I invite you to tell me why it's wrong for me to compare a "God" to an invisible lion in my room because I think you would have something interesting to say. Is it wrong to dismiss the invisible lion just like I dismiss the invisible entity called God?
One cannot prove a universal negative.
One can prove a particular negative.
So, for example, if one fully inspects one's room one can claim that there are no ducks within the room within the context of that particular inquiry. The problem with Atheism is that it maintains that there is no God, anywhere, ever. Which is very silly given that one cannot inspect everywhere, ever.
The invisible lion and God situation seems like a sensible comparison insofar as it raises epistemological problems regarding what can be known. How would one know whether or not there was an invisible lion which takes up no space in one's room? Surely this could not be known via sense data. Perhaps it is similarity the case that one could not know of the existence of God via sensory data.
Which leads to the question of how one would know that a God exists.
Yes, his problem is that Qingu believes that only those people are being "honest" about what they believe and that everyone else isn't really what they say they are.
I am waiting for you to supply an alternative way of interpreting Genesis 1 that is not wildly dishonest to the actual text.
Also, there are people, both Christians and atheists like me, who read these texts and come to the conclusion that they mean what they say and are therefore bullshit. Which happens a lot with religions over time. With the effect that religious scriptures gradually get more and more dismissed as "bullshit" and there's little left to define their gods with. Which is what I said.
The dishonest people are the ones who replace the word "bullshit" with "metaphor" without actually meaning anything different.
How about "I'm not a completely self-serving asshole"? The idea that the only reason for not arbitrarily killing someone is because I'm afraid of the consequences (societal or metaphysical) is offensive. I am a moral person because I'm a moral person. It's just who I am. It's part of what makes me me. There's no reason for it. And if the only reason you don't go around killing people is because you don't want to go to jail or you don't want to go to hell, you're a monster.
That just reads like a cop-out to me. You wouldn't except someone's answer of "they are religious because they are religous." Why should I except this?
I've missed most of this morality discussion, but I can tell you this. I am moral because a world in which everyone is moral benefits everyone, including myself, more than a general lack of morality.
This does not explain why you are a perfectly moral person. This explains why you want to act in such a way that others will be moral towards you.
Think of it this way, few people blatantly cheat at any game. But it is silly to assume that nobody cheats. It is also silly to assume that you should never cheat, if you could get away with it. If you are assuming you couldn't get away with it, that is one thing. But to think there is some overriding reason why you shouldn't get away with something just doesn't fly in my head. (Unless you believe inherently in some overriding reason.)
Yes, his problem is that Qingu believes that only those people are being "honest" about what they believe and that everyone else isn't really what they say they are.
I am waiting for you to supply an alternative way of interpreting Genesis 1 that is not wildly dishonest to the actual text.
Yes, his problem is that Qingu believes that only those people are being "honest" about what they believe and that everyone else isn't really what they say they are.
I am waiting for you to supply an alternative way of interpreting Genesis 1 that is not wildly dishonest to the actual text.
It is a story? Like, Hansel and Grettle?
well, it is the creation story, and there's no sign I know of, at least from KJV, NKJV, or NIV, that it is meant to be a parable.
I'd imagine it'd be rather important to a religion for the beginning of man's existence and the setting up of its relationship to its creator to be accurate.
EDIT: I mean, the entire "Problem of Man" in Christianity is predicated on the idea that Adam and Eve were the first humans and through their fall that we're all damned.
I invite you to tell me why it's wrong for me to compare a "God" to an invisible lion in my room because I think you would have something interesting to say. Is it wrong to dismiss the invisible lion just like I dismiss the invisible entity called God?
One cannot prove a universal negative.
One can prove a particular negative.
So, for example, if one fully inspects one's room one can claim that there are no ducks within the room within the context of that particular inquiry. The problem with Atheism is that it maintains that there is no God, anywhere, ever. Which is very silly given that one cannot inspect everywhere, ever.
The invisible lion and God situation seems like a sensible comparison insofar as it raises epistemological problems regarding what can be known. How would one know whether or not there was an invisible lion which takes up no space in one's room? Surely this could not be known via sense data. Perhaps it is similarity the case that one could not know of the existence of God via sensory data.
Which leads to the question of how one would know that a God exists.
Theres a really good argument bout this called the invisible gardener, I'll see if I can find it.
"Two people return to their long neglected garden and find, among the weeds, that a few of the old plants are surprisingly vigorous. One says to the other, 'It must be that a gardener has been coming and doing something about these weeds.' The other disagrees and an argument ensues. They pitch their tents and set a watch. No gardener is ever seen. The believer wonders if there is an invisible gardener, so they patrol with bloodhounds but the bloodhounds never give a cry. Yet the believer remains unconvinced, and insists that the gardener is invisible, has no scent and gives no sound. The sceptic doesn't agree, and asks how a so-called invisible, intangible, elusive gardener differ from an imaginary gardener, or even no gardener at all."
I am an apathetic agnostic. I just don't give a shit if there is a higher power or not. What I do give a shit about is all the judgemental crap that religions pass off as their right to believe just because it's in some book or something.
The world would be a whole lot better off if we just had faith instead of religion.
SkyCaptain on
The RPG Bestiary - Dangerous foes and legendary monsters for D&D 4th Edition
Yes, his problem is that Qingu believes that only those people are being "honest" about what they believe and that everyone else isn't really what they say they are.
I am waiting for you to supply an alternative way of interpreting Genesis 1 that is not wildly dishonest to the actual text.
It is a story? Like, Hansel and Grettle?
Why would the description of the sky and the earth and celestial bodies be "just a story"?
Why would this description be repeated throughout the Bible, if it's "just a story"?
Why would this description be repeated throughout ancient Mesopotamia in texts predating the Bible, and apparently taken as fact by the broader culture to which the Hebrews belonged, if it's "just a story"?
Is there anything at all, in the text, or in the cultural context in which it was written, to indicate it's just a story—beyond the fact that we now know today that it's not true?
The problem with Atheism is that it maintains that there is no God, anywhere, ever. Which is very silly given that one cannot inspect everywhere, ever.
Right. Remind me to disregard you on this topic until you've agreed not to ignore the half dozen people who corrected you.
Yes, his problem is that Qingu believes that only those people are being "honest" about what they believe and that everyone else isn't really what they say they are.
I am waiting for you to supply an alternative way of interpreting Genesis 1 that is not wildly dishonest to the actual text.
It is a story? Like, Hansel and Grettle?
How do you know that? How do you know other portions of the bible are not a story? Is there something in the text that shows that Genesis is a story and Leviticus is not?
CommunistCow on
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
So, for example, if one fully inspects one's room one can claim that there are no ducks within the room within the context of that particular inquiry. The problem with Atheism is that it maintains that there is no God, anywhere, ever. Which is very silly given that one cannot inspect everywhere, ever.
So in a similar vein, though to a smaller scale, it is silly to believe that no human is capable of flying given that there's no way one can inspect every human.
The problem with Atheism is that it maintains that there is no God, anywhere, ever. Which is very silly given that one cannot inspect everywhere, ever.
Right. Remind me to disregard you on this topic until you've agreed not to ignore the half dozen people who corrected you.
The problem with not believing _J_ raped and murdered a young girl in 2008 is that it maintains he never, in the entire period of 2008, raped and murdered a young girl. Which is very silly because we cannot know what _J_ was doing at every moment ever in 2008.
How about "I'm not a completely self-serving asshole"? The idea that the only reason for not arbitrarily killing someone is because I'm afraid of the consequences (societal or metaphysical) is offensive. I am a moral person because I'm a moral person. It's just who I am. It's part of what makes me me. There's no reason for it. And if the only reason you don't go around killing people is because you don't want to go to jail or you don't want to go to hell, you're a monster.
That just reads like a cop-out to me. You wouldn't except someone's answer of "they are religious because they are religous." Why should I except this?
I've missed most of this morality discussion, but I can tell you this. I am moral because a world in which everyone is moral benefits everyone, including myself, more than a general lack of morality.
This does not explain why you are a perfectly moral person. This explains why you want to act in such a way that others will be moral towards you.
Think of it this way, few people blatantly cheat at any game. But it is silly to assume that nobody cheats. It is also silly to assume that you should never cheat, if you could get away with it. If you are assuming you couldn't get away with it, that is one thing. But to think there is some overriding reason why you shouldn't get away with something just doesn't fly in my head. (Unless you believe inherently in some overriding reason.)
You keep bringing this back to minor moral transgressions, which are alot easier to rationalize. If you're walking down a deserted street, and you happen to pass an attractive woman, what stops you from raping and murdering them? I mean, it'd probably feel good and chances are you wouldn't get caught. So why not? Is it really just because you fear the consequences? Is that how you actually believe the general populace behaves?
Yes, his problem is that Qingu believes that only those people are being "honest" about what they believe and that everyone else isn't really what they say they are.
I am waiting for you to supply an alternative way of interpreting Genesis 1 that is not wildly dishonest to the actual text.
I... I don't need to? I'm not a Christian, after all (and although I'm Jewish culturally, I am not so religiously, so the religious practice of Judaism is not a concern of mine).
But I will say that Genesis, like any other creation myth, did serve as not only an explanation for the creation and state of the world by the primitive people who created the story, but also as a story to establish and reinforce the moral and cultural values of the culture that created the story.
Genesis 1, for example, not only provides pre-scientific Jews and Christians an explanation for "where did the world come from?" and "Why does it rain?"
It also reinforced ideas that, as a culture, they considered relevant and important: Subservience of women to men, Man's place as the greatest of all God's creations (but also the one who fucked up the most), the dangers of blithely questioning edicts from authority, etc.
Say what you want about the "quality" of those lessons, or whether they are good, it nonetheless remains that those lessons are components of how the story is told. What those lessons and symbols are supposed to mean is a matter of interpretation that has drastically changed over time.
So, while something like Genesis 1 may have it's origins as an honest and heartfelt explanation of how the ancient Hebrews thought the world worked... that's not all it is. It also contains intentionally inserted symbolism, allegory, and conveyed ideas. What those symbols and ideas mean is a constant source of conflict and interpretation and reinvention.
Sometimes people say "that's what they meant all along!" and whether or not you consider that honest to the original intent of the story and how it's told can probably be factually proven or disproven or at least subject to a reasonable criticism.
The problem is you seem to completely disregard this. You are like "If this isn't literally true, then obviously their God isn't exactly how they say it is because they got these things provably wrong" and I think that mindset is asinine.
It is "moral" to stone an adulterer in the bible I think. Or do something terribad to them by today's standards. The honest truth is, we don't need a book or some higher power to tell us how to be moral. It is part of who we become as we grow up and experience life in the modern world.
SkyCaptain on
The RPG Bestiary - Dangerous foes and legendary monsters for D&D 4th Edition
I am an apathetic agnostic. I just don't give a shit if there is a higher power or not. What I do give a shit about is all the judgemental crap that religions pass off as their right to believe just because it's in some book or something.
The world would be a whole lot better off if we just had faith instead of religion.
I consider myself an agnostic because I really don't know one way or the other whether a deity exists. And frankly, I don't think it matters because the existence or non-existence of a god isn't going to change how I live my life.
The idea that God would require worship in order to receive a rewarding afterlife disgusts me. If there is a god, and when I die my life as good and moral person isn't enough for him, he wasn't deserving of worship in the first place. So I'm firmly a non-religious person. But I'm also completely comfortable with the idea that there may not be a god or afterlife. The concept that one day I will simply cease to exist doesn't seem all that awful to me.
You keep bringing this back to minor moral transgressions, which are alot easier to rationalize. If you're walking down a deserted street, and you happen to pass an attractive woman, what stops you from raping and murdering them? I mean, it'd probably feel good and chances are you wouldn't get caught. So why not? Is it really just because you fear the consequences? Is that how you actually believe the general populace behaves?
I'd counter-argue that humans are not rational people. We don't not rape and murder her because we make a rational decision. The real reason we don't assault her is because we've been programmed that way. It's not a conscious thought, but the decades of programming are as unbreakable to you or I as a computer program executing it's own instructions.
zerg rush on
0
Options
SarksusATTACK AND DETHRONE GODRegistered Userregular
I invite you to tell me why it's wrong for me to compare a "God" to an invisible lion in my room because I think you would have something interesting to say. Is it wrong to dismiss the invisible lion just like I dismiss the invisible entity called God?
One cannot prove a universal negative.
One can prove a particular negative.
So, for example, if one fully inspects one's room one can claim that there are no ducks within the room within the context of that particular inquiry. The problem with Atheism is that it maintains that there is no God, anywhere, ever. Which is very silly given that one cannot inspect everywhere, ever.
The invisible lion and God situation seems like a sensible comparison insofar as it raises epistemological problems regarding what can be known. How would one know whether or not there was an invisible lion which takes up no space in one's room? Surely this could not be known via sense data. Perhaps it is similarity the case that one could not know of the existence of God via sensory data.
Which leads to the question of how one would know that a God exists.
So what do you think about saying: based upon the available evidence a God or Gods do not exist? You can't say this statement is "true" because as you said you cannot prove a universal negative (keeping in mind that the terms being used are very vague and we're not specifically talking about a God that might possess qualities that contradict themselves which make the entity impossible, we're just talking about "a God") but even if it weren't "true" that has no meaningful impact on our life since if there is a God out there somewhere we don't know it. There is a difference between dismissing a God based on what evidence you have and dismissing a God and it being absolutely true. Do you think this difference is important and should it be made clear it's not absolutely true or do you think for our purposes it's accurate enough (like a scientific theory that's not quite right but nonetheless works for us) and the difference is unimportant?
I feel like I know how you're going to respond but I don't know how you'll word it so I'm interested. Also what I just wrote sounds sort of like nonsense to me but I don't know how I can improve it so I'll just post it anyway.
How about "I'm not a completely self-serving asshole"? The idea that the only reason for not arbitrarily killing someone is because I'm afraid of the consequences (societal or metaphysical) is offensive. I am a moral person because I'm a moral person. It's just who I am. It's part of what makes me me. There's no reason for it. And if the only reason you don't go around killing people is because you don't want to go to jail or you don't want to go to hell, you're a monster.
That just reads like a cop-out to me. You wouldn't except someone's answer of "they are religious because they are religous." Why should I except this?
I've missed most of this morality discussion, but I can tell you this. I am moral because a world in which everyone is moral benefits everyone, including myself, more than a general lack of morality.
This does not explain why you are a perfectly moral person. This explains why you want to act in such a way that others will be moral towards you.
Think of it this way, few people blatantly cheat at any game. But it is silly to assume that nobody cheats. It is also silly to assume that you should never cheat, if you could get away with it. If you are assuming you couldn't get away with it, that is one thing. But to think there is some overriding reason why you shouldn't get away with something just doesn't fly in my head. (Unless you believe inherently in some overriding reason.)
If a perfectly moral world is the best world and the closer we are to a moral world, then the closer we are to the best world, then it makes sense for me to do everything I can to get as close to perfect morality and the best world as I can. If I do not act morally, then I am not doing everything I can to get to the best world.
I am an apathetic agnostic. I just don't give a shit if there is a higher power or not. What I do give a shit about is all the judgemental crap that religions pass off as their right to believe just because it's in some book or something.
The world would be a whole lot better off if we just had faith instead of religion.
Oh hi, you're doing that thing!
That thing, where you assume the entirety of all religion is this judgment-driven authority system designed to assert its will on you and tell you how to live your life!
Maybe you don't mean all religions. Maybe you just mean "most religions". Or maybe you just mean "The large religions which I am personally familiar with!"
Yeah, I think that last one is what you're really meaning.
Because if you honestly think that the entirety of all religion is about judgment or that it's based on believing in something "just because it's in some book", this is factually incorrect!
Don't do that thing.
Be smarter!
"The world would be better off without religion" is a massively arrogant thing to say. I know my own life is enriched and bettered by my religious faith and the idea that you, Mister Knowledge of the Internet, think you know better and that I would be better off for abandoning it makes you sort of a prick, man!
I... I don't need to? I'm not a Christian, after all
What does this have to do with it?
Are you incapable of understanding and interpreting the works of Homer or Plato because you don't believe in Zeus?
But I will say that Genesis, like any other creation myth, did serve as not only an explanation for the creation and state of the world by the primitive people who created the story, but also as a story to establish and reinforce the moral and cultural values of the culture that created the story.
I agree.
Genesis 1, for example, not only provides pre-scientific Jews and Christians an explanation for "where did the world come from?" and "Why does it rain?"
I agree. It makes it even more explicit in Genesis 8, when God opens the "windows of the sky" to let in the floodwaters. The explanation is that the sky is a solid dome, and there's an ocean above it.
It also reinforced ideas that, as a culture, they considered relevant and important: Subservience of women to men, Man's place as the greatest of all God's creations (but also the one who fucked up the most), the dangers of blithely questioning edicts from authority, etc.
Sure but tangental to our argument...
So, while something like Genesis 1 may have it's origins as an honest and heartfelt explanation of how the ancient Hebrews thought the world worked... that's not all it is. It also contains intentionally inserted symbolism, allegory, and conveyed ideas. What those symbols and ideas mean is a constant source of conflict and interpretation and reinvention.
But you agree with my interpretation that Genesis 1 describes the creation of a solid sky dome by Yahweh.
Sometimes people say "that's what they meant all along!" and whether or not you consider that honest to the original intent of the story and how it's told can probably be factually proven or disproven or at least subject to a reasonable criticism.
The problem is you seem to completely disregard this. You are like "If this isn't literally true, then obviously their God isn't exactly how they say it is because they got these things provably wrong" and I think that mindset is asinine.
What are you talking about?
The text says (you agree) Yahweh created the world by making a solid sky dome to hold up an above sky ocean.
I am going to go out on a limb and say you think this never happened.
So, if Yahweh is defined by this description of him—as the deity who created the sky as a solid dome—then Yahweh, as described, does not exist.
Similarly, Yahweh as described as the guy who personally gave Moses a bunch of Babylonian-era laws does not exist, because I'm assuming we both agree that this never happened. Yahweh as the guy who's son magically came back from the dead, along with a bunch of zombie saints in Matthew 28, doesn't exist, because those things never happened either.
An honest interpretation of the Bible yields a shitload of descriptions of reality that we know are false. If you strip Yahweh of those descriptions, there is really not much of the god left.
"The world would be better off without religion" is a massively arrogant thing to say. I know my own life is enriched and bettered by my religious faith and the idea that you, Mister Knowledge of the Internet, think you know better and that I would be better off for abandoning it makes you sort of a prick, man!
While we're being specific, he said the world would be better off not that you would be better off.
Genesis 1, for example, not only provides pre-scientific Jews and Christians an explanation for "where did the world come from?" and "Why does it rain?"
It also reinforced ideas that, as a culture, they considered relevant and important: Subservience of women to men, Man's place as the greatest of all God's creations (but also the one who fucked up the most), the dangers of blithely questioning edicts from authority, etc.
Say what you want about the "quality" of those lessons, or whether they are good, it nonetheless remains that those lessons are components of how the story is told. What those lessons and symbols are supposed to mean is a matter of interpretation that has drastically changed over time.
Except that's all unnecessary bullshit nowadays.
We don't need to know where rain comes from; we've got climatology. All of the lessons it gives are bullshit. Teaching new generations those lessons only serves to perpetuate hatred and ignorance.
Yes, his problem is that Qingu believes that only those people are being "honest" about what they believe and that everyone else isn't really what they say they are.
