• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

The One True Religion

Angel said:
You're on shaky ground here, RAMOSS. That apes or any other animals are guided by what we call morality is at best highly speculative science, and at worst mere anthropomorphism.
The fallacy is on the other foot, WR. :)
Click to expand...

It seems to me that this is hand waving evidence away. There are other examples outside the primate family too. For example, when a fruit bat gets injured, and can't fly, other fruit bats will bring it food until it is able to fly.
 
soylentgreen said:
Actually there is more than enough evidence of altruism so that it is a scientific term. It is animal behaviour rather than anthropomorphism. And empathy has been linked to specific regions of the brain.

Both without question exist and is the basis of morality in humans.

Where as the bible with its argument of universal morality has been nothing more than a continuous failure. Demonstrating that objective morality is a myth.
Click to expand...

RAMOSS said:
It seems to me that this is hand waving evidence away. There are other examples outside the primate family too. For example, when a fruit bat gets injured, and can't fly, other fruit bats will bring it food until it is able to fly.
Click to expand...
Morality requires volition, gentlemen. Instinct and morality are antithetical. The faith you two have in science rises to the level of religious faith.
Without something like objective morality, we're just making ethics up out of whole cloth. :)
 
Angel said:
Those who are anti-religion are really against organized religion.
Religion, before it is organized, is merely a deeply felt connection to the universe.
You can't be against that and still be rational.
Click to expand...

No, the word religion has to have organisation.

What you want it to be is some sort of hippy feel the force Luke thing.

You can be spirtual and appreciative of life in more than a material way without the need for a god or religion.
 
Angel said:
Morality requires volition, gentlemen. Instinct and morality are antithetical. The faith you two have in science rises to the level of religious faith.
Without something like objective morality, we're just making ethics up out of whole cloth. :)
Click to expand...

We make up our ethics and laws based on our emotions which are things that we have evolved.
 
Angel said:
Morality requires volition, gentlemen. Instinct and morality are antithetical. The faith you two have in science rises to the level of religious faith.
Without something like objective morality, we're just making ethics up out of whole cloth. :)
Click to expand...

Is that true?? How do you know that the basis for morality is not programed into you?? From the examples of the animal world, we see empathy, and sympathy among many of the mammals, particularly in the family of the great apes.

Can you back up your claims?? You might have rejected my evidence, but in return, you have offered nothing but unsupported claims. Can you actually provide evidence of any of your claims, for example, 'morality requires volition', and 'without the premise of God morality means nothing'. I pointed out the kernels needed for morality can be found in the animal kingdom, testable and with repeatable experiments.
 
Tim the plumber said:
No, the word religion has to have organisation.

What you want it to be is some sort of hippy feel the force Luke thing.

You can be spirtual and appreciative of life in more than a material way without the need for a god or religion.
Click to expand...
The title of the thread should have suggested to you that we were trying to move beyond the popular, accepted, commonplace concept.

Tim the plumber said:
We make up our ethics and laws based on our emotions which are things that we have evolved.
Click to expand...
Human emotion as the source of ethics and law? Good luck with that.

RAMOSS said:
Is that true?? How do you know that the basis for morality is not programed into you?? From the examples of the animal world, we see empathy, and sympathy among many of the mammals, particularly in the family of the great apes.

Can you back up your claims?? You might have rejected my evidence, but in return, you have offered nothing but unsupported claims. Can you actually provide evidence of any of your claims, for example, 'morality requires volition', and 'without the premise of God morality means nothing'. I pointed out the kernels needed for morality can be found in the animal kingdom, testable and with repeatable experiments.
Click to expand...
Oy! I think we're all talking past each other in this thread. Perhaps we should agree on a definition of morality before we carry this Babel any further. First of all, are we all talking about normative morality or descriptive morality? Or are some of us talking about normative morality and some talking about descriptive morality?
 
Angel said:
The title of the thread should have suggested to you that we were trying to move beyond the popular, accepted, commonplace concept.


Human emotion as the source of ethics and law? Good luck with that.


Oy! I think we're all talking past each other in this thread. Perhaps we should agree on a definition of morality before we carry this Babel any further. First of all, are we all talking about normative morality or descriptive morality? Or are some of us talking about normative morality and some talking about descriptive morality?
Click to expand...

Morality is the set of principles and values to distinguish between 'right' and 'wrong'. And, although there is a lot of extra rationalization that comes along with ethics, (and law), essentially, yes.. the primal motivation is emotional.

Just take a look at the various ethical arguments that many people use for, let's say abortion. They tend to be highly emotional words and 'loaded' words.
 
Angel said:
Morality requires volition, gentlemen. Instinct and morality are antithetical. The faith you two have in science rises to the level of religious faith.
Without something like objective morality, we're just making ethics up out of whole cloth. :)
Click to expand...

No, it's more a case of your not understanding the science rises to the level of religious indoctrination.

Morality does require volition. Empathy and altruism are merely the mechanisms that make it possible for humans to consider such volition. As for objective morality that to has some truth to it but not in the sense that the theist would have it. Such things as not killing others or treating people as you would be treated are a common factor that has held true in any society. Where as the religious would have us believe that they are only possible because god made it so. In fact they are possible because humans are social creatures and are social creatures because they have developed instincts such as empathy and altruism.
 
