|
Author
|
Topic: Morality without god
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
|
Message 3 of 1221 (676726)
10-25-2012 3:03 AM
|
Reply to: Message 1 by frako
10-24-2012 11:56 AM
|
|
One question I've been itching to ask these religious people who think that you can't be moral without God, and that mere human laws and customs are insufficient to constrain us ... Well, I'd like to ask them this. When was the last time you committed a sin? Lust, anger, pride, covetousness ... right, within the last half hour, wasn't it? And yet you believe that your actions, even your inner thoughts, are watched over by a judgmental God who damns sinners to Hell. Now, tell me this. When did you last commit a felony? The fear of a merely human police force does in fact constrain your actions far more than your stated belief in the inexorable vengeance of a wrathful God. So why can you not believe that the same is true of me? Now, this is aside from the fact that I do have a sense of right and wrong. But the people who say we need God to make us moral phrase this belief in terms of expected punishment and reward. Then again I would like to ask them --- which punishments really keep them in line: the inexorable judgments of a supposedly omniscient God, or the relatively ineffectual actions of the police?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 1 by frako, posted 10-24-2012 11:56 AM | | frako has not replied |
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
(1)
| |
| |
| |
I think you're underestimating the impact that their beliefs have on themselves. Well, I think that's how it goes. The Christian believes that God keeps Hell hot for sinners, and that God thinks that masturbation is a sin, and that God watches everything he does, and then he masturbates. On the other hand, the Christian knows that (for example) picking his nose in public is not even a crime, but merely something that society censures. And he doesn't do that. So, what is really keeping him in line? Fear of God, or fear of men? Fear of burning in Hell for all eternity, or fear of someone saying: "Ew, that's gross, you're disgusting"? It is fear of men. So why can't he see that the same thing keeps me in line? (Again, I am overlooking the fact that I do have a conscience. I am trying to reply to the argument as it is commonly stated.)
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 9 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-25-2012 9:29 AM | | New Cat's Eye has seen this message but not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 23 by frako, posted 10-25-2012 4:11 PM | | Dr Adequate has not replied |
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
|
|
Message 24 of 1221 (676904)
10-25-2012 4:45 PM
|
Reply to: Message 4 by Phat
10-25-2012 7:44 AM
|
|
Re: As A Man Thinks In his heart
Don't get me wrong. I'm not denying that you have a conscience, or that I have a conscience. I'm just pointing out that the common argument that we can only be good if we live in hope or fear of some sort of supernatural reward or punishment is clearly untrue. --- As far as conscience goes, that's another question. I was trying to convince a die-hard Christian that I as an atheist have a conscience, so I told him this story: "I went into a shop and bought a thing, and when I came out and counted my change I found that they'd so far overchanged me that I came out of the shop with more money then when I came in. So I went back in and pointed out their error and handed over the money." Now the point is that without a conscience I could have gotten clean away with it, it was the shopkeeper's mistake and no-one could have proved that I was aware of it. The response of the Christian I was talking to was: "No you didn't." Yes I did. "No you didn't, this is impossible". He could not even conceive of someone wanting to do the right thing without some prospect of punishment or reward. He can't even imagine people wanting to do right without the terrors of burning in hell. And he was so dogmatic on this point that he found my little anecdote as certainly implausible as though I'd claimed to have grown wings and flown to the moon. According to his dogma, atheists can't do right without a belief in God smiting them for doing wrong. But that Christian, if he believed what he said, is simply a psychopath. He believes that there is no such thing as conscience, merely a reckoning up of benefits. But I doubt that he really is a psychopath. But his religious doctrine compels him to think that he and I and everyone else are psychopaths. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 4 by Phat, posted 10-25-2012 7:44 AM | | Phat has seen this message but not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 29 by Dogmafood, posted 10-26-2012 7:41 AM | | Dr Adequate has replied |
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
|
|
Message 42 of 1221 (677134)
10-27-2012 5:18 AM
|
Reply to: Message 29 by Dogmafood
10-26-2012 7:41 AM
|
|
Re: As A Man Thinks In his heart
I am suggesting that a reckoning up of benefits is exactly what a conscience is. Well, if you want to phrase it in that way, then the guy I was describing believes that there is no benefit to doing what is right in itself, that there is no pleasure to be gained in doing right rather than wrong in itself, and the only possible motive for doing so is that God will give you cake when you're dead. And if that is really an accurate statement of his psychological condition, then he actually has no conscience.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 29 by Dogmafood, posted 10-26-2012 7:41 AM | | Dogmafood has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 45 by Dogmafood, posted 10-27-2012 8:18 AM | | Dr Adequate has not replied |
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
|
|
Message 46 of 1221 (677143)
10-27-2012 8:25 AM
|
Reply to: Message 44 by Dogmafood
10-27-2012 7:38 AM
|
|
Re: As A Man Thinks In his heart
So yes, not all desires can be simultaneously satisfied. Conscience is the mechanism that does the calculating and decides which action will bring the greatest reward. No, that's just not the English language as she is spoke. That's not what conscience means. You may say, if you please, that satisfying one's conscience is one of the rewards, but you cannot reasonably say that conscience is the calculation of the rewards. That is simply not what the word "conscience" means.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 44 by Dogmafood, posted 10-27-2012 7:38 AM | | Dogmafood has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 48 by Dogmafood, posted 10-27-2012 8:40 AM | | Dr Adequate has not replied |
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
|
|
Message 58 of 1221 (677372)
10-29-2012 12:49 PM
|
Reply to: Message 40 by Blue Jay
10-26-2012 11:44 PM
|
|
Re: My thoughts on losing religion
But, now everything just feels like arbitrary rules, like I could essentially make up whatever moral guidelines I want, and it would be just as valid as the guidelines that society makes up for me. Well, "valid" is such a vague word. Would moral guidelines made up at random be equally moral? is a more specific question.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 40 by Blue Jay, posted 10-26-2012 11:44 PM | | Blue Jay has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 59 by Blue Jay, posted 10-29-2012 1:06 PM | | Dr Adequate has replied |
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
|
|
Message 60 of 1221 (677395)
10-29-2012 2:13 PM
|
Reply to: Message 59 by Blue Jay
10-29-2012 1:06 PM
|
|
The Imperative And Indicative Moods
As much as I loathe ambiguity, I still find it preferable to circularity. That's not circular, it's just pointing out the right question. A statement such as "Love thy neighbor as thyself" (or, alternatively, "Kill thy neighbor and eat him") cannot be judged as true or false, because it is grammatically in the imperative and not the indicative mood. It can, however, be judged as right or wrong --- for exactly the same reason. "Valid" is a weasel word in this context, because it glosses over the fact that there's a difference between the two moods. It is perfectly true that empirical science can't decide between the two imperative sentences I gave in my example, but that's because, as I say, neither sentence is indicative. In the same way, science cannot decide on the truth or falsehood of me telling you: "Stand on one leg and sing the national anthem!" That's not even a sentence that purports to be true. The question you would have to ask yourself is not whether that is a true idea or a false idea, but whether it is a good idea or a bad idea. In this particular case, I think it would be neutral apart from being a complete waste of your time, so it's a slightly bad idea, but my point is that "good" or "bad" are the categories that apply to it, whereas "true" and "false" cannot possibly be categories that could apply to it, since it is not so grammatically constructed that they could apply to it. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 59 by Blue Jay, posted 10-29-2012 1:06 PM | | Blue Jay has seen this message but not replied |
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
One question I would like to ask is, why would you be itching to ask an irrational, emotionally driven question? Consider your above statement. It bypasses the only thing that matters, the simple logic involved in the question, "Is it possible to have morals without an eternally existent God", that would be the absolute standard, from any reasonable standpoint. If the there is no absolute standard, then there is no moral standrd at all. You can call it morals, right or wrong, but that wont make it morality in actuality The point is that there is no logical way to establish that morals are absolute or they are morals at all, without an absolute standard. Logic will not allow it The best you can do is assume you have some so-called standards within the human race. Because when we consider the animal kingdo, aliens, or whatever, the socalled standard we use , becomes, both subjective and contradictory any discussion of actual morals that tries to move past the standard I have just set out is nothing more than banttering and rehtoric From a purely logical standpoint an attempt to define morals without an absolute standard is nothing short of silliness and idiocy Whether you can demonstate from a persons perspective that God exists or not, has nothing to do with this simply set out proposition. If he does not from your perspective, you will always be constrained by the logical proposition that its only matter in motion. If you think you can demonstrate it otherwise, give it a shot. All I need to do is simply disagree with what you have called or discribed as morality to demonstrate that without an absolute standard, you are spinning your wheels So Dr Adequate, emotionlly driven, poorly set out propositions and questions, have nothing to do with what is, purely logical and demonstrable your up. Dawn Bertot Instead of writing this drivel, you could have tried replying to my post, to which it bears no apparent connection. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 69 by Dawn Bertot, posted 11-01-2012 5:06 PM | | Dawn Bertot has not replied |
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 94 of 1221 (678132)
11-05-2012 2:32 PM
|
Reply to: Message 92 by Stile
11-05-2012 12:25 PM
|
|
Re: Golden Schmolden
My point is that the possible confusion can simply be removed by putting in "treat others as they want to be treated" instead of the selfishly-centric general Golden Rule in the first place. So if a guy wants you to blow him ... ? If I want you to send me a large check ... ? That rule would oblige you to respect the desires of other people as well as their rights. (I seem to vaguely remember that there was a book written by a guy who decided that he'd spend a year saying "yes" to every request that was made of him. I forget how that turned out. Does anyone else know anything about this?)
