ATHEISTS Are Narrow Minded.

[Faboba]

Surely the acceptance of Scientology as a religion redifines religion as 'An organised grouping of people sharing simlar beliefs pertaining to the creation of the world and the afterlife'

Doesn't need to involve a god, and it does not even need to be what most would deem 'moral'

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Ramo
Regarding the assertion that that morality is "inborn" into us, that flat out is invalid. What is "inborn" to us, is the drive to preserve our genetic codes. This drive has made rape, murder, etc. taboo within the human societies.

Why do many people behave morally even when there is little to no chance that they would be punished? If the drive is only to preserve our genetic codes, then we would have no reason not to rape, murder, etc. if we felt that doing so would have a higher probability of benefitting us than harming us. Yet, many people still choose not to rape, murder, etc. even when the rewards outweigh the risks.

The concepts of "right" and "wrong" are nothing more than social constructs, ingrained into us from our childhoods, hence the disparities between the moral codes of different cultures.

The differences in moral codes between different cultures are not very substantive; the differences are mostly differences in definitions, not differences in morality. If Pharoah is a god then it is reasonable that the same moral codes do not apply to him as to the commoners, but when the commoners realize that Pharoah is not a god then Pharoah is forced to accept reciprocity or he is deposed.

[Ramo]

Why do many people behave morally even when there is little to no chance that they would be punished?

The aforementioned taboos formed by the drive to preserve oneself and one's family.

The differences in moral codes between different cultures are not very substantive; the differences are mostly differences in definitions, not differences in morality.

Take human sacrifice, for instance. I don't consider that an insubstantial or semantic difference.

If Pharoah is a god then it is reasonable that the same moral codes do not apply to him as to the commoners, but when the commoners realize that Pharoah is not a god then Pharoah is forced to accept reciprocity or he is deposed

But there are many instances of societies where the institutionalization of theft by the ruling class is not jusfied primarily by religion.

Also, I fail to see how the distinction between God and commoner is any more substantive than the distinction between king and commoner. When you come down to the basics, its still a different morality from one that doesn't instituionalize theft by the ruling class.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Ramo
The aforementioned taboos formed by the drive to preserve oneself and one's family.

So is there no reason for me not to murder somebody if the rewards of murder outweigh the risk of getting caught (if I recognize that "morality" is really just conditioning and can therefore be ignored)?

Take human sacrifice, for instance. I don't consider that an insubstantial or semantic difference.

It is impossible to rationally justify human sacrifice, which is why it is immoral.

Also, I fail to see how the distinction between God and commoner is any more substantive than the distinction between king and commoner.

Yes, the distinctions are pretty much the same.

When you come down to the basics, its still a different morality from one that doesn't instituionalize theft by the ruling class.

What do you mean by "institutionalized theft by the ruling class"? Taxes?

[MORON]

This is not good.............

Serious morality discussions where one sentense would suffice.

I don't hold an extremist view of religion

SAYS WHO You? Your perception is biased

Lets see

You said:

Morality = Religion

Christian Religion = Genetic

nuff said

It must be hard debating this without other people supporting you....where is OBC or CivNation..... hmmm......

[loinburger]

Originally posted by MORON
It must be hard debating this without other people supporting you....where is OBC or CivNation..... hmmm......

I had completely forgotten about OBC. I expect CivNation to come and go like most idiot trolls, but OBC seemed like a serious poster (even if he was wrong ).

[devilmunchkin]

LIKE THIS FABOBA...
MAN, THIS MAKES ME SOUND LIKE I'M YELLING.
anyway,
personally, i think morality is subjective and that's because i'm atheist. I think that what morals we do have are acquired in childhood from the influences around us, like our parents, school, and other person defining events that come up. THis would explain the growth of the christian church, because if people are fed this stuff (and i do realize that not every christian is fed this "stuff" from an early age) during childhood, there will always be that "seed" and inkling in them no matter how much they try and get away. THat influence will have been permanently planted.
this is my opinion.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by devilmunchkin
personally, i think morality is subjective and that's because i'm atheist. I think that what morals we do have are acquired in childhood from the influences around us, like our parents, school, and other person defining events that come up.

I too am an atheist, but I believe that morality is objective. This is because terms like "good" and "evil" are not simply subjective terms that we apply to those things that we like and do not like, respectively, but are instead defined in such a way that things are only "good" (in the moral sense) if they provide a particular sensation of righteousness while things are only "evil" (in the moral sense) if they provide a particular sensation of indignation. Some people feel that certain actions are more good or more evil than others, that is, there are disagreements over the exact delimitations of what is good and what is evil, but many of these disagreements can be settled on a factual basis when one person's opinion on what is good or evil is unjustified; for example, if I said something like "Billy is evil for enjoying tacos, for clearly chimichangas are superior," then my claim is unjustified because there is no rational explanation for why Billy's preference of tacos over chimichangas would instill me with feelings of indignation.

