Morality

[BlueHammer85]

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.

Ok... still going around in circles it seems ...


----

repeating myself over and over again, I'm sure you feel the same.....but we are unable to move on since I will not accept a contradiction in all that you believe.....ok so here we go again, please read slowly

An absolute wrong is just that....absolute, it is wrong regardless of weather anyone believes it or not....these to you DO NOT EXIST....

FINE FOR GOODNESS SAKE, you now have admitted that through whatever natural process you think they come from they are relative, there are no ABSOLUTE MORAL laws in Nature, it's your brain made of chemical composition.....YOU AND WHATEVER GOES THROUGH YOUR CHEMICALLY MADE UP BRAIN.......MEAN NOTHING

in nature there is no meaning....how can you attach meaning to a meaningless world

Humans, apes, pens, pigs, flys and cars are all in a natural world a simple product of atoms....all of them....you have no special place amongst any of them, if humans are at the top of a food chain that's because luck, circumstance and a combination of atoms and chemicals have formed together to produce what we call a human...it is important......on that basis, what are morals....they are the product of electrical activity of the brain

ABSOLUTELY AND NOTHING MORE THAN THAT.....YOU MEAN ULTIMATELY NOTHING

Whenever you attach meaning you are appealing to either

A) yourself (chemical brain)

B) Higher Purpose

Now that IS THE NATURAL WORLD

So you have said as an Atheist you can have morals.....OF COURSE YOU CAN

But you cannot claim that your right has any kind of meaning, there is NONE

RIGHT AND WRONG, DO NOT Exist just your version of it

Your chemical brain says it is wrong to invade Iraq

Mine says its right

If there is no absolute right and wrong and morals have somehow evolved what is this right you are appealing to

There is no standard to what you are appealing....

You have even managed to contradict yourself AGAIN in your sentence....and I quote

Remember if there is no absolutes what are you comparing your standard too? What is THE BASIS AND SOURCE OF WRONG.........so here we go.......

'' I dont accept that being a Athiest means i cant have a moral view on things in life - of course i can (and should) feel that it's wrong for someone to impose suffering on someone else. Just because i don't believe there is an afterlife doesn't mean that i don't want to make things better for those that i leave behind. ''

there are no absolutes but apparently it's an absolute wrong to impose suffering

You are proclaiming a naturalist world view devoid of ULTIMATE meaning and then claiming that your view is.....WRONG

You need to really understand the first few sentences, and really think through the implications of Athiesm, if you attach meaning to your life - your Athiest friend summed it up beautifully and I will end on that note.....

... '' It is a smokescreen, an illusion to the very hard fact that Athiesm when all is stripped away to its core is purely natural and meaning is an illusion to this harsh fact ''

This is so simple yet unbelievably hard to accept since it means all of us end in the grave and values and purposes exist only and purely in our minds

My right is no more meaningful than your wrong, they are the result off chemical activity

 

[Rocket-footed kolarov]

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.

Ok... still going around in circles it seems ...


----

repeating myself over and over again, I'm sure you feel the same.....but we are unable to move on since I will not accept a contradiction in all that you believe.....ok so here we go again, please read slowly

An absolute wrong is just that....absolute, it is wrong regardless of weather anyone believes it or not....these to you DO NOT EXIST....

FINE FOR GOODNESS SAKE, you now have admitted that through whatever natural process you think they come from they are relative, there are no ABSOLUTE MORAL laws in Nature, it's your brain made of chemical composition.....YOU AND WHATEVER GOES THROUGH YOUR CHEMICALLY MADE UP BRAIN.......MEAN NOTHING

in nature there is no meaning....how can you attach meaning to a meaningless world

Humans, apes, pens, pigs, flys and cars are all in a natural world a simple product of atoms....all of them....you have no special place amongst any of them, if humans are at the top of a food chain that's because luck, circumstance and a combination of atoms and chemicals have formed together to produce what we call a human...it is important......on that basis, what are morals....they are the product of electrical activity of the brain

ABSOLUTELY AND NOTHING MORE THAN THAT.....YOU MEAN ULTIMATELY NOTHING

Whenever you attach meaning you are appealing to either

A) yourself (chemical brain)

B) Higher Purpose

Now that IS THE NATURAL WORLD

So you have said as an Atheist you can have morals.....OF COURSE YOU CAN

But you cannot claim that your right has any kind of meaning, there is NONE

RIGHT AND WRONG, DO NOT Exist just your version of it

Your chemical brain says it is wrong to invade Iraq

Mine says its right

If there is no absolute right and wrong and morals have somehow evolved what is this right you are appealing to

There is no standard to what you are appealing....

