John Cuthber Posted March 30, 2018 Share Posted March 30, 2018 12 minutes ago, Shauno said: No it doesn't. Behaviour only becomes a function of expected outcome.... If that was true- and I doubt many people would say it was, then it could still happen without a God. It would be sufficient that most people had an agreed code of conduct. In fact, you don't even need people. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/06/150625112010.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dimreepr Posted March 30, 2018 Share Posted March 30, 2018 10 minutes ago, Shauno said: The ideas that flow Atheism have been explored. Read Nietzsche. Atheism has consequences - for a start, you reject all God-given morality and elevate your own judgement above that that of any religious authority. Historically that has been a very bad thing. 2 Only because Nietzsche was misunderstood, recently by you. 13 minutes ago, Shauno said: The statement "There is no God" is a pseudo-religious statement. What of the statement "God is irrelevant"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prometheus Posted March 30, 2018 Share Posted March 30, 2018 31 minutes ago, John Cuthber said: One which the Christian church resisted. I don't dispute this. My intention was to point out that the bible may once have been cutting edge morality in its part of the world. 31 minutes ago, John Cuthber said: If you need a God to tell you right from wrong, you have a problem. Toddlers require an authority figure to tell them right from wrong. They do not understand it but they learn to obey. As the child matures at some point they will learn why some things are considered right or wrong for themselves - through personal experience or perhaps literature or cinema. The problem is that religions have not been allowed to mature meaning we have institutions espousing morality only fit for toddlers. 27 minutes ago, Shauno said: Religions are about the supernatural. Then that would exclude many 'philosophies' that are generally considered religions.But even by your own definition atheism is not a religion: it has nothing to do with the supernatural. God does not exist is on a par with that invisible pink unicorn in my room does not exist - or does making that statement also make me religious? 27 minutes ago, Shauno said: Read Nietzsche Why? Why are you obsessed with Nietzsche? He isn't the High Priest of Atheism you seem to think him to be. 28 minutes ago, Shauno said: Historically that has been a very bad thing. Like us living in the most peaceful age in all of human history? 29 minutes ago, Shauno said: Even you agree Atheism "has consequences". Following formula one racing has consequences, usually expensive ones - that doesn't make it a religion. Atheism can have consequences and not be a religion. 32 minutes ago, Shauno said: I would hope that everyone would find that mentality abhorrent, but I don't believe that it true. There are many, many examples. The death penalty is one. The commandments are clear - thou shalt not kill. (The Quakers take this literally, most Christians believe in self defence, etc) However there is no valid reason for killing prisoners - just revenge. It is very easy to say it is better for society just to kill them, but that is pure Nietzsche. I don't see how you can be a Christian and believe in the death penalty. I agree. Interesting that countries with the death penalty tend to be more religious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shauno Posted March 30, 2018 Share Posted March 30, 2018 10 minutes ago, koti said: That is an interesting definition of morality. Could you elaborate on this and give some sources? Or is this pathology your own invention? No, not my own invention. A gross simplification of Nietzsche - not someone I admire or have even read. But the view that "people behave nicely if you think that on the whole it benefits you, but can do terrible things if it suit you" is also not too far from the Christian view of people as flawed individuals. I think most people have a personal sense of morality, which means generally people get along without expensive conflict, but unfortunately it does not take too much for people to abandon it, or "modify" it. (For some reason, I always think of the mob of Argentine veterans chasing the Top Gear team out of Argentina. No-one could argue that they were otherwise decent people but they became a violent mob) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dimreepr Posted March 30, 2018 Share Posted March 30, 2018 (edited) 9 minutes ago, Shauno said: Nietzsche - not someone I admire or have even read. No shit Sherlock. Edited March 30, 2018 by dimreepr Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shauno Posted March 30, 2018 Share Posted March 30, 2018 dimpeer - I doubt anyone but philosophy graduates have read Nietzsche, any probably many of those wouldn't have either. They would have been exposed to his ideas etc. From your previous comments I doubt you even knew who he was a couple of days ago. -1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
koti Posted March 30, 2018 Share Posted March 30, 2018 13 minutes ago, Shauno said: No, not my own invention. A gross simplification of Nietzsche - not someone I admire or have even read. But the view that "people behave nicely if you think that on the whole it benefits you, but can do terrible things if it suit you" is also not too far from the Christian view of people as flawed individuals. I think most people have a personal sense of morality, which means generally people get along without expensive conflict, but unfortunately it does not take too much for people to abandon it, or "modify" it. (For some reason, I always think of the mob of Argentine veterans chasing the Top Gear team out of Argentina. No-one could argue that they were otherwise decent people but they became a violent mob) People behaving „nicely” when it suits them and missbehaving when its suits them otherwise is an idisputable truism which applies to many people. What is ineresting is that you correlate this somehow with the definition of morality. You imply that Nietzshe was an advocate of such a definition of morality, please provide sources. Of the stuff you haven’t read. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shauno Posted March 30, 2018 Share Posted March 30, 2018 To summarise, I would say that alternative position here would be (1) The statement God is dead is not a pseudo-religious statement, and Atheism not a pseudo-religion (apparently if it was, so are football teams) (2) Morality is not God-given. My (moral) judgement is just as good as anyone else's. But my view is (1) Without God, the nature of man is such that personal moral codes are "flexible" and evil happens. I doubt most people even develop a moral code. There lives are comfortable enough not to. They react instinctively - but we evolved in brutal tribal societies and our instincts are not good. We would not needs laws if we could trust ourselves to do good. But laws are a poor substitute for a personal moral framework such as those provided by religion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tmx3 Posted March 30, 2018 Share Posted March 30, 2018 On 11/13/2016 at 7:06 AM, Itoero said: Would the world be a better place without religion? I think it would. Religion creates groups, it forms boundaries between people...that causes many problems. Yes, the world would be a better place without religion. Although I think religions were fabricated in a way to organize a structure of how to behave with others with its codes of morality, differentiating between right and wrong, it did more damage by creating this sense of “us” versus “them” (“our beliefs” versus “their beliefs”) and causing more division and fights amongst people of such divisions, instead of fulfilling its original purpose: to create a sense of unity by making people aware of how to do “right” by one another. On a more personal note, life isn’t the dichotomy as we choose to view it. I’ve never been one to believe in “that is wrong, and because that is wrong, then this is right, and it’s the only right way to do it right”—and quite frankly I never even understood people who insist on thinking in such a way. Why is that the only “right way” to do something, the only way to live? There are too many different kinds of people, too many different ways to handle a single situation, for there to be a religion that would suit all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prometheus Posted March 30, 2018 Share Posted March 30, 2018 Not quite. Morality is not god-given but that does not mean anything goes. It means we have to figure it out, come up with reasons. By god-given morality murder is wrong simply because god says so and that's it. Moral systems without god actually have to explore why murder is wrong. Classic literature like Crime and Punishment help explore the why. A good moral system should have some flexibility: the moment you think you have the god-given truth you stop thinking for yourself. Morality is the most difficult and yet most beautiful thing humans do. To reduce it to simple authoritarian obeyance is to insult the dignity of man. 4 minutes ago, Shauno said: Without God, the nature of man is such that personal moral codes are "flexible" and evil happens. Obviously not true as cultures with God-morality still commit evil and cultures without god-morality have developed sophisticated moral systems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dimreepr Posted March 30, 2018 Share Posted March 30, 2018 29 minutes ago, Shauno said: I doubt anyone but philosophy graduates have read Nietzsche, any probably many of those wouldn't have either. 1 It's certainly obvious you haven't, Sherlock... 40 minutes ago, Shauno said: From your previous comments I doubt you even knew who he was a couple of days ago. If I could be arsed, I'd dig out my previous references in various fora. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shauno Posted March 30, 2018 Share Posted March 30, 2018 It seems to me that the view that "Religion is bad" is deeply entrenched here and not amiable to any sort of real discussion. I believe that many of the position stated here are not well thought out, and the existing discussion goes around the same sometimes ridiculous points again and again (On 29/03/2018 at 4:51 itoero blaming the Jews for the holocaust was a particularly low point) Since I see no point in continuing, I shall no longer post on this topic. Hopefully some readers will reconsider their positons on this topic - I can only say that Religion can be a great source of person strength and comfort. Best wishes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dimreepr Posted March 30, 2018 Share Posted March 30, 2018 1 minute ago, Shauno said: It seems to me that the view that "Religion is bad" is deeply entrenched here and not amiable to any sort of real discussion. I believe that many of the position stated here are not well thought out, and the existing discussion goes around the same sometimes ridiculous points again and again (On 29/03/2018 at 4:51 itoero blaming the Jews for the holocaust was a particularly low point) Since I see no point in continuing, I shall no longer post on this topic. Hopefully some readers will reconsider their positons on this topic - I can only say that Religion can be a great source of person strength and comfort. Best wishes. 4 Just another example of you not reading, no wonder you don't get Nietzsche. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prometheus Posted March 30, 2018 Share Posted March 30, 2018 7 minutes ago, Shauno said: It seems to me that the view that "Religion is bad" is deeply entrenched here and not amiable to any sort of real discussion. A fair few people have consistently been defending religion. My position is that we cannot usefully quantify the harm or good religion has done and we cannot rerun human history without religion, all that seems clear is that religion has done some good, done some bad and maybe it would all be the same without religion anyway. Going forward though we can change this. We can identify the negatives of religion and remove them, accentuate the good bits. This would mean religions would have to change: and this is the stumbling block. Religions are generally not willing to change, especially, it seems, those blinded by god. I'm a Buddhist myself, so i tend to think religion really could have a positive impact on humanity. But then I see the utter reluctance of religions to change and I think maybe we really would be better off without them. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dimreepr Posted March 30, 2018 Share Posted March 30, 2018 4 minutes ago, Prometheus said: But then I see the utter reluctance of religions to change and I think maybe we really would be better off without them. Would you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prometheus Posted March 30, 2018 Share Posted March 30, 2018 Would i what? Change my religion? Change all religions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dimreepr Posted March 30, 2018 Share Posted March 30, 2018 3 minutes ago, Prometheus said: Would i what? Change my religion? Change all religions? Be better off? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prometheus Posted March 30, 2018 Share Posted March 30, 2018 Ah, i see, good question. Hard to say. Buddhism helped me to understand quite a lot of things, but those same ideas can also be found smattered around Western culture too so i probably would have come across them anyway. Having all those ideas in one place certainly made it easier, but having it come from different cultures led to some misinterpretations. It's kind of like the saying, 'Anyone who would go to a psychiatrist ought to have his head examined.' If you think you need religion for guidance then you probably do need it - but not everyone does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted March 30, 2018 Share Posted March 30, 2018 (edited) 4 hours ago, Shauno said: it would definitely be a religious statement, except that most people regard a religion as requiring a god or some sort of supernatural element. If Buddhism is a religion, then so is Atheism. Buddhism includes a supernatural element. Obviously. Atheism doesn't. Obviously. To add to the "hair colour" analogy, I would add: "not being interested in golf is not a sport". 4 hours ago, Shauno said: Atheism has consequences -> There is no God-given morality -> The rise of the Ubermensch (superman) who regards himself above morality, and can do terrible acts if it advances society. That has nothing to do with atheism. There are plenty of examples of people who regard themselves as above societies norms because they are "doing god's will". 4 hours ago, Shauno said: The statement "There is no God" is certainly a quasi-religious statement. Sadly for your argument, that is not what atheism is though. Atheism is simply not believing in gods. I don't see how you can say that not believing in Santa clause or the tooth fairy or gods (yours or others) is a religion. That is not rational. 4 hours ago, Shauno said: Anyway... the argument over boundaries is silly. Presumably if you are against "boundaries" you are against football team, families, school enrolments, different languages, etc. On that, we can agree. 4 hours ago, Itoero said: relevance? Oh come on. Keep up. You said that it was the Jews fault for moving. What about all the others who didn't move? Therefore the problem isn't people moving about, it is murderous dictators that are the problem. Do you see the relevance now? 4 hours ago, Itoero said: You keep reacting on things I didn't say. You seem to keep forgetting what you said. Edited March 30, 2018 by Strange Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Itoero Posted March 31, 2018 Author Share Posted March 31, 2018 (edited) 19 hours ago, Shauno said: On 29/03/2018 at 4:51 itoero blaming the Jews for the holocaust was a particularly low point) I don't blame the Jews for the holocaust, I blame Hitler and the nazi's. it's historical science. If Judaism didn't spread to Europe then they could not be killed in Europe could they? Edited March 31, 2018 by Itoero -3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted March 31, 2018 Share Posted March 31, 2018 (edited) 13 minutes ago, Itoero said: I don't blame the Jews for the holocaust, I blame Hitler and the nazi's. it's historical science. If Judaism didn't spread to Europe then they could not be killed in Europe could they? Stop digging. It really isn't making you look any less of a religious bigot. And, obviously, you did blame the Jews: "If Judaism did not spread to Europe ... then the Holocaust could not have happened." Which says that the Jews were responsible for the deaths of millions of Jews and non-Jews because they moved to Europe. You might also want to think about the fact that the Jews did not choose to leave their original homeland (not that there is any reason they shouldn't be allowed to). You might also want to think. Edited March 31, 2018 by Strange Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Itoero Posted March 31, 2018 Author Share Posted March 31, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, Strange said: Stop digging. It really isn't making you look any less of a religious bigot. And, obviously, you did blame the Jews: "If Judaism did not spread to Europe ... then the Holocaust could not have happened." Which says that the Jews were responsible for the deaths of millions of Jews and non-Jews because they moved to Europe. You might also want to think about the fact that the Jews did not choose to leave their original homeland (not that there is any reason they shouldn't be allowed to). You might also want to think. Stop spreading your emotional inclined nonsense. The Jews did not kill themselves, they are not to blame. But if they were not there then hey could not be killed so the holocaust could not have happened. Edited March 31, 2018 by Itoero -1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted March 31, 2018 Share Posted March 31, 2018 1 hour ago, Itoero said: The Jews did not kill themselves, they are not to blame. But if they were not there then hey could not be killed so the holocaust could not have happened. If the girl hadn’t gone out w her friends then she wouldn’t have been raped. If the kid hadn’t stopped to get bubble gum then he wouldn’t have been beaten up. If that black man weren’t holding a cell phone in his backyard then he would not have been shot and killed by police. Your line of argument is ridiculous. It is a form of victim blaming whether you understand or acknowledge that. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smokequitterv2 Posted April 1, 2018 Share Posted April 1, 2018 Yes , it would be a lot more better without religions Lets see if we can stay away from everything religions of the world has to offer What has religions offered us anyway ? I cant think of one proper thing to be honest The religion of Jesus looks at least peaceful to an outsider who is not a christian . I don't know what that religion is like to the insiders . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted April 1, 2018 Share Posted April 1, 2018 15 minutes ago, smokequitterv2 said: What has religions offered us anyway ? Schools, universities, hospitals and some great art and music. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts