributed to scientific advancement to live and consume resources and energy if they're not really contributing to anything? (I think this is called the Hive Theroy? Not sure.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights#Philosophy_of_human_rights
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_humanism

 

[Absinthe]

I've said it before, there are way more close minded mule headed "atheists" in this forum than there are religious fanatics. You wouldn't admit to having a wrong opinion if Jesus came down and slapped you in the face. You would just keep arguing the same rhetoric that has been drilled into your head. If this were 500 years ago, you would be the ones calling for Galileo to be thrown in jail because he didn't agree with you.

False modesty is bullshit. One side is right and the other is wrong. Or to be more precise, one side is rational while the other isn't.

Just because these "mule headed atheists" don't kowtow to religious absurdity and flawed logic doesn't mean they are close minded. It means they have a low tolerance for stupidity.

Well I am talking about the individuals that go as far as to say religion should be outright banned from society. Which is very radical thinking. (yeah, I know Darwin and Dawkins doesn't say that, I am talking about specific individuals in society, just like how you were talking about fundi's)
Just because I don't believe in a religion doesn't mean others should have it completely taken away.

Okay, that's perfectly reasonable.

Although I have no idea how this fits in with your "atheists are just as bad" argument, because the people on this forum who call for banning religion are few and far between.

No matter what your individual beliefs are, faith is useful to society as a whole.
You know why? Because the catholic church donates more money to charity than any other organization on the planet. Many charitible organizations are either run, or partially funded by the church.
Yeah, "useless", okay.

That's not true. The biggest charity organization is the Bill & Melinda Gates foundation, and it is a strictly secular one at that. And the point of charity is defeated if you end up screwing over people any way. Africa and its ignorance towards condoms is probably the most pertinent example of this, thanks to the Church.

Think back further. The ethics they where taught are grounded in a faith of some form.

You keep saying this, and yet you have not explained your claim at all. So please go into detail as to how we derive our ethics from religion. Explain how it would have been impossible for such ethics to arise without it. And explain - if we derived our ethics from holy scripture - how we we ever got the capacity to deviate from these religious moral codes. How did we ever come up with an independent moral standard to which we measured books like the Bible up against?

 

[[Matt]]

I've said it before, there are way more close minded mule headed "atheists" in this forum than there are religious fanatics. You wouldn't admit to having a wrong opinion if Jesus came down and slapped you in the face. You would just keep arguing the same rhetoric that has been drilled into your head. If this were 500 years ago, you would be the ones calling for Galileo to be thrown in jail because he didn't agree with you.

I would change my mind the instant a God or gods revealed themselves to humanity in such a way that all the evidence supports their existence. As such their isn't any evidence at all for a supernatural creator so thats why I lack a belief in one. Anyone who claims to have evidence in one can usually be countered with far superior evidence on the other side of the argument. Just because i've not changed my mind yet because there's been nothing to sway my opinion makes me closed minded?

 

[Eejit]

I would change my mind the instant a God or gods revealed themselves to humanity in such a way that all the evidence supports their existence. As such their isn't any evidence at all for a supernatural creator so thats why I lack a belief in one. Anyone who claims to have evidence in one can usually be countered with far superior evidence on the other side of the argument. Just because i've not changed my mind yet because there's been nothing to sway my opinion makes me closed minded?

Yeah why didn't Moses use his goddamn camcorder?

 

[[Matt]]

You keep saying this, and yet you have not explained your claim at all. So please go into detail as to how we derive our ethics from religion. Explain how it would have been impossible for such ethics to arise without it. And explain - if we derived our ethics from holy scripture - how we we ever got the capacity to deviate from these religious moral codes. How did we ever come up with an independent moral standard to which we measured books like the Bible up against?

Don't forget the ethics and morals from the old testament are dubious at best and downright murderous at the worst!

 

[[Matt]]

Yeah why didn't Moses use his goddamn camcorder?

His wife recorded the Eastenders christmas special over the parting of the red sea so thats why we have no evidence!!

 

[Eejit]

I didn't see anybody mentioning this, but religion can reinforce ethics.

Fear of punishment by law won't necessarily discourage someone from a crime if they think they can get away with it, but if they think God's watching them ready to slap them they might think again.
You've mentioned how atheists can have ethics etc. from a humanist point of view. But really self-centred people don't give a crap about that. If they're religious and self-centred that's a different story.

Basically I'm saying that religion is also a way of getting people who don't care much about society or others to follow a basic moral code for fear of hell/not getting into heaven etc.

Discuss?

 

[Absinthe]

I've said it before and I'll say it again: People who need religion to keep themselves from committing terrible acts are sociopaths. I can't say I'm comforted by the idea that the only thing keeping my neighbor from killing me is God's leash. Even if it does reinforce ethics sometimes (and by this I mean ethics we can all agree on), it's just as capable of promoting violence or skewed moral conduct. So it's not even reliable or consistent. It's just not a great way of enforcing moral principles.

Anything beneficial religion contributes is either inefficient or impaired by dogma. Religion could, for instance, keep a person from committing suicide, but possibly at the cost of turning him into a homophobe who would vote against a homosexual couple's ability to marry. Salvation comes with strings attached, and it's not all pretty. On the other hand, therapy is just as likely (if not moreso) to help you affirm your life without also preaching about immaculate conceptions and sinful behavior.

We should be exploring more into secular practices instead of just accepting faith as a crutch. Morality should be explained to people as a matter of human suffering and happiness. When it truly hits a person that his fellow man is capable of experiencing the same fear, pain, and sense of loss just as he is, then he will understand the gravity of murder and rape. It was precisely because we realized that blacks are just as human as the rest of us that ended slavery in the US. And if a person can't be dissuaded from crime by that compassion alone, then I don't see how faith is a long-term and tenable option. Even if religion was useful for humanity at some point in history, it has ceased being so in our modern day. We are entirely able to live without it at this point.

 

[Cheomesh]

B-b-b-bullshit.

My parents never forced me to be a christian. They never sent me to Sunday school, or church or anything like that. The worst they did was baptise me. They didn't give a shit when I became an atheist. Typical liberal christians.

So, if I had no exposure to religion in my youth, then where did my morals come from?

Oh wait, there are perfectly sound biological and enviromental explanations, one of which is that, since we evolved in groups, it made sense to make friends with the others in the group. Thus ethics were born (this is of course, an oversimplification).

/facepalm.

You are not understanding. I will let you be, then, because there is no explaining this to you.

It's just odd that an atheist would say without the influence of religion he'd be a savage. In fact, if you are an atheist then you must accept that at some point religion, and therefore the morality attached to religion, was made up by some person. If a person can make up religion with morality then why can't a person make up morality just by itself?

WOAH! I am not an Athiest. There people other than Christians and Jews, you know this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights#Philosophy_of_human_rights
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_humanism

[/quote]

Still, from my studies in history, you can root all modern life philosophy from religious influence. It's really NOT that hard to see. We're talking derivatives here.

 

[Skaadi]

I never understood why religious people hated vaccinations, but meh.

Good article.

That's a bit of an unfair generalisation.

 

[[Matt]]

I didn't see anybody mentioning this, but religion can reinforce ethics.

Fear of punishment by law won't necessarily discourage someone from a crime if they think they can get away with it, but if they think God's watching them ready to slap them they might think again.
You've mentioned how atheists can have ethics etc. from a humanist point of view. But really self-centered people don't give a crap about that. If they're religious and self-centered that's a different story.

Basically I'm saying that religion is also a way of getting people who don't care much about society or others to follow a basic moral code for fear of hell/not getting into heaven etc.

Discuss?

if your religion makes you a more moral person then thats great! However it doesn't make your religion true.

Also when mentioning how atheists can have ethics and morals why is your next sentence 'self-centered people don't give a crap about that'. Do you see atheists as having a self centered view of the world?

However your ultimate view that religion can give believers a moral and ethical code to follow for the greater good can work the other way also. The best way to counter such an argument is to refer to what is now known as the Hitchens challenge...

Name me an ethical statement made or an action performed by a believer that could not have been made or performed by a non-believer?

Can you think of an immoral statement made, or an immoral wicked action performed by someone that can only have been religious?

Christopher Hitchens says that he first question has yet to have been countered with a decent answer whilst no person has any difficulty coming up with an answer to second question in the challenge...

 

[Absinthe]

Still, from my studies in history, you can root all modern life philosophy from religious influence. It's really NOT that hard to see. We're talking derivatives here.

Still waiting for an explanation.

 

[[Matt]]

Still, from my studies in history, you can root all modern life philosophy from religious influence. It's really NOT that hard to see. We're talking derivatives here.

you keep claiming this but have yet to show any evidence. Study anthropology and you will see sacks of evidence that morality predates religion on a biological level.

http://www.biotunes.org/bioblog/2007/03/morality-is-not-human-construct.html

 

[Eejit]

I've said it before and I'll say it again: People who need religion to keep themselves from committing terrible acts are sociopaths. I can't say I'm comforted by the idea that the only thing keeping my neighbor from killing me is God's leash. Even if it does reinforce ethics sometimes (and by this I mean ethics we can all agree on), it's just as capable of promoting violence or skewed moral conduct. So it's not even reliable or consistent. It's just not a great way of enforcing moral principles.

Well that's your take on 'terrible acts' aka murder/rape, but I said crime. What about fraud, theft etc.?

Also when mentioning how atheists can have ethics and morals why is your next sentence 'self-centered people don't give a crap about that'. Do you see atheists as having a self centered view of the world?

Some can, just as some religious people can. My question is whether you think fear of Divine Retribution in the next life would cause such people to be less likely to commit crimes? I'm mainly thinking non-lethal but still immoral crime here such as theft, fraud (maybe not exlicitly mentioned much in the Bible but falls under general headings such as Love your neighbour etc.).

 

[Dan]

umm Renes Descartes, the father of methedological skepticism and also calculus. He came up with a single fundamental truth: "I think therefore I am". He goes on to build up a proof for the existence of god from that.

 

[Eejit]

umm Renes Descartes, the father of methedological skepticism and also calculus. He came up with a single fundamental truth: "I think therefore I am". He goes on to build up a proof for the existence of god from that.

There are logical 'proofs' both for and against the existence of God. Which is why I tend to ignore them they kinda cancel each other out if you aren't already biased in one direction or the other.

 

[Druckles]

Dan, don't use that argument, you're going to get ripped to shreds.

 

[Dan]

Dan, don't use that argument, you're going to get ripped to shreds.

I didn't use any argument. Somebody just said they wanted an example of philosophy with religious influence. I provided one.

 

[Druckles]

Oh... right.

Well Descartes was a moron and his arguments didn't work. I'd have gone for Aquinas if you wanted a religious philosopher.

But then Plato was technically religious.

 

[Dan]

Well Descartes was a moron

That takes a lotta nerve to say. Any modern scientist or mathematician worth their salt would disagree with you on that one.

 

[Eejit]

My religious philosopher could beat up your religious philosopher

 

[Druckles]

That takes a lotta nerve to say. Any modern scientist or mathematician worth their salt would disagree with you on that one.

No they wouldn't. He was a great mathmetician, sure, but he couldn't philosiphize for hell.

 

[Dan]

Renes Descartes made significant contributions to many realms of mathematics and physics:
He set the basis of calculus
He invented cartesian coordinates
He founded analytic geometry
He came up with the idea of the imaginary number i
He discovered the principle of conservation of momentum
He discovered the law of refraction
He also created exponential notation (something Druckles could brush up on)

He was not a moron. He has contributed more to modern society than any of you ever will, and he is remembered for that.