I am waiting for you to supply an alternative way of interpreting Genesis 1 that is not wildly dishonest to the actual text.
I... I don't need to? I'm not a Christian, after all (and although I'm Jewish culturally, I am not so religiously, so the religious practice of Judaism is not a concern of mine).
But I will say that Genesis, like any other creation myth, did serve as not only an explanation for the creation and state of the world by the primitive people who created the story, but also as a story to establish and reinforce the moral and cultural values of the culture that created the story.
Genesis 1, for example, not only provides pre-scientific Jews and Christians an explanation for "where did the world come from?" and "Why does it rain?"
It also reinforced ideas that, as a culture, they considered relevant and important: Subservience of women to men, Man's place as the greatest of all God's creations (but also the one who fucked up the most), the dangers of blithely questioning edicts from authority, etc.
Say what you want about the "quality" of those lessons, or whether they are good, it nonetheless remains that those lessons are components of how the story is told. What those lessons and symbols are supposed to mean is a matter of interpretation that has drastically changed over time.
So, while something like Genesis 1 may have it's origins as an honest and heartfelt explanation of how the ancient Hebrews thought the world worked... that's not all it is. It also contains intentionally inserted symbolism, allegory, and conveyed ideas. What those symbols and ideas mean is a constant source of conflict and interpretation and reinvention.
Sometimes people say "that's what they meant all along!" and whether or not you consider that honest to the original intent of the story and how it's told can probably be factually proven or disproven or at least subject to a reasonable criticism.
The problem is you seem to completely disregard this. You are like "If this isn't literally true, then obviously their God isn't exactly how they say it is because they got these things provably wrong" and I think that mindset is asinine.
I'm have a magic unicorn with super powers. I'm going to supply you with a list of things he's done. Some of these will violate basic physics, some will be mutually exclusive, some might seem completely self serving(like how he killed 50 people who didn't PM me their credit card info); none of these should lead you to believe that my unicorn is not exactly how I say he is.
How about "I'm not a completely self-serving asshole"? The idea that the only reason for not arbitrarily killing someone is because I'm afraid of the consequences (societal or metaphysical) is offensive. I am a moral person because I'm a moral person. It's just who I am. It's part of what makes me me. There's no reason for it. And if the only reason you don't go around killing people is because you don't want to go to jail or you don't want to go to hell, you're a monster.
That just reads like a cop-out to me. You wouldn't except someone's answer of "they are religious because they are religous." Why should I except this?
I've missed most of this morality discussion, but I can tell you this. I am moral because a world in which everyone is moral benefits everyone, including myself, more than a general lack of morality.
This does not explain why you are a perfectly moral person. This explains why you want to act in such a way that others will be moral towards you.
Think of it this way, few people blatantly cheat at any game. But it is silly to assume that nobody cheats. It is also silly to assume that you should never cheat, if you could get away with it. If you are assuming you couldn't get away with it, that is one thing. But to think there is some overriding reason why you shouldn't get away with something just doesn't fly in my head. (Unless you believe inherently in some overriding reason.)
You keep bringing this back to minor moral transgressions, which are alot easier to rationalize. If you're walking down a deserted street, and you happen to pass an attractive woman, what stops you from raping and murdering them? I mean, it'd probably feel good and chances are you wouldn't get caught. So why not? Is it really just because you fear the consequences? Is that how you actually believe the general populace behaves?
Why is it that minor transgressions are easier to rationalize? You must have a separate framework for evaluating each. Your example is outlandish to me, because my entire point is you have to give the appearance of not behaving in an immoral fashion. Being caught (as you must assuredly would) does not do too well to maintain either the reality or the appearance of morality.
While we're being specific, he said the world would be better off not that you would be better off.
I realize this isn't on the subthread I'm really in, but I think this greatly captures my point. The world may be a somewhat better place if we are all moral. However, for many people, they will be better off if they cheat and are not moral. This is especially true if they believe they will not get caught.
"The world would be better off without religion" is a massively arrogant thing to say. I know my own life is enriched and bettered by my religious faith and the idea that you, Mister Knowledge of the Internet, think you know better and that I would be better off for abandoning it makes you sort of a prick, man!
While we're being specific, he said the world would be better off not that you would be better off.
Well, I think Pony means that there are positives to religion. I will agree that most people who say "the world would be better off without religion" probably haven't thought it through. There are a lot of factors to account for and we can't exactly have a do-over to find out.
I am an apathetic agnostic. I just don't give a shit if there is a higher power or not. What I do give a shit about is all the judgemental crap that religions pass off as their right to believe just because it's in some book or something.
The world would be a whole lot better off if we just had faith instead of religion.
Oh hi, you're doing that thing! That thing, where you assume the entirety of all religion is this judgment-driven authority system designed to assert its will on you and tell you how to live your life!
They do. Each religion has a set of tenets, of beliefs that they are supposed to live their lives by and many of those religions encourage spreading those beliefs by any means possible.
Maybe you don't mean all religions. Maybe you just mean "most religions". Or maybe you just mean "The large religions which I am personally familiar with!"
Nope. Lots of religions.
Because if you honestly think that the entirety of all religion is about judgment or that it's based on believing in something "just because it's in some book", this is factually incorrect!
The problem with religion is that everyone picks and chooses how they interpret it.
"The world would be better off without religion" is a massively arrogant thing to say. I know my own life is enriched and bettered by my religious faith and the idea that you, Mister Knowledge of the Internet, think you know better and that I would be better off for abandoning it makes you sort of a prick, man!
Please note that you said faith, not belief. Not tenets. Not what is written down for you to follow and believe. Faith in something greater than yourself. I have no issues with faith. I just don't like religion in general. It's what has us mired in this mess the world is in today. Jihads, radical islam, evangelists, and more. I am honestly offended by people that tell me I'm going to burn for eternity or be damned because I don't follow their proscribed religion.
If every religion is correct, then everyone is going to be damned and burn for ever, because there are multiple belief systems which state very clearly that if you don't follow their specific belief system... you're damned.
No bible, no koran, no talmud, no organized religions... this world would be far better off if each person that needed it, just had personal faith in something greater than them to aspire to. Something to guide them and something very personal to them and them only.
SkyCaptain on
The RPG Bestiary - Dangerous foes and legendary monsters for D&D 4th Edition
How about "I'm not a completely self-serving asshole"? The idea that the only reason for not arbitrarily killing someone is because I'm afraid of the consequences (societal or metaphysical) is offensive. I am a moral person because I'm a moral person. It's just who I am. It's part of what makes me me. There's no reason for it. And if the only reason you don't go around killing people is because you don't want to go to jail or you don't want to go to hell, you're a monster.
That just reads like a cop-out to me. You wouldn't except someone's answer of "they are religious because they are religous." Why should I except this?
I've missed most of this morality discussion, but I can tell you this. I am moral because a world in which everyone is moral benefits everyone, including myself, more than a general lack of morality.
This does not explain why you are a perfectly moral person. This explains why you want to act in such a way that others will be moral towards you.
Think of it this way, few people blatantly cheat at any game. But it is silly to assume that nobody cheats. It is also silly to assume that you should never cheat, if you could get away with it. If you are assuming you couldn't get away with it, that is one thing. But to think there is some overriding reason why you shouldn't get away with something just doesn't fly in my head. (Unless you believe inherently in some overriding reason.)
You keep bringing this back to minor moral transgressions, which are alot easier to rationalize. If you're walking down a deserted street, and you happen to pass an attractive woman, what stops you from raping and murdering them? I mean, it'd probably feel good and chances are you wouldn't get caught. So why not? Is it really just because you fear the consequences? Is that how you actually believe the general populace behaves?
Why is it that minor transgressions are easier to rationalize? You must have a separate framework for evaluating each. Your example is outlandish to me, because my entire point is you have to give the appearance of not behaving in an immoral fashion. Being caught (as you must assuredly would) does not do too well to maintain either the reality or the appearance of morality.
They are easier to rationalize because the absolutely perfectly moral being doesn't exist. Human being are flawed. So if you knew for absolute fact that you wouldn't get caught, you wouldn't have a problem raping and murdering someone simply because it was in your own self-interest? That's really how you think most of society works? There's no such thing as someone being a moral person without fear of retribution? You live in a sad and disgusting world.
While we're being specific, he said the world would be better off not that you would be better off.
I realize this isn't on the subthread I'm really in, but I think this greatly captures my point. The world may be a somewhat better place if we are all moral. However, for many people, they will be better off if they cheat and are not moral. This is especially true if they believe they will not get caught.
If you read one of my last posts. I would contend that they may believe they will be better off by not being moral, but are not necessarily better off.
They are easier to rationalize because the absolutely perfectly moral being doesn't exist. Human being are flawed. So if you knew for absolute fact that you wouldn't get caught, you wouldn't have a problem raping and murdering someone simply because it was in your own self-interest? That's really how you think most of society works? There's no such thing as someone being a moral person without fear of retribution? You live in a sad and disgusting world.
That reaks of creationism. We are flawed? Compared to what? A perfect human? As postulated or designated by whom?
And yes, I do believe that is how a larger part of society acts than I'd care to admit it. I kinda have history on my side for this one.
While we're being specific, he said the world would be better off not that you would be better off.
I realize this isn't on the subthread I'm really in, but I think this greatly captures my point. The world may be a somewhat better place if we are all moral. However, for many people, they will be better off if they cheat and are not moral. This is especially true if they believe they will not get caught.
If you read one of my last posts. I would contend that they may believe they will be better off by not being moral, but are not necessarily better off.
You are either waffling on whether or not they would be better off, or you are acknowledging that there is a chance that it doesn't matter. In which case, my question still stands on "why be moral?"
Why is it that minor transgressions are easier to rationalize? You must have a separate framework for evaluating each. Your example is outlandish to me, because my entire point is you have to give the appearance of not behaving in an immoral fashion. Being caught (as you must assuredly would) does not do too well to maintain either the reality or the appearance of morality.
They are easier to rationalize because the absolutely perfectly moral being doesn't exist. Human being are flawed. So if you knew for absolute fact that you wouldn't get caught, you wouldn't have a problem raping and murdering someone simply because it was in your own self-interest? That's really how you think most of society works? There's no such thing as someone being a moral person without fear of retribution? You live in a sad and disgusting world.
A more rational explanation is that we evolved our morals. Hence, we're more likely to do things that won't get caught and provide minor benefit, than we are to do things that'll get us killed and removed from the gene pool forever.
Please note that you said faith, not belief. Not tenets. Not what is written down for you to follow and believe. Faith in something greater than yourself. I have no issues with faith. I just don't like religion in general. It's what has us mired in this mess the world is in today. Jihads, radical islam, evangelists, and more. I am honestly offended by people that tell me I'm going to burn for eternity or be damned because I don't follow their proscribed religion.
If every religion is correct, then everyone is going to be damned and burn for ever, because there are multiple belief systems which state very clearly that if you don't follow their specific belief system... you're damned.
No bible, no koran, no talmud, no organized religions... this world would be far better off if each person that needed it, just had personal faith in something greater than them to aspire to. Something to guide them and something very personal to them and them only.
Yes, well, let me explain something to you.
My religious faith is based on my religious knowledge. It is based on study. It is based on things I learned and read and was taught and questioned and discussed.
The foundations of my faith are based on ideas that have been written, passed down, interpreted, re-interpreted, altered, questioned, etc.
This study is founded on a process that only happened because of an establishment of individuals and groups that chose to be a component of this process.
To say "It would be better if that establishment didn't exist!" is to say that I shouldn't have arrived at the conclusion I did, because if there was no such establishments and there was no such process, the conclusion I arrived at would not have happened, at least not the way it did. Would it have happened another way? Possibly, but who knows!
This sort of "personal faith" that totally ignores any sort of religious text, study, or distillation of knowledge completely undermines the method by which my personal faith originated in me.
You're basically saying I shouldn't have learned from others, I shouldn't have built on the knowledge that came before me, that I shouldn't use the viewpoints and beliefs of those who came before me as a foundation for my own.
That seems remarkably self-absorbed and arrogant, I must say.
Maybe some people's personal faith happens in a vacuum and they never needed a religious establishment or study to arrive at it. Good for them!
That's not me, and that's not a lot of people, and it's damned arrogant of you to think that it just would be because you think it should be.
They are easier to rationalize because the absolutely perfectly moral being doesn't exist. Human being are flawed. So if you knew for absolute fact that you wouldn't get caught, you wouldn't have a problem raping and murdering someone simply because it was in your own self-interest? That's really how you think most of society works? There's no such thing as someone being a moral person without fear of retribution? You live in a sad and disgusting world.
That reaks of creationism. We are flawed? Compared to what? A perfect human? As postulated or designated by whom?
And yes, I do believe that is how a larger part of society acts than I'd care to admit it. I kinda have history on my side for this one.
The human who has never every made a single minor moral transgression (by normal societal standards) has not and will not ever exist. That's why the very minor stuff, like your example of cheating at some game, can be easily rationalized and therefore do not have a significant impact on the discussion.