People are also restricted in their interpretations of morality because they must remain consistent with the moral codes that they apply to others or else they are demonstrably irrational. If I say "I may kill Billy but Billy may not kill me" then I must either justify the existence of such an inequitable moral code or else I am being irrational.

Influences like parents, school, etc. help to influence what beliefs we may hold on particular interpretations of what is good and evil, but do not change the underlying feelings of rightousness and indignation; these would exist even if we grew up apart from societal influences.

Blah blah blah. Long story short, Wiglaf is wrong.

[MORON]

I too am an atheist, but I believe that morality is objective.

, but many of these disagreements can be settled on a factual basis when one person's opinion on what is good or evil is unjustified;

However, many things can be argued both sides factually. That would result in the final solution be tainted with opinion rather than facts.

Example:

should we strive toward human cloning and engineering

For: Perfect humans (which is good...smart happy...etc)
Against: corrupting human essance, unnecssary....etc

So what is moral? (debate this if you want) Depends on your values, which is by definition is irrational. (try people that think that the point of life is suffering.... logical extensions gives weird morality)

Besides, gut feelings have more impact on morality than logic for most people. And thus morality considered as a whole must be irrational.

Hell, cloning is easy with facts simple to put up...Gun Control is a issue in which even the facts are hazy...and that makes moral judgement....well........

[aaglo]

Look for god from your trousers, people

[devilmunchkin]

those gut feelings were produced by influenced in early childhood and animalian instinct.

[MORON]

Don't need you to tell me that. Since you think I'm dumb (wonder why), I'M CONDEMNING YOU TOO HELL




*Go watch love hina and get some sleep...for monday...sigh

[Jack the Bodiless]

Of course, there is no actual support for the notion of an innate "pull" towards the Christian God in particular.

It's Christian dogma, and stems directly from the Bible:

Romans 1:18-21 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

It's a passage used frequently by fundies to deflect criticism of the unfairness of condemning to Hell those who were never taught Christianity: "God lets everyone know, so they have no excuse for not being Christians!" Similarly, atheists are in league with Satan (despite not actually believing in Satan), because we "know that God is real, but are in rebellion against him". Hence CivNation's rants directed at me: "You don't need proof, you must submit!".

Paul apparently felt the same way, following on with a classic fundie rant:

Romans 1:28-32 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

Note the inclusion of "debate" as one of the terrible things that unbelievers do. Good Christians are supposed to accept whatever they're told without answering back. This is commonly known as "being narrow-minded".

[Urban Ranger]

Since Wiglaf has been ignoring my posts I need to find something to do elsewhere

Originally posted by technophile
I too am an atheist, but I believe that morality is objective.

Does that mean you think that morality exists independent of humans and/or societies? If so, what's the source of said moral code?

Originally posted by technophile
This is because terms like "good" and "evil" are not simply subjective terms that we apply to those things that we like and do not like, respectively, but are instead defined in such a way that things are only "good" (in the moral sense) if they provide a particular sensation of righteousness while things are only "evil" (in the moral sense) if they provide a particular sensation of indignation.

I submit that this feelings are the results of socialisation.

We don't keep slaves now, in fact we see slavery is immoral. Ages ago though keeping slaves was seen as a normal thing.

Therefore morality evolves with the society it's associated with, and these "good" and "evil" feelings are drilled into our heads when we were kids.

Another way to look at it is this. There are certain deviant types who thrive on committing acts the average person considers as evil. This means that "good" and "evil" feelings that you associate with morality are not universal, even within any particular society.

Originally posted by technophile
People are also restricted in their interpretations of morality because they must remain consistent with the moral codes that they apply to others or else they are demonstrably irrational. If I say "I may kill Billy but Billy may not kill me" then I must either justify the existence of such an inequitable moral code or else I am being irrational.

Not necessarily irrational. Hypocripsy will do fine as an explanation.

Originally posted by technophile
Influences like parents, school, etc. help to influence what beliefs we may hold on particular interpretations of what is good and evil, but do not change the underlying feelings of rightousness and indignation; these would exist even if we grew up apart from societal influences.

This seems unlikely. For example some societies condone or even encourage the consumption of human flesh. There were also societies where human sacrifices to their gods were a common occurance.

[Ramo]

So is there no reason for me not to murder somebody if the rewards of murder outweigh the risk of getting caught

What do you mean by "no reason?" Obviously, the reason not to do such a thing has to deal with your moral code.

(if I recognize that "morality" is really just conditioning and can therefore be ignored)?

Why should it be ignored if it's "really just conditioning?" And how do you ignore some of the fundamental aspects of your conditioning?

It is impossible to rationally justify human sacrifice, which is why it is immoral.

Who says what's a rational justification?

What do you mean by "institutionalized theft by the ruling class"? Taxes?

Yes, that would be one such example, but I was referring to the lack of repricocity between rulers and commoners in general; rulers can get away with theft, murder, etc.