RAMOSS said:
Morality is the set of principles and values to distinguish between 'right' and 'wrong'. And, although there is a lot of extra rationalization that comes along with ethics, (and law), essentially, yes.. the primal motivation is emotional.

Just take a look at the various ethical arguments that many people use for, let's say abortion. They tend to be highly emotional words and 'loaded' words.
Click to expand...

soylentgreen said:
No, it's more a case of your not understanding the science rises to the level of religious indoctrination.

Morality does require volition. Empathy and altruism are merely the mechanisms that make it possible for humans to consider such volition. As for objective morality that to has some truth to it but not in the sense that the theist would have it. Such things as not killing others or treating people as you would be treated are a common factor that has held true in any society. Where as the religious would have us believe that they are only possible because god made it so. In fact they are possible because humans are social creatures and are social creatures because they have developed instincts such as empathy and altruism.
Click to expand...

The bolded bits represent a starting point for us. The rest of your posts are assumptions or confusions.
So in discussing morality we're discussing:

1. "principles of right and wrong"
2. "true in any society"
3. involving choice (volition)

a. We must add that we are discussing conduct or behavior.
b. And we must clarify whether "true in any society" is to be discussed DESCRIPTIVELY or NORMATIVELY.

When we've clarified (a) and (b), we'll then be better able to discuss this in a focused manner without talking past one another. :)
 
Angel said:
The bolded bits represent a starting point for us. The rest of your posts are assumptions or confusions.
So in discussing morality we're discussing:

1. "principles of right and wrong"
2. "true in any society"
3. involving choice (volition)

a. We must add that we are discussing conduct or behavior.
b. And we must clarify whether "true in any society" is to be discussed DESCRIPTIVELY or NORMATIVELY.

When we've clarified (a) and (b), we'll then be better able to discuss this in a focused manner without talking past one another. :)
Click to expand...


I think it is not me that is having a confusion about it, but you.

And no, I never said 'True to any society'.. Do you liike putting words in other people mouths?


Why do you think that animals can not make choices???

The 'descriptively vs normative' when it comes to morals is word salad,and the distinction is meaningless.
 
RAMOSS said:
I think it is not me that is having a confusion about it, but you.

And no, I never said 'True to any society'.. Do you liike putting words in other people mouths?


Why do you think that animals can not make choices???

The 'descriptively vs normative' when it comes to morals is word salad,and the distinction is meaningless.
Click to expand...
The phrase was not put into your mouth, R. It was taken from the mouth of the other member quoted in my post. Did you not see that?

Animals do not make moral choices.

If you cannot or will not make the normative/descriptive distinction, then we cannot discuss this topic without confusion. Is that what you want? :)
 
Angel said:
The phrase was not put into your mouth, R. It was taken from the mouth of the other member quoted in my post. Did you not see that?

Animals do not make moral choices.

If you cannot or will not make the normative/descriptive distinction, then we cannot discuss this topic without confusion. Is that what you want? :)
Click to expand...

I want you to show that statement 'Animals do not make moral choices' to be true. You made a claim, now back it up.
e
 
RAMOSS said:
I want you to show that statement 'Animals do not make moral choices' to be true. You made a claim, now back it up.
e
Click to expand...
You want me to prove a negative. The sure sign of argumentative shortfall. ;)


Here, read this. From Psychology Today.

Only Humans Have Morality, Not Animals
Human beings, unlike other animals, are able to reflect on and make judgements about our own and others' actions, and as a result we are able to make considered moral choices.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blo.../201106/only-humans-have-morality-not-animals
Click to expand...
 
Well, I'm afraid our conversation must be considered over, RAMOSS, if you have bought into this recent scientific folly so completely.
Only man is a moral animal. No other animal on earth is a moral agent.
Follow misguided science in this anthropomorphic exercise in projection and we really have nothing to talk about.
Lions and tigers and bears, moral agents!

You have a nice day, pilgrim. :)

Moral Agent

A moral agent is a person who has the ability to discern right from wrong and to be held accountable for his or her own actions. Moral agents have a moral responsibility not to cause unjustified harm.

Traditionally, moral agency is assigned only to those who can be held responsible for their actions. Children, and adults with certain mental disabilities, may have little or no capacity to be moral agents. Adults with full mental capacity relinquish their moral agency only in extreme situations, like being held hostage.

By expecting people to act as moral agents, we hold people accountable for the harm they cause others.
Moral Agent - Ethics Unwrapped
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_agency
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Angel said:
jcvxLNa.jpg


Those who are anti-religion are really against organized religion.
Religion, before it is organized, is merely a deeply felt connection to the universe.
You can't be against that and still be rational.
Click to expand...


Really? And who defines what is good and righteous?
 
Elvira said:
Really? And who defines what is good and righteous?
Click to expand...
Good question, Elvira. However, I would phrase the question "Who or What?" I would answer Reason. What would you say? :)
 
Angel said:
Good question, Elvira. However, I would phrase the question "Who or What?" I would answer Reason. What would you say? :)
Click to expand...

The problem with that is not everyone reasons in the same way...someone has to set the 'across the board' standard imo...for me, I look to my Creator to set those standards of right and wrong...who better to tell us how to live than the One who created us...who knows us inside and out?
 
Elvira said:
The problem with that is not everyone reasons in the same way...someone has to set the 'across the board' standard imo...for me, I look to my Creator to set those standards of right and wrong...who better to tell us how to live than the One who created us...who knows us inside and out?
Click to expand...
We have no quarrel, Elvira. Reason leads to God also, in addition to Faith. :)
 
Angel said:
We have no quarrel, Elvira. Reason leads to God also, in addition to Faith. :)
Click to expand...


Oh I agree...God reasonable and He is logical...and faith is certainly not blind...
 
Angel said:
The title of the thread should have suggested to you that we were trying to move beyond the popular, accepted, commonplace concept.
Click to expand...

Then call it something else.

Religion is defined already and is not what you want it to be.
 
Angel said:
The bolded bits represent a starting point for us. The rest of your posts are assumptions or confusions.
So in discussing morality we're discussing:

1. "principles of right and wrong"
2. "true in any society"
3. involving choice (volition)


When we've clarified (a) and (b), we'll then be better able to discuss this in a focused manner without talking past one another. :)
Click to expand...

Actually the rest of my post gave a clear indication of what morality is derived from. It is you who are confused by it.


And again, no. 1 to 3 are descriptions of morality not discussions about.

a. We must add that we are discussing conduct or behavior.
Click to expand...
Which is 1 to 3.
But i do not believe that to be correct. What we are discussing is the root cause of morality not the effects so much. Where as you consider it an outside force imposed upon people and eternal in nature. I would say it is an evolutionary (both Physical and social) development called altruism ans empathy. That it changes according to circumstance and beliefs.

b. And we must clarify whether "true in any society" is to be discussed DESCRIPTIVELY or NORMATIVELY.
Click to expand...
That would depend on which morality we are discussing.
 
Angel said:
Well, I'm afraid our conversation must be considered over, RAMOSS, if you have bought into this recent scientific folly so completely.
Only man is a moral animal. No other animal on earth is a moral agent.
Follow misguided science in this anthropomorphic exercise in projection and we really have nothing to talk about.
Lions and tigers and bears, moral agents!

You have a nice day, pilgrim. :)
Click to expand...

If you want to play word games instead of looking at evidence, that is your choice. However, using such loaded terminology as 'scientific folly' is showing an extreme bias, and a disconnect with modern knowledge.
 
Angel said:
jcvxLNa.jpg


Those who are anti-religion are really against organized religion.
Religion, before it is organized, is merely a deeply felt connection to the universe.
You can't be against that and still be rational.
Click to expand...

I do love how you have to resort to fake quotes from Einstein. You do know many of the alleged quotes from Einstein are just made up by someone else and attributed to him, don't you?
 
RAMOSS said:
I do love how you have to resort to fake quotes from Einstein. You do know many of the alleged quotes from Einstein are just made up by someone else and attributed to him, don't you?
Click to expand...
I answered your point when it was made by someone else way back at post #21.

Angel said:
It did strike me as somewhat wishy-washy, if truth be told. And while it is put forward severally as from Einstein, Lincoln may well be right.
https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/a/alberteins148864.html
Albert Einstein Quote : "True religion is real living;..."
Quote by Albert Einstein: ?True religion is real living; living with all o...?

I could choose one of these instead, if you like:

human being is part of the whole called by us universe, a part limited in time and space. We experience ourselves, our thoughts and feelings as something separate from the rest. A kind of optical delusion of consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from the prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty. The true value of a human being is determined by the measure and the sense in which they have obtained liberation from the self. We shall require a substantially new manner of thinking if humanity is to survive. (Albert Einstein, 1954)

The most beautiful and most profound experience is the sensation of the mystical. It is the sower of all true science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead. To know that what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their primitive forms - this knowledge, this feeling is at the center of true religiousness.
( Albert Einstein - The Merging of Spirit and Science)

The religion of the future will be a cosmic religion. It should transcend personal God and avoid dogma and theology. Covering both the natural and the spiritual, it should be based on a religious sense arising from the experience of all things natural and spiritual as a meaningful unity. Buddhism answers this description .. If there is any religion that could cope with modern scientific needs it would be Buddhism. (Albert Einstein)

In my view, it is the most important function of art and science to awaken this religious feeling and keep it alive in those who are receptive to it. (Albert Einstein, 1930)

Albert Einstein: Quotes on God, Religion, Theology

The most beautiful experience we can have is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. Whoever does not know it and can no longer wonder, no longer marvel, is as good as dead, and his are dimmed. It was the experience of mystery — even if mixed with fear — that engendered religion. A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, our perceptions of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty, which only in their most primitive forms are accessible to our minds — it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute true religiosity; in this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious man.
Albert Einstein on True Religion | Quotes at Afterall.net
Click to expand...


Or I can do without Einstein entirely. I don't need him for my thesis. Some members need an authority figure before they can think on a topic. I personally don't.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom