Morality

[Rocket-footed kolarov]

Dogmatists repeating something over and over again works on weak-minded people but not me.

Every time you read it or say it you make another copy in your brain.

Every time you read it or say it you make another copy in your brain.

The debate has been quite meaningless because the Vicar doesn't really offer us any new insight.however, what other posters have posted have been informative and has sparked off discussion and led to research of areas we might not have otherwise come across.

 

[Bigga]

I would then have to ask, which of those hasn't been misinterpreted from its original state??

Even the Qur'an has been questioned as to its foundation. I am sure there was a documentary about a deviation of teachings in Eastern Europe than in Asia(for example the teachings about the '72 virgins' are not similar at all) as well as text found that have not been included or misinterpreted. We all know that the King James' Bible is not the origin. I cannot answer about the Torah, but I suspect the same alterations have happened over time.

Were these Books written on the spot? No, there is no record of that being true. And, like all information told over time, it dilutes and people put their own spin on it before someone decides to record it. How affected are these Books from the original Word, who is going to know...?

Just my take on it.

The original word is just stories handed down to the next generation ( chinese whispers, if you will).
The whole charade is obvious to those that really look into it, for those that believe this nonsense and claim a moral high ground is beyond ridiculous.

Exactly. Bigga, if you are interested?-take a look at youtube vids featuring Dan Dennett on the memetics of religion, or Jared Diamond on the anthropological basis for religion.

I have no need to look something I have already self reasoned with 20+ years ago. I am not one of those people that believe 'the earth was made in 7 days'. Yet I am one of those people that think that science and religion are more connected than you think.

But I am not religious nor am I an atheist.

 

[The Flash]

I am one of those people that think that science and religion are more connected than you think.

In what way Bigga?

Religion is simply a product of man's imagination.

Science shows how the world and everything in it works.

There is no crossover.

 

[pominoz]

The original word is just stories handed down to the next generation ( chinese whispers, if you will).
The whole charade is obvious to those that really look into it, for those that believe this nonsense and claim a moral high ground is beyond ridiculous.

Exactly. Bigga, if you are interested?-take a look at youtube vids featuring Dan Dennett on the memetics of religion, or Jared Diamond on the anthropological basis for religion.

I have no need to look something I have already self reasoned with 20+ years ago. I am not one of those people that believe 'the earth was made in 7 days'. Yet I am one of those people that think that science and religion are more connected than you think.

But I am not religious nor am I an atheist.

How can you be "not religious nor an atheist"?
Take a stand man.

 

[Rocket-footed kolarov]

I am one of those people that think that science and religion are more connected than you think.

In what way Bigga?

Religion is simply a product of man's imagination.

Science shows how the world and everything in it works.

There is no crossover.

He seems to be referring to the consciousness prior to matter concept (see Deepak Chopra).
What I referenced earlier wasn't there to shake his belief or convert him just to give him insight to what he was talking about in relation evolution of religion.

 

[BlueHammer85]

So... the conclusion to this, as a Atheist i can not claim an absolute moral right therefore not make a judgement that something is WRONG ?

You can do what you want Mark if you have valid reasoning behind it. One of your points is: "the Iraq war was wrong because it was brought about politicians lying to the public to bring it about is one viewpoint. The other viewpoint is that sometimes it is necessary to tell lies to bring about a greater good. Most people would agree with both the values behind the reasoning, it then becomes a balancing act. This could become a constitutional point where lying and other wrongful actions are prohibited by higher constitutional law, but that only makes it more difficult to get away with it. There may be a case for excusing somebody from punishment for procedural wrongs to bring about greater good.

On the whole though your brother is also wrong because he can not establish absolute morality because there is no objective view of God and he can't prove that it is not confined to the minds of human beings.

ok, what im having trouble understanding/answering is... my view as an Athiest is that we are all particles and matter bought about by evolution etc and there is no real meaning to life...

so he's point is... if thats your view, were just mere particles pieced together and theres no meaning to life.. why should i have a moral jusgement on things like war and rape etc ... when it's all meaningless in my athiest worldview

 

[without a dream]

So... the conclusion to this, as a Atheist i can not claim an absolute moral right therefore not make a judgement that something is WRONG ?

You can do what you want Mark if you have valid reasoning behind it. One of your points is: "the Iraq war was wrong because it was brought about politicians lying to the public to bring it about is one viewpoint. The other viewpoint is that sometimes it is necessary to tell lies to bring about a greater good. Most people would agree with both the values behind the reasoning, it then becomes a balancing act. This could become a constitutional point where lying and other wrongful actions are prohibited by higher constitutional law, but that only makes it more difficult to get away with it. There may be a case for excusing somebody from punishment for procedural wrongs to bring about greater good.

On the whole though your brother is also wrong because he can not establish absolute morality because there is no objective view of God and he can't prove that it is not confined to the minds of human beings.

ok, what im having trouble understanding/answering is... my view as an Athiest is that we are all particles and matter bought about by evolution etc and there is no real meaning to life...

so he's point is... if thats your view, were just mere particles pieced together and theres no meaning to life.. why should i have a moral jusgement on things like war and rape etc ... when it's all meaningless in my athiest worldview

It's not meaningless to the people involved though, of course you can (and should) feel that's it's wrong for someone to impose suffering on someone else. Just because you don't believe there's an afterlife doesn't mean that you don't want to make things better for those you leave behind.

 

[Rocket-footed kolarov]

You can do what you want Mark if you have valid reasoning behind it. One of your points is: "the Iraq war was wrong because it was brought about politicians lying to the public to bring it about is one viewpoint. The other viewpoint is that sometimes it is necessary to tell lies to bring about a greater good. Most people would agree with both the values behind the reasoning, it then becomes a balancing act. This could become a constitutional point where lying and other wrongful actions are prohibited by higher constitutional law, but that only makes it more difficult to get away with it. There may be a case for excusing somebody from punishment for procedural wrongs to bring about greater good.

On the whole though your brother is also wrong because he can not establish absolute morality because there is no objective view of God and he can't prove that it is not confined to the minds of human beings.

ok, what im having trouble understanding/answering is... my view as an Athiest is that we are all particles and matter bought about by evolution etc and there is no real meaning to life...

so he's point is... if thats your view, were just mere particles pieced together and theres no meaning to life.. why should i have a moral jusgement on things like war and rape etc ... when it's all meaningless in my athiest worldview

It's not meaningless to the people involved though, of course you can (and should) feel that's it's wrong for someone to impose suffering on someone else. Just because you don't believe there's an afterlife doesn't mean that you don't want to make things better for those you leave behind.

Yes this, and I think your brother is missing the point when it comes to evolution, he is constantly referring to survival of the fittest but humans are social animals and evolution remains on the social group functioning. You can inject other ideas and values into your decision making it doesn't have to be meaningless.

The idea of God as a concept grew in part because chiefs acting as enforcers need otherworldly backing or they don't remain chiefs for very long. In the era of State religion, religious belief may have had some effect of curtailing the excess of human personality. Although the easy thing to do is take it for granted when we are reminded of the excess of human personality that are backed by religion.

 

[BlueHammer85]

So... the conclusion to this, as a Atheist i can not claim an absolute moral right therefore not make a judgement that something is WRONG ?

So YOUR conclusion to this... I certainly haven't had my mind changed by this futile farce. I posted a full rebuke to his argument at the start of the thread and it's not moved on from there at all. Dogmatists repeating something over and over again works on weak-minded people but not me. No wonder vicars and priests refer to their congregations as their flocks. Bunch of fucking sheep. Exactly right.

Anyway, let's hear from the vicar, let's see him answer point for point:

1. Proof of God.
2. Proof of prophets communicating with God.
3. Proof of one interpretation of the Bible.
4. Proof that interpretation is any good at solving moral questions considering the Nazis claimed God was with them and it was Christians who handed him dictatorial power in order to ensure their own preservation. Speaking of which, don't Christians believe Jesus died for our sins? Well, the Catholics proved unwilling to do so in Nazi Germany - or pre-Nazi as it then was. No, they chose self-preservation instead. They handed Hitler power sooner than sacrifice their own prominence in Germany. I'm struggling to see the morality there.

Then, a full explanation of how that interpretation allows him to condemn the Iraq War. Which moral issues about the Iraq war does the Bible definitely solve?

C'mon vicar, make my day.

Ok Skash, we have agreed to have a break from the debate till next week.

I have asked him for a brief answer to your Nazi point and to prove there is a God and prove those who wrote and pieced the Bible knew what God wanted ... so will resume next week. cheers all.

 

[nijinsky's fetlocks]

This misses the mark of what I said, completely.

it doesn't, you just haven't grasped how religion should work.

Okay, are religion and society two separate things?

Are you actually being serious here?
Because even my Border Collie would nod 'oh yes' if asked that question.
And he would be correct.
That two separate entities can coexist does not negate the fact that they are completely separate.
That religion exists within society does not mean that they are inextricably linked, any more than my kettle and my toaster being one and the same because they both inhabit my kitchen.