You have even managed to contradict yourself AGAIN in your sentence....and I quote

Remember if there is no absolutes what are you comparing your standard too? What is THE BASIS AND SOURCE OF WRONG.........so here we go.......

'' I dont accept that being a Athiest means i cant have a moral view on things in life - of course i can (and should) feel that it's wrong for someone to impose suffering on someone else. Just because i don't believe there is an afterlife doesn't mean that i don't want to make things better for those that i leave behind. ''

there are no absolutes but apparently it's an absolute wrong to impose suffering

You are proclaiming a naturalist world view devoid of ULTIMATE meaning and then claiming that your view is.....WRONG

You need to really understand the first few sentences, and really think through the implications of Athiesm, if you attach meaning to your life - your Athiest friend summed it up beautifully and I will end on that note.....

... '' It is a smokescreen, an illusion to the very hard fact that Athiesm when all is stripped away to its core is purely natural and meaning is an illusion to this harsh fact ''

This is so simple yet unbelievably hard to accept since it means all of us end in the grave and values and purposes exist only and purely in our minds

My right is no more meaningful than your wrong, they are the result off chemical activity

Except you confuse absence of belief in God, as absence in belief in anything. Skashion has filled the hole with libertarianism, I might say I have replaced it with humanism. Lets take your two points, a doctor though irreligious is fulfilled by helping those in need, and probably because of the chemical response and higher purpose-The need to feel you have had a positive effect on the world. You base your belief in god in the need for judgement, but you don't take into account judgement by society.
Your view of meaning is totally different from what we view as meaning it may give you happiness but that is it, you have no more meaning than me anyway. You can take comfort that you will be rewarded in an afterlife, I take comfort in the fact that I won't be judged by an unpredictable mafia boss when I am dead.

It is hard to accept, but it is more likely the case than not. what is the point of somebody living and dieing young?-what is the point of stillborn children? They had the chance of life. The chance to enjoy. Animals have no meaning beyond existence in almost all theological interpretations so why should we, is something you address. The point is they don't, but they lack the level of self awareness as we do. With self awareness we are tied to eternal struggle to find meaning, it may be paradoxical it may be ultimately pointless in the end but it gets us by and that is perhaps enough.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dTuhSdvlX-A

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YZZ9QGSCuU[/youtube]

 

[Bigga]

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.

Carefully sieving the answer to pick what you need, so let define it further by dictionary:

"religion  
Use Religion in a sentence
re·li·gion [ri-lij-uhn] Show IPA
noun
1.
a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2.
a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3.
the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions."

Number 1 is quite interesting as it states about the use of morality, but 2 and 3 underlines what I have said. Groups eventually become a society as it expands. Society is susceptible to a moral code which can only be absorbed back within itself which will and does alter a view that can be seen as 'religious' upon that said society.

Religious outlook evolves eventually. Maybe not to the point where it turns 180%, but it does and will incorporate the views of the society involved.

It becomes more 'tolerate' if you will, because society demands as much.

That is a fact, the world over.

 

[SWP's back]

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.

Carefully sieving the answer to pick what you need, so let define it further by dictionary:

"religion  
Use Religion in a sentence
re·li·gion [ri-lij-uhn] Show IPA
noun
1.
a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2.
a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3.
the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions."

Number 1 is quite interesting as it states about the use of morality, but 2 and 3 underlines what I have said. Groups eventually become a society as it expands. Society is susceptible to a moral code which can only be absorbed back within itself which will and does alter a view that can be seen as 'religious' upon that said society.

Religious outlook evolves eventually. Maybe not to the point where it turns 180%, but it does and will incorporate the views of the society involved.

It becomes more 'tolerate' if you will, because society demands as much.

That is a fact, the world over.

I agree that religion bends to the moral zeitgeist of the day but that doesn't make them one and the same.

 

[Bigga]

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.

Carefully sieving the answer to pick what you need, so let define it further by dictionary:

"religion  
Use Religion in a sentence
re·li·gion [ri-lij-uhn] Show IPA
noun
1.
a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2.
a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3.
the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions."

