This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - More Than Mortal
Pages: 1 ... 418419420 421422 ... 502
12571
« on: September 28, 2014, 01:21:49 PM »
Also: 
12572
« on: September 28, 2014, 01:14:45 PM »
Atheists just need something to justify not believing in God.
or, more correctly, juvenile mockery
Very important distinction.
I agree. People like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens need to be made distinct from the likes of anti-religious fedora tippers.
12573
« on: September 28, 2014, 01:07:10 PM »
Till the day I die, I'm certain I'll hold on to the belief that conservative democracy is the best form of political establishment.
Screw China. Also, allowing the events of 2047 to occur without any Western intervention would be, to mine eyes, evil.
12574
« on: September 28, 2014, 01:04:15 PM »
Atheists just need something to justify not believing in God.
Atheists don't need to justify a lack of belief beyond there not being enough evidence. The persecution of Christians by atheists (or, more correctly, juvenile mockery) is probably more down to a sort of "psychology of the community". As soon as people identify as atheist, you form a group and groups tend to naturally find opponents and demonise and immoralise them. It's nowhere near as bad as some of the persecutions we've seen throughout history, but it's certainly counter-productive and petty. At least, however, it's nowhere near as bad as atheism+.
12575
« on: September 28, 2014, 12:46:07 PM »
You said/implied that secular countries never commit atrocities but religious countries do, implying that religion has a negative influence of public policy... even though there are plenty of secular countries in history that have killed tens of millions of people (Mao's China, Stalin's Soviet Union, Hitler's Germany, etc.). Well, I'm glad to see you agree that I wasn't making a point about the truth of religious claims. However, I also made it patently clear in the OP that secularism isn't the only criteria I'm using. I also addressed, quite clearly, humanism and, less clearly, liberalism. None of the aforementioned societies were either of the latter two. Not to mention, I also, again less clearly, laid the charge of worshipfulness against certain societies, not just religiosity. All of the societies you just named were religious in their attitudes, if not their doctrine, by virtue of being overwhelmingly authoritarian. Hitler's Germany, by the way, I don't think can be considered secular on account of the Reichskonkordat. That's my own view, the Nazi government didn't stick to the terms of course, but it was still a treaty with the Vatican.
12576
« on: September 28, 2014, 12:28:32 PM »
Well, I haven't started taking you seriously yet because you've completely failed to take into account the difference in technology between the 13th Century and the 20th.
12577
« on: September 28, 2014, 12:23:54 PM »
Welcome to the club, this never ends well because both sides are adamant and have nothing to agree on, making every argument pointless.
This thread isn't even about the existence of a God. People can believe in that all they want.
12578
« on: September 28, 2014, 12:22:56 PM »
Is that supposed to disprove religion or something? No. I also didn't even come close to claiming it did. Please read the OP properly before you respond.
12579
« on: September 28, 2014, 12:17:38 PM »
that despises me for no reason.
That's intensely narcissistic.
12580
« on: September 28, 2014, 12:10:28 PM »
I'd be interested to know in what cultures they eat their neighbours. Seems like casuistry, to me. Yeah, it was a punchline, more or less. The overarching point is that feelings aren't a sound basis for a standard of morality because of how non-standard feelings are.
I disagree. Moral intuition is largely based off empathy - which immediately excludes the likes of serious crimes which create victims. Murder, theft and perjury being two of them. Regardless, it would seem to me that any society would develop intuitions necessary for its survival. If you take the Aztecs for instance, I'm quite convinced that they would be mortified if you suggested they shouldn't sacrifice one of their enemies because the existence and maintenance of their society is, as they think, dependent on that. Accordingly, we have reached the situation whereby our own relatively liberal society has identified the behaviour it must condemn if we are to survive. It also goes back far into prehistory whereby the tribe would essentially kill the members who proved to be dangerous to the primitive social order. Humans have, in a very meaningful sense, self-domesticated themselves. However, I'd argue you don't necessarily need a sound moral base for a society to survive. Jurisprudence and the law could offer such a base in morality's stead, although it'd be perhaps a somewhat inadequate substitute. Regardless, if you - as I assume you do - think morality is known through God-given intuition, available to believers and non-believers alike who can be drawn astray, how do you account for the people who completely lack the intuition in the first place?
12581
« on: September 28, 2014, 11:59:58 AM »
Is Deci seriously fucking incapable of realising when people are fucking with him?
12582
« on: September 28, 2014, 11:55:37 AM »
The appropriate "logical kill" for the moment would have been, Mr. Russell, in some cultures the love their neighbors; in others they eat them, both on the basis of feeling. Do you have any preference?" I'd be interested to know in what cultures they eat their neighbours. Seems like casuistry, to me.
12583
« on: September 28, 2014, 11:48:38 AM »
Kinder's claim about the Crusades killing an equal number of people in centuries as Hitler and Stalin did in decades is really quite ridiculous. First of all, the Crusades killed much, much less than the decades of Hitler and Stalin at a death toll of about 1.5-3 million.
Second of all, the Crusades lasted about 30 years when taken as a lump.
12584
« on: September 28, 2014, 11:43:33 AM »
Around the same number of people died in both the Crusades and the decades that saw the rule of Stalin and Hitler. While it took centuries for millions to die in the Crusades, it took a couple of decades for these relentless people to match and even surpass that body count. I'm actually going to try and verify this, so bear with me for a while and I'll come back to it later. Hitler and Stalin wanted to see the end of religion in their nations. Hitler started with the Jews because nobody liked them but his ultimate goal was the eradication of Christianity and the Catholic Church. Stalin on the other hand just went straight forward and persecuted the Russian Orthodox majority that resulted in hundreds of thousands believers and priests to be murdered by the State. Well, first of all, Hitler wasn't solely responsible for the Nazi atrocities. To say Nazism didn't encompass Christianity - simply by the fact that Christianity was part of the German social fabric - is simply to deny fact. Also, there were weird pagan blood rites and rituals among some branches of the Nazi military. Nonetheless, neither Hitler nor Stalin were secularist or humanists. They sought to establish a religious State in the sense that North Korea or Imperial Japan did - by embroidering society with a Messiah Complex regarding the government. Theists and atheists both have blood on their hands. That doesn't mean everybody who is one or the other is bad, just those crazy people are
Yes, but you'd be at great pains to find an atheist who killed people because he was an atheist. Hitler and Stalin were both narcissistic psychopaths, for instance.
12585
« on: September 28, 2014, 11:37:26 AM »
If I didn't believe in Christianity today, as I did when I was younger, I'd probably desire some sort of magically omnipotent Zeus-esque figure to tell me exactly what is good and what is bad; it'd make things much clearer. I find humanism and naturalism menacing, myself, given the sum of human behavior throughout history. I don't see how you can find humanism menacing in the same way when every example that I can think of involving profoundly immoral behaviour involves deeply anti-humanistic ideas. I can certainly understand the psychology of wanting to be guided, but I think you're selling yourself short. Please don't tell me that if you weren't religious you'd condone - or least not be opposed to - the likes of theft, perjury and murder. I'm not claiming to be a paragon of virtue, either. In comparison to a lot of people around me, I have, in some instances, been immoral - some might even say evil - throughout my life. The point is, I can identify that which is socially undesirable without needing a divine superintendent. It sounds almost like a contest. Haha, not at all. I'm not here to claim that atheists are more moral than religious people or that religious people "lose" because they can't induce said morality. I'm merely claiming that the religious people - who are unfortunately numerous - who claim to be in possession of moral "knowledge" which I am not are wrong. Well of course I think my moral standard is superior to all others; if it wasn't, I wouldn't follow it. I agree with that but it's farcical in two ways. First, to assume that it is "truth". Second, to assume that is the property of religion. Even if I allow the first assumption, I must not allow the second. If you, as you did, identify that non-Christians can perform moral actions then it stands to reason that this "true" morality isn't under the monopoly of Christianity.
