Quebec bans religious teaching in publicly subsidized daycares

[Tuberski]

i think it's both moral rules and expediency. lets say you give 100 people the opportunity to steal $10 from another person with a no risk of getting caught, or $500, or $10,000, or $1,000,000. i suspect the number who would take the opportunity would rise as the amount went up. you could also raise the risk factor and i suspect here the number of people who took the money would fall. you could introduce other factors such as the identity of the other person, a stranger, someone you know or a loved one for example. i think in these situations people would be guided both by moral rules and expediency, but i think that almost all would recognise stealing as 'wrong'.

i also think that most situations in life are not black and white, and there are often many choices each with pros and cons. so rather than choosing between a 'right' and 'wrong' answer (or black and white), it's dealing with the shades of grey, weighing up the choices before us and trying to make the best decision.

I bet it would be more of a bell curve. with more choices between $10 and $1,000,000. At the low end, $10 isn't that much so turning it down is no big deal. At the high end, $1,000,000 is a lot of money, so people wouldn't believe there is no chance of being caught.

ACK!

[Dauphin]

My thought is the larger the amount, the less likely I would be to take it (theoretical, as I wouldn't take it regardless of the amount). Not out of risk of being caught, but because the cost to the other person is greater and the harm I am doing is therefore greater.

[Kidlicious]

Keep talking Kid. You are bringing people to our side.

I see posters like you and Ben (and the other broken by religion people here) and know there is no way I would ever want to be religious.

It's not natural to be a Christian. That's why we are hated. That's why Jesus was hated.

Would you like it better if I presented the life of a Christian as a life just like an atheist? That would be dishonest.

[Hauldren Collider]

What?

The US is one of the most religious developed country in the world to the point that atheists are often demonized. What planet do you live on?

You sound more like you've been hit over the head with a bottle of stupid than been enlightened by the greater power.

[C0ckney]

tuber, in the example i gave there was no risk of getting caught. although you do raise a good point in that people may not believe that there would be 'zero chance' of discovery given the amount. i think once you changed the risk level in the scenario you would likely see some different patterns emerging.

[C0ckney]

HC, kid hasn't been hit with a bottle of stupid. the bottle of stupid itself is made from essence of kidicious.

[giblets]

"People lie about their believes to do things like get elected president."



Not at all. You seemingly don't know much about true human nature. In our unconscious mind we believe one thing and consciously we believe another. The reason we do that is because it helps us succeed in society and reproduce. For example, an atheist could never be elected president so he pretends to be a Christian.

The atheist that believes in objective morality (or some crap like 'be nice' cause that's what everyone else says to do) does so to justify his beliefs and actions (although subconsciously he doesn't believe in morality at all), but he claims that his beliefs are reasonable (objective). Unfortunately for him, objective morality (if it were actually morality) wouldn't amount to a hill of beans. And this is why, if morality were to be objective the individual with the "objective morality" wouldn't be concerned at all about their moral "convictions." The reason our moral convictions are so strong is because they are subjective. We are passionate about our subjective beliefs. That passion is abscent from our beliefs on objective certainties. For example, no one cares at all if 2+2=4 or if it doesn't. But if you truly have a moral conviction then you are very passionate about it. Therefore, it is an objective uncertainty and a subective conviction.

So the atheist who claims to believe in objective morality (or that be nice crap) is just being deceptive. His so called morality doesn't amount to anything because he does not care about it and it doesn't regulate his behaviour. Only moral convictions that one appropriates to themselves in the subjective are true moral convictions because they regulate behaviour.

And that is why atheists should never be trusted when they say they have moral convictions.

Speak for yourself. "No one" cares if 2+2=4? "No one" is passionate about finding truth? What makes you think you're qualified to speak for all humans?

Hey, what if I claimed to know how all religious people think? What if I claimed they all subconsciously don't believe in a god and are just feeding themselves comforting delusions? It would be impossible for anyone to prove me wrong if I insisted that all religious people who say otherwise are lying. It would also be a crappy argument.

[DaShi]

God has conditioned me to be an aetheist.

[Wezil]

You sound more like you've been hit over the head with a bottle of stupid than been enlightened by the greater power.

That's what I call "broken by religion".

[Elok]

While I don't really want to join the dogpile here, did you read Kid's posts before he became religious? The product was like that when we purchased it, thank you very much.

[Wezil]

Sure, but now he's found a home.

[Kidlicious]

Speak for yourself. "No one" cares if 2+2=4? "No one" is passionate about finding truth? What makes you think you're qualified to speak for all humans?

Hey, what if I claimed to know how all religious people think? What if I claimed they all subconsciously don't believe in a god and are just feeding themselves comforting delusions? It would be impossible for anyone to prove me wrong if I insisted that all religious people who say otherwise are lying. It would also be a crappy argument.

No, the difference is that I'm familiar with the research that psychologists are doing regarding human nature and the mind. There has been quite a bit of research done over the last few decades. Everyone else here is talking out of their ass. All of your assumptions about human nature are wrong.

And if you care as much about whether 2+2=4 or not as you do about your so called moral convictions then that speaks for itself.

[Kidlicious]

What?

The US is one of the most religious developed country in the world to the point that atheists are often demonized. What planet do you live on?

You're saying that because I'm calling you ammoral that I'm demonizing you. It figures as much that you would say that. Should I sit by while you claim that God doesn't exist therefore atheists are moral and Christians are stupid?

All I've done here is put forth truthfull information. No! That's not acceptable. You all would prefer that agree with you even though you are flat out wrong.

[Kidlicious]

While I don't really want to join the dogpile here, did you read Kid's posts before he became religious? The product was like that when we purchased it, thank you very much.

Don't you see they hate you too. They just prefer that you kiss their ass. You do so at a great cost.

[giblets]

No, the difference is that I'm familiar with the research that psychologists are doing regarding human nature and the mind. There has been quite a bit of research done over the last few decades. Everyone else here is talking out of their ass. All of your assumptions about human nature are wrong.

And if you care as much about whether 2+2=4 or not as you do about your so called moral convictions then that speaks for itself.

What do accountants know about psychology? I'm pretty skeptical toward your claims of expertise in that subject.