Number 1 is quite interesting as it states about the use of morality, but 2 and 3 underlines what I have said. Groups eventually become a society as it expands. Society is susceptible to a moral code which can only be absorbed back within itself which will and does alter a view that can be seen as 'religious' upon that said society.

Religious outlook evolves eventually. Maybe not to the point where it turns 180%, but it does and will incorporate the views of the society involved.

It becomes more 'tolerate' if you will, because society demands as much.

That is a fact, the world over.

I agree that religion bends to the moral zeitgeist of the day but that doesn't make them one and the same.

For the most part, it is only the CORE of a said religion that doesn't change. The rest is entwined within the framework of the society of the time, which brings me back to the point of this morning's thought; that one cannot continue to hold the 'moral views' of a Book written x amount of time ago with the frame of an argument against it today.

The views of that society are sealed in that Book forever, but that society and this are basically worlds apart.

"Morality evolves".

 

[SWP's back]

It does that.

 

[Blue Tooth]

Interesting?...maybe?....you decide...elements are perhaps pertinent in this debate.

http://www.upworthy.com/best-explan...eard-and-im-practically-an-atheist?g=2&c=ufb1

 

[nijinsky's fetlocks]

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.

Carefully sieving the answer to pick what you need, so let define it further by dictionary:

"religion  
Use Religion in a sentence
re·li·gion [ri-lij-uhn] Show IPA
noun
1.
a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2.
a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3.
the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions."

Number 1 is quite interesting as it states about the use of morality, but 2 and 3 underlines what I have said. Groups eventually become a society as it expands. Society is susceptible to a moral code which can only be absorbed back within itself which will and does alter a view that can be seen as 'religious' upon that said society.

Religious outlook evolves eventually. Maybe not to the point where it turns 180%, but it does and will incorporate the views of the society involved.

It becomes more 'tolerate' if you will, because society demands as much.

That is a fact, the world over.

So the fact remains, your flight of fantasy into semantic sophistry notwithstanding, that religion and society are separate entities, not inextricably linked, and therefore two different things.
I accept that morality changes as society diffuses, but that doesn't render religion and society mutually dependant.
Proof of this is the fact that society existed long before recognised religion did.

 

[Bigga]

Interesting?...maybe?....you decide...elements are perhaps pertinent in this debate.

http://www.upworthy.com/best-explan...eard-and-im-practically-an-atheist?g=2&c=ufb1

Now THAT is the closest anyone has gotten to how I think. My view is slightly altered, but I expect that would be the case. I would hazard a guess that he, too, would agree the science and belief are not repellent of each other.

I am, somewhat, bemused to be told I must 'pick a side'!!

I have 'Free Will' to do as I please.

 

[Bigga]

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.

Carefully sieving the answer to pick what you need, so let define it further by dictionary:

"religion  
Use Religion in a sentence
re·li·gion [ri-lij-uhn] Show IPA
noun
1.
a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2.
a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3.
the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions."

Number 1 is quite interesting as it states about the use of morality, but 2 and 3 underlines what I have said. Groups eventually become a society as it expands. Society is susceptible to a moral code which can only be absorbed back within itself which will and does alter a view that can be seen as 'religious' upon that said society.

Religious outlook evolves eventually. Maybe not to the point where it turns 180%, but it does and will incorporate the views of the society involved.

It becomes more 'tolerate' if you will, because society demands as much.

That is a fact, the world over.

So the fact remains, your flight of fantasy into semantic sophistry notwithstanding, that religion and society are separate entities, not inextricably linked, and therefore two different things.
I accept that morality changes as society diffuses, but that doesn't render religion and society mutually dependant.
Proof of this is the fact that society existed long before recognised religion did.

Did it?? If religion includes the code of 'devotion' and 'ritual' then in the early stages of Man, the strongest were always worshipped, be that Man or Beast. That would be your infant society creating its infant religion, then.

So I asked "are they different?", earlier.

But... as I take your example, I note that society must have given birth to religion and not the other way around. But are you telling me that religion can exist within a vacuum, using the dictionary sense? If so, why would it bend to the moral of the society of the time??

I have just deleted many more types of questions as they would have elongated the point of this morning's thought. I know what I'm like when I let my thoughts flow.

I think I DO like my "flights of fantasy", after all...