12586
« on: September 28, 2014, 11:10:03 AM »
Again, this goes back to whose philosophy is defining your morality. Kant would wholeheartedly disagree with your statement here. I think it's a rather menacing proposition that you need some sort of intelligent or "superior" agent to define your morality for you. I'm not interested so much in the pre-scriptive side of morality so much as meta-ethics. I might direct you to the work of Jonathan Haidt who - quite rightly - vindicated David Hume and Adam Smith in their ideas that morality is known chiefly through intuition and reasoning is mainly post hoc. Of course I've failed. You want me to explain from your moral perspective why my moral perspective justifies something, and that's incredibly difficult without having a very long time to study your views. From my perspective, it's good to educate people on the reality of God, though I assert than in a more general form, many world views would consider it good to educate others on what is right because of the consequence of such actions and its contribution to that person. No, I'm not asking you to do that in the slightest. I'm asking you to be empirical about the matter, there is very little evidence that religious belief is conducive to moral behaviour over other variables like empathy or community. If we were to take another example - let's say explaining to an Islamist why stoning women is immoral. In a more benign sense, such an action is a conversion but I'd consider - as would any rational, secular human being - that this is a moral act because the result of your rhetoric is to not have somebody, or several people, get stoned to death. There are numerous examples in the Bible of non-believers conveying the truth of the scripture. This right here is a fantastic example of religious people presupposing an objective moral or intellectual standard over atheists or other theists. I'm not definite that you mean non-believers are capable of conveying the truth of your scripture, or whether the scripture itself is merely stating non-believers are capable of conveying what it records as truth, but the point still stands. It isn't to criticse you as a person either, considering your intelligence. It's a pointless question because it presumes that religious people claim they have access to more good actions than atheists, which isn't true.
That's exactly what some religious people do claim. It's what comes with the claim, as mentioned above, to an objective moral or intellectual standards. Which is why, as I've said, the question is aimed at anti-secularists and non-humanists. You can't seriously try to tell me that the militants in ISIS aren't claiming to have access to a larger moral capacity than atheists or other theists; you can't tell me the Catholic Church doesn't do the same thing when it claims it is the only path to salvation.
12587
« on: September 28, 2014, 10:46:07 AM »
It's just rhetoric; convincing somebody of a viewpoint. This cannot, in any real, meaningful sense, be considered a moral act. As far as it goes, it is, at best, perfectly amoral.
Imagine you're walking across the Golden Gate Bridge late at night, and you see someone standing next to rail. You walk to them and ask if anything is wrong. They tell you they are seriously considering killing themselves that night. You explain to them the value in life and the joy of living that outweighs any temporary suffering, and far outweighs immediate death. They turn away from the rail, thank you, and return home to seek counseling in the morning.
Now by your account, this may not be considered a good, moral act. It'd merely be amoral, as it's simply rhetorical. Of course it depends on which of the myriad philosophers you're allowing to define what is a good, moral act for you (which in itself refutes the sovereignty of any one, but I digress).
If you're going to claim that an act is moral or immoral then you have to take the consequence with the propriety. Rhetoric certainly can induce positive consequences, but in the case of religious conversion there is no quantifiable net benefit to the consequences of conversion. Which is why I say that it is, at best, amoral. Rhetoric in itself is perfectly amoral, but its conducive-ness for further action should be the determinant. Thus, you've failed to answer the question of what a religious person can do, which is moral, which an atheist cannot do. Conversion simply doesn't count because lying to people isn't a moral act.
12588
« on: September 28, 2014, 10:34:24 AM »
Oh.
I'm sad now. I like lizards.
12589
« on: September 28, 2014, 10:33:41 AM »
I don't really, especially since he was a fairly recent philosopher. All I meant is that America, in politics, tended towards secular, humanistic philosophy That's a can of worms I'm not going to open >.> Well I'm not a humanist per-say, but I'm not anti-secular.[/quote] Then I don't have much quarrel with you. If you generally agree that theocratic, authoritarian and worshipful societies will be/are worse than liberal, secular ones then there's no issue. I meant valid in the sense that you don't believe in any form of salvation. If the teachings of Jesus are true, it doesn't really matter what your opinion on it is, it would just be the reality of the situation. Though I object to what you said salvation is.
That still doesn't justify how you can consider it a moral undertaking. It's just rhetoric; convincing somebody of a viewpoint. This cannot, in any real, meaningful sense, be considered a moral act. As far as it goes, it is, at best, perfectly amoral.
12590
« on: September 28, 2014, 10:22:57 AM »
12591
« on: September 28, 2014, 10:16:53 AM »
This is a pretty loaded question, since the Romans, English, and any other theocratic governments that waged war under the banner of a god clearly didn't base their values on the likes of Jesus. So I could point to Joseph Stalin, or Adolf Hitler, or Vladimir Lenin who each led their followers to do terrible, unspeakable acts, while also fervently hating the church and religion in general. All three examples you gave, of patently atrocious individuals, don't fill the criteria I'm looking for. The Nazis and the Soviets were evidently worshipful in the nature of their government and society. Not to mention that a society founded under Jefferson, Paine, Hume, and Russell was the only one to ever use nuclear weapons in the history of warfare, and is currently under political fire for thousands of civilian deaths from bombings. I'm a fan of fair trials, though, so I abide by Augustine's wise words of "Never judge a philosophy by its abuse".
Well first and foremost the use of nuclear weapons in the Second World War was, to my mind, justified. Secondly, considering Bertrand Russell was actually an ardent supporter of nuclear disarmament, a rabid opponent of the Vietnam War and, quite generally, something of a pacifist it pains me to see you describe America as a society founded on his liberal principles. Augustine's words are indeed wise. Muslims commit the immoral acts they do partly because of their beliefs and partly because of their community. I find it disturbing to see Muslims being persecuted for the actions of their radical cellmates. Which is why, as I said in the OP, the question is properly aimed at those who are anti-secular and who aren't humanists. I doubt you'll see this as a valid answer, but a religious person could bring another individual to faith and ultimately be instrumental in their salvation, which makes any other act petty by comparison. Being in a religious doesn't magically turn you into a moral-superhuman.
"Do what I say and I'll give you salvation, don't and you'll suffer for the rest of your life". No. I certainly don't find that valid.
12592
« on: September 28, 2014, 10:05:35 AM »
I'm confused regarding what it actually happening.
12593
« on: September 28, 2014, 08:59:55 AM »
Good.
Fucking things.
Wait, what's an Ackie?
12594
« on: September 28, 2014, 08:55:07 AM »
I'm asking, why should I have to justify anything to anyone other than myself?
You don't have to, but if you're gonna post in threads like this, it'd probably be in your best interest to do so.
I just think its in bad taste to ask someone why they believe in God. Its like asking someone how much they make.
That isn't what I'm asking, though.
12595
« on: September 27, 2014, 05:34:21 PM »
I chose Anaconda, so. . .
12596
« on: September 27, 2014, 04:35:22 PM »
PM.
Now.
12597
« on: September 27, 2014, 04:28:14 PM »
That was your best night... of your life? Wow, that's shit. How have you not killed yourself?
Oh fuck, it's the hyperbole police! Flush the fun down the toilet!
12598
« on: September 27, 2014, 04:26:33 PM »
it's 5:25 pm
Not over in Her Majesty's Kingdom.
12599
« on: September 27, 2014, 04:21:52 PM »
I'd have stood, but not have recited the Pledge.
The student didn't do anything wrong, though.
12600
« on: September 27, 2014, 04:21:23 PM »
I'm Libertarian
I still disagree with that.
Pages: 1 ... 418419420 421422 ... 502
|
Show Posts