Of course, the easy way to get around this is to say "I like making my own choice about who I marry" therefore, I should want to treat others the same way and I would be for gay marriage according to the Golden Rule. But this takes a certain level of thought and analysis that some folk just don't seem to be capable of. Yes, well, that doesn't invalidate the rule, does it? It means that some people are idiots. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 92 by Stile, posted 11-05-2012 12:25 PM | | Stile has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 96 by Stile, posted 11-06-2012 8:45 AM | | Dr Adequate has replied |
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
|
|
Message 170 of 1221 (679658)
11-15-2012 5:12 AM
|
Reply to: Message 96 by Stile
11-06-2012 8:45 AM
|
|
Re: Golden Schmolden
Well, there's a certain amount of abstraction required. I like hot chilli, my wife likes it mild. "Do unto others etc" does not mean that I should give her hot chilli, it means that I should give her the kind of chilli she likes. That is what I would like others to do to me. And people who are not actually autistic can surely wrap their brains around the distinction. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 96 by Stile, posted 11-06-2012 8:45 AM | | Stile has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 171 by Stile, posted 11-15-2012 11:28 AM | | Dr Adequate has replied |
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
Dawn Bertot's Entry For Stupidity Of The Month
Right and Wrong do not actually exist, anymore than emotions. they are manifestations of molecuar processes. Hence right and wrong dont actually exist in the first place Ah, like my house doesn't exist. It is merely a manifestation of bricks, and so it doesn't actually exist in the first place. Because, it seems, something that is made of real things doesn't exist. Since I can explain my emotions by reference to real things, such as molecules, my emotions don't exist, just like if I can explain my house by reference to real things, such as bricks, my house doesn't exist. There's nothing so non-existent as something which has a firm basis in physical reality. Imaginary castles in the air are real, houses built out of bricks are fictitious, because bricks are known to exist And so because my emotions of (for example) love are instantiated in the form of real, substantial, material things, such as molecules, that proves that I don't really have any emotions. Why, you might as well say that I have a house! Sure, it keeps the rain off, but it can't really exist because it's made of real things. Well, either that or you're nuts. You're nuts. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
Re: Dawn Bertot's Entry For Stupidity Of The Month
thats non-sense Yes, Dawn, it is. And it is also your position. Whereas, let me explain this to you, when I said it I was being sarcastic.
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
Re: The Bible says ...
When she countered the serpents argument, by saying but we were told not to do that ... But she didn't, unless you're reading it backwards. You're not reading it backwards, are you? Don't do that. She says that God has commanded her not to eat the fruit. Then the snake puts up his argument. Then she doesn't counter his argument at all, she just eats the fruit.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 194 by Dawn Bertot, posted 11-15-2012 11:49 PM | | Dawn Bertot has not replied |
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
Re: Dawn Bertot's Entry For Stupidity Of The Month
Sorry though, even in sarcasm that is not my position in the least. But it's what you said. You said that if emotions were "manifestations of molecular processes" (like a house, a tree, a bicycle, a mountain) then they wouldn't be real. If you'd now like to take that back, go for it, but don't pretend you didn't say it. I maintain that being made out of real physical stuff is precisely what makes them real, just as a house is real by virtue of being made out of real material things such as bricks. The rest of your post seems to be bizarre ramblings with no connection to anything I've ever posted, said, or thought, so I shall spare myself the trouble of translating it into English and finding out if it means anything. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
|
|
Message 197 of 1221 (679836)
11-16-2012 1:51 AM
|
Reply to: Message 171 by Stile
11-15-2012 11:28 AM
|
|
Re: Golden Schmolden
But the thing is that "do what other people want" cannot be modified by thinking about it more carefully --- by "abstraction", which we seem to have made the word of the day. I want you to buy me a pony. Your proposed rule is "do what other people want". Explain to me how even the most subtle application of your rule would let you off buying me a pony. Or, alternatively, you could buy me a pony.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 171 by Stile, posted 11-15-2012 11:28 AM | | Stile has seen this message but not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2