The point is, if you really think people don't act like wild animals with self-interest as their sole guiding compass for no other reason than they fear retribution (biblical or otherwise), I feel sorry for you. I don't mean that in a condescending way. I mean I literally feel sorrow for someone that believes that little of the general human populace.
Why is it that minor transgressions are easier to rationalize? You must have a separate framework for evaluating each. Your example is outlandish to me, because my entire point is you have to give the appearance of not behaving in an immoral fashion. Being caught (as you must assuredly would) does not do too well to maintain either the reality or the appearance of morality.
They are easier to rationalize because the absolutely perfectly moral being doesn't exist. Human being are flawed. So if you knew for absolute fact that you wouldn't get caught, you wouldn't have a problem raping and murdering someone simply because it was in your own self-interest? That's really how you think most of society works? There's no such thing as someone being a moral person without fear of retribution? You live in a sad and disgusting world.
A more rational explanation is that we evolved our morals. Hence, we're more likely to do things that won't get caught and provide minor benefit, than we are to do things that'll get us killed and removed from the gene pool forever.
Is it sad that I now see an argument in most of these posts. It sounds like you are taking my view on this one.
They are easier to rationalize because the absolutely perfectly moral being doesn't exist. Human being are flawed. So if you knew for absolute fact that you wouldn't get caught, you wouldn't have a problem raping and murdering someone simply because it was in your own self-interest? That's really how you think most of society works? There's no such thing as someone being a moral person without fear of retribution? You live in a sad and disgusting world.
That reaks of creationism. We are flawed? Compared to what? A perfect human? As postulated or designated by whom?
And yes, I do believe that is how a larger part of society acts than I'd care to admit it. I kinda have history on my side for this one.
The human who has never every made a single minor moral transgression (by normal societal standards) has not and will not ever exist. That's why the very minor stuff, like your example of cheating at some game, can be easily rationalized and therefore do not have a significant impact on the discussion.
The point is, if you really think people don't act like wild animals with self-interest as their sole guiding compass for no other reason than they fear retribution (biblical or otherwise), I feel sorry for you. I don't mean that in a condescending way. I mean I literally feel sorrow for someone that believes that little of the general human populace.
Your own logic is essentially people act this way for the important stuff, not necessarily otherwise. I'm asking you to define how you determine the important stuff. And have you seen some of the horrible shit that people do in the world?
My religious faith is based on my religious knowledge. It is based on study. It is based on things I learned and read and was taught and questioned and discussed.
So is radical islamism.
The foundations of my faith are based on ideas that have been written, passed down, interpreted, re-interpreted, altered, questioned, etc.
So is radical islamism.
This study is founded on a process that only happened because of an establishment of individuals and groups that chose to be a component of this process.
So is radical islamism.
That seems remarkably self-absorbed and arrogant, I must say. Maybe some people's personal faith happens in a vacuum and they never needed a religious establishment or study to arrive at it. Good for them! That's not me, and that's not a lot of people, and it's damned arrogant of you to think that it just would be because you think it should be.
We'll never know if my ideal society would have worked or not, because religion exists and we can't un-learn it.
SkyCaptain on
The RPG Bestiary - Dangerous foes and legendary monsters for D&D 4th Edition
They are easier to rationalize because the absolutely perfectly moral being doesn't exist. Human being are flawed. So if you knew for absolute fact that you wouldn't get caught, you wouldn't have a problem raping and murdering someone simply because it was in your own self-interest? That's really how you think most of society works? There's no such thing as someone being a moral person without fear of retribution? You live in a sad and disgusting world.
That reaks of creationism. We are flawed? Compared to what? A perfect human? As postulated or designated by whom?
And yes, I do believe that is how a larger part of society acts than I'd care to admit it. I kinda have history on my side for this one.
The human who has never every made a single minor moral transgression (by normal societal standards) has not and will not ever exist. That's why the very minor stuff, like your example of cheating at some game, can be easily rationalized and therefore do not have a significant impact on the discussion.
The point is, if you really think people don't act like wild animals with self-interest as their sole guiding compass for no other reason than they fear retribution (biblical or otherwise), I feel sorry for you. I don't mean that in a condescending way. I mean I literally feel sorrow for someone that believes that little of the general human populace.
Your own logic is essentially people act this way for the important stuff, not necessarily otherwise. I'm asking you to define how you determine the important stuff. And have you seen some of the horrible shit that people do in the world?
This discussion didn't start out as "can people be immoral", it started out as "people can't be moral with out fear of retribution". Yeah, sure, people can be disgusting animals. That doesn't have anything to do with my assertion that I can live what I deem to be a moral existence simply because I'm not one of those animals, and fear of retribution, biblical or otherwise, has absolutely nothing to do with it.
While we're being specific, he said the world would be better off not that you would be better off.
I realize this isn't on the subthread I'm really in, but I think this greatly captures my point. The world may be a somewhat better place if we are all moral. However, for many people, they will be better off if they cheat and are not moral. This is especially true if they believe they will not get caught.
If you read one of my last posts. I would contend that they may believe they will be better off by not being moral, but are not necessarily better off.
You are either waffling on whether or not they would be better off, or you are acknowledging that there is a chance that it doesn't matter. In which case, my question still stands on "why be moral?"
Well, it kind of depends.
If the question is "why be moral?" Then I'm going to say:
Perfectly Moral World = Best World (for everyone including myself)
Being moral as an individual brings us closer to a perfectly moral world and thus brings us closer to the best world. So that by being moral I am better off because I'm closer to the best world for myself.
I can't pretend to know the totality of circumstances so it's conceivable that someone could benefit more as an individual in the "Worst World" or a lesser world. Just because someone is immoral and benefits from immorality doesn't mean that my being moral will not lead to a better world.
On the other hand, imagine a world without law where there aren't any set consequences for bad acts.
You realize that by stealing you can make yourself individually better off, so you steal. Other people see that you are better off, realize that they could be too, so they steal. Eventually you are in a world where you can steal, and be temporarily better off, but everyone else steals too. You have no security in your goods so stealing is practically pointless because you will not be able to keep what you steal.
Posts
One cannot prove a universal negative.
One can prove a particular negative.
So, for example, if one fully inspects one's room one can claim that there are no ducks within the room within the context of that particular inquiry. The problem with Atheism is that it maintains that there is no God, anywhere, ever. Which is very silly given that one cannot inspect everywhere, ever.
The invisible lion and God situation seems like a sensible comparison insofar as it raises epistemological problems regarding what can be known. How would one know whether or not there was an invisible lion which takes up no space in one's room? Surely this could not be known via sense data. Perhaps it is similarity the case that one could not know of the existence of God via sensory data.
Which leads to the question of how one would know that a God exists.
Also, there are people, both Christians and atheists like me, who read these texts and come to the conclusion that they mean what they say and are therefore bullshit. Which happens a lot with religions over time. With the effect that religious scriptures gradually get more and more dismissed as "bullshit" and there's little left to define their gods with. Which is what I said.
The dishonest people are the ones who replace the word "bullshit" with "metaphor" without actually meaning anything different.
This does not explain why you are a perfectly moral person. This explains why you want to act in such a way that others will be moral towards you.
Think of it this way, few people blatantly cheat at any game. But it is silly to assume that nobody cheats. It is also silly to assume that you should never cheat, if you could get away with it. If you are assuming you couldn't get away with it, that is one thing. But to think there is some overriding reason why you shouldn't get away with something just doesn't fly in my head. (Unless you believe inherently in some overriding reason.)
It is a story? Like, Hansel and Grettle?
well, it is the creation story, and there's no sign I know of, at least from KJV, NKJV, or NIV, that it is meant to be a parable.
I'd imagine it'd be rather important to a religion for the beginning of man's existence and the setting up of its relationship to its creator to be accurate.
EDIT: I mean, the entire "Problem of Man" in Christianity is predicated on the idea that Adam and Eve were the first humans and through their fall that we're all damned.
Theres a really good argument bout this called the invisible gardener, I'll see if I can find it.
"Two people return to their long neglected garden and find, among the weeds, that a few of the old plants are surprisingly vigorous. One says to the other, 'It must be that a gardener has been coming and doing something about these weeds.' The other disagrees and an argument ensues. They pitch their tents and set a watch. No gardener is ever seen. The believer wonders if there is an invisible gardener, so they patrol with bloodhounds but the bloodhounds never give a cry. Yet the believer remains unconvinced, and insists that the gardener is invisible, has no scent and gives no sound. The sceptic doesn't agree, and asks how a so-called invisible, intangible, elusive gardener differ from an imaginary gardener, or even no gardener at all."
The world would be a whole lot better off if we just had faith instead of religion.
Why would this description be repeated throughout the Bible, if it's "just a story"?
Why would this description be repeated throughout ancient Mesopotamia in texts predating the Bible, and apparently taken as fact by the broader culture to which the Hebrews belonged, if it's "just a story"?
Is there anything at all, in the text, or in the cultural context in which it was written, to indicate it's just a story—beyond the fact that we now know today that it's not true?
Right. Remind me to disregard you on this topic until you've agreed not to ignore the half dozen people who corrected you.
How do you know that? How do you know other portions of the bible are not a story? Is there something in the text that shows that Genesis is a story and Leviticus is not?
So in a similar vein, though to a smaller scale, it is silly to believe that no human is capable of flying given that there's no way one can inspect every human.
You keep bringing this back to minor moral transgressions, which are alot easier to rationalize. If you're walking down a deserted street, and you happen to pass an attractive woman, what stops you from raping and murdering them? I mean, it'd probably feel good and chances are you wouldn't get caught. So why not? Is it really just because you fear the consequences? Is that how you actually believe the general populace behaves?
I... I don't need to? I'm not a Christian, after all (and although I'm Jewish culturally, I am not so religiously, so the religious practice of Judaism is not a concern of mine).
But I will say that Genesis, like any other creation myth, did serve as not only an explanation for the creation and state of the world by the primitive people who created the story, but also as a story to establish and reinforce the moral and cultural values of the culture that created the story.
Genesis 1, for example, not only provides pre-scientific Jews and Christians an explanation for "where did the world come from?" and "Why does it rain?"
It also reinforced ideas that, as a culture, they considered relevant and important: Subservience of women to men, Man's place as the greatest of all God's creations (but also the one who fucked up the most), the dangers of blithely questioning edicts from authority, etc.
Say what you want about the "quality" of those lessons, or whether they are good, it nonetheless remains that those lessons are components of how the story is told. What those lessons and symbols are supposed to mean is a matter of interpretation that has drastically changed over time.
So, while something like Genesis 1 may have it's origins as an honest and heartfelt explanation of how the ancient Hebrews thought the world worked... that's not all it is. It also contains intentionally inserted symbolism, allegory, and conveyed ideas. What those symbols and ideas mean is a constant source of conflict and interpretation and reinvention.
Sometimes people say "that's what they meant all along!" and whether or not you consider that honest to the original intent of the story and how it's told can probably be factually proven or disproven or at least subject to a reasonable criticism.
The problem is you seem to completely disregard this. You are like "If this isn't literally true, then obviously their God isn't exactly how they say it is because they got these things provably wrong" and I think that mindset is asinine.
Hi5
I'd counter-argue that humans are not rational people. We don't not rape and murder her because we make a rational decision. The real reason we don't assault her is because we've been programmed that way. It's not a conscious thought, but the decades of programming are as unbreakable to you or I as a computer program executing it's own instructions.
So what do you think about saying: based upon the available evidence a God or Gods do not exist? You can't say this statement is "true" because as you said you cannot prove a universal negative (keeping in mind that the terms being used are very vague and we're not specifically talking about a God that might possess qualities that contradict themselves which make the entity impossible, we're just talking about "a God") but even if it weren't "true" that has no meaningful impact on our life since if there is a God out there somewhere we don't know it. There is a difference between dismissing a God based on what evidence you have and dismissing a God and it being absolutely true. Do you think this difference is important and should it be made clear it's not absolutely true or do you think for our purposes it's accurate enough (like a scientific theory that's not quite right but nonetheless works for us) and the difference is unimportant?
I feel like I know how you're going to respond but I don't know how you'll word it so I'm interested. Also what I just wrote sounds sort of like nonsense to me but I don't know how I can improve it so I'll just post it anyway.
If a perfectly moral world is the best world and the closer we are to a moral world, then the closer we are to the best world, then it makes sense for me to do everything I can to get as close to perfect morality and the best world as I can. If I do not act morally, then I am not doing everything I can to get to the best world.
Oh hi, you're doing that thing!
That thing, where you assume the entirety of all religion is this judgment-driven authority system designed to assert its will on you and tell you how to live your life!
Maybe you don't mean all religions. Maybe you just mean "most religions". Or maybe you just mean "The large religions which I am personally familiar with!"
Yeah, I think that last one is what you're really meaning.
Because if you honestly think that the entirety of all religion is about judgment or that it's based on believing in something "just because it's in some book", this is factually incorrect!
Don't do that thing.
Be smarter!
"The world would be better off without religion" is a massively arrogant thing to say. I know my own life is enriched and bettered by my religious faith and the idea that you, Mister Knowledge of the Internet, think you know better and that I would be better off for abandoning it makes you sort of a prick, man!
Are you incapable of understanding and interpreting the works of Homer or Plato because you don't believe in Zeus?
I agree.
I agree. It makes it even more explicit in Genesis 8, when God opens the "windows of the sky" to let in the floodwaters. The explanation is that the sky is a solid dome, and there's an ocean above it.
Sure but tangental to our argument...
But you agree with my interpretation that Genesis 1 describes the creation of a solid sky dome by Yahweh.
What are you talking about?
The text says (you agree) Yahweh created the world by making a solid sky dome to hold up an above sky ocean.
I am going to go out on a limb and say you think this never happened.
So, if Yahweh is defined by this description of him—as the deity who created the sky as a solid dome—then Yahweh, as described, does not exist.
Similarly, Yahweh as described as the guy who personally gave Moses a bunch of Babylonian-era laws does not exist, because I'm assuming we both agree that this never happened. Yahweh as the guy who's son magically came back from the dead, along with a bunch of zombie saints in Matthew 28, doesn't exist, because those things never happened either.
An honest interpretation of the Bible yields a shitload of descriptions of reality that we know are false. If you strip Yahweh of those descriptions, there is really not much of the god left.
Except that's all unnecessary bullshit nowadays.
We don't need to know where rain comes from; we've got climatology. All of the lessons it gives are bullshit. Teaching new generations those lessons only serves to perpetuate hatred and ignorance.
I'm have a magic unicorn with super powers. I'm going to supply you with a list of things he's done. Some of these will violate basic physics, some will be mutually exclusive, some might seem completely self serving(like how he killed 50 people who didn't PM me their credit card info); none of these should lead you to believe that my unicorn is not exactly how I say he is.
Why is it that minor transgressions are easier to rationalize? You must have a separate framework for evaluating each. Your example is outlandish to me, because my entire point is you have to give the appearance of not behaving in an immoral fashion. Being caught (as you must assuredly would) does not do too well to maintain either the reality or the appearance of morality.
I realize this isn't on the subthread I'm really in, but I think this greatly captures my point. The world may be a somewhat better place if we are all moral. However, for many people, they will be better off if they cheat and are not moral. This is especially true if they believe they will not get caught.
Well, I think Pony means that there are positives to religion. I will agree that most people who say "the world would be better off without religion" probably haven't thought it through. There are a lot of factors to account for and we can't exactly have a do-over to find out.
They are easier to rationalize because the absolutely perfectly moral being doesn't exist. Human being are flawed. So if you knew for absolute fact that you wouldn't get caught, you wouldn't have a problem raping and murdering someone simply because it was in your own self-interest? That's really how you think most of society works? There's no such thing as someone being a moral person without fear of retribution? You live in a sad and disgusting world.
If you read one of my last posts. I would contend that they may believe they will be better off by not being moral, but are not necessarily better off.
That reaks of creationism. We are flawed? Compared to what? A perfect human? As postulated or designated by whom?
And yes, I do believe that is how a larger part of society acts than I'd care to admit it. I kinda have history on my side for this one.
You are either waffling on whether or not they would be better off, or you are acknowledging that there is a chance that it doesn't matter. In which case, my question still stands on "why be moral?"
A more rational explanation is that we evolved our morals. Hence, we're more likely to do things that won't get caught and provide minor benefit, than we are to do things that'll get us killed and removed from the gene pool forever.
Yes, well, let me explain something to you.
My religious faith is based on my religious knowledge. It is based on study. It is based on things I learned and read and was taught and questioned and discussed.
The foundations of my faith are based on ideas that have been written, passed down, interpreted, re-interpreted, altered, questioned, etc.
This study is founded on a process that only happened because of an establishment of individuals and groups that chose to be a component of this process.
To say "It would be better if that establishment didn't exist!" is to say that I shouldn't have arrived at the conclusion I did, because if there was no such establishments and there was no such process, the conclusion I arrived at would not have happened, at least not the way it did. Would it have happened another way? Possibly, but who knows!
This sort of "personal faith" that totally ignores any sort of religious text, study, or distillation of knowledge completely undermines the method by which my personal faith originated in me.
You're basically saying I shouldn't have learned from others, I shouldn't have built on the knowledge that came before me, that I shouldn't use the viewpoints and beliefs of those who came before me as a foundation for my own.
That seems remarkably self-absorbed and arrogant, I must say.
Maybe some people's personal faith happens in a vacuum and they never needed a religious establishment or study to arrive at it. Good for them!
That's not me, and that's not a lot of people, and it's damned arrogant of you to think that it just would be because you think it should be.
The human who has never every made a single minor moral transgression (by normal societal standards) has not and will not ever exist. That's why the very minor stuff, like your example of cheating at some game, can be easily rationalized and therefore do not have a significant impact on the discussion.
The point is, if you really think people don't act like wild animals with self-interest as their sole guiding compass for no other reason than they fear retribution (biblical or otherwise), I feel sorry for you. I don't mean that in a condescending way. I mean I literally feel sorrow for someone that believes that little of the general human populace.
Is it sad that I now see an argument in most of these posts. It sounds like you are taking my view on this one.
Your own logic is essentially people act this way for the important stuff, not necessarily otherwise. I'm asking you to define how you determine the important stuff. And have you seen some of the horrible shit that people do in the world?
So is radical islamism.
So is radical islamism.
We'll never know if my ideal society would have worked or not, because religion exists and we can't un-learn it.
This discussion didn't start out as "can people be immoral", it started out as "people can't be moral with out fear of retribution". Yeah, sure, people can be disgusting animals. That doesn't have anything to do with my assertion that I can live what I deem to be a moral existence simply because I'm not one of those animals, and fear of retribution, biblical or otherwise, has absolutely nothing to do with it.
Well, it kind of depends.
If the question is "why be moral?" Then I'm going to say:
Perfectly Moral World = Best World (for everyone including myself)
Being moral as an individual brings us closer to a perfectly moral world and thus brings us closer to the best world. So that by being moral I am better off because I'm closer to the best world for myself.
I can't pretend to know the totality of circumstances so it's conceivable that someone could benefit more as an individual in the "Worst World" or a lesser world. Just because someone is immoral and benefits from immorality doesn't mean that my being moral will not lead to a better world.
On the other hand, imagine a world without law where there aren't any set consequences for bad acts.
You realize that by stealing you can make yourself individually better off, so you steal. Other people see that you are better off, realize that they could be too, so they steal. Eventually you are in a world where you can steal, and be temporarily better off, but everyone else steals too. You have no security in your goods so stealing is practically pointless because you will not be able to keep what you steal.