• 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.

Religion: is the cultural compulsion a theological obligation?

Fishking said:
And why do you consider empathy and altruism more virtuous than ambition and selfishness?
Click to expand...

Show me the results, where is the harm if any. Otherwise i have no problem with indifference and apathy as well.

What i have a problem with is theists falsely claiming that morality is derived from a book.
 
soylentgreen said:
Show me the results, where is the harm if any. Otherwise i have no problem with indifference and apathy as well.
Click to expand...

How do you define harm?

What i have a problem with is theists falsely claiming that morality is derived from a book.
Click to expand...

There are all different kinds of morality out there. Some of them are based on religious books, some culture, some both, some based off of ideology, some based off of power, ect, ect, ect
 
phattonez said:
And how many books by theists have you read? I'm curious.
Click to expand...

Enough. And probably a few more to come. Still no evidence just people like you who falsely claim it is there if you look for it. But you never actually will provide it.
 
Fishking said:
How do you define harm?
Click to expand...
By examining the results of an action.

There are all different kinds of morality out there. Some of them are based on religious books, some culture, some both, some based off of ideology, some based off of power, ect, ect, ect
Click to expand...
That is true. But they quantify morality. An attempt to define what is moral. And they can vary greatly depending on time and culture.
But none of them are the source of our feelings about morality. That comes from the individuals ability to express empathy and altruism.

The other emotions you mentioned are not sources of morality but merely balances against or even for moral judgements. Those sort of emotions can be held by a sociopath who completely lacks any understanding of morality because they lack in empathy and altruism.
 
soylentgreen said:
By examining the results of an action.
Click to expand...

And how do the results get weighed?

That is true. But they quantify morality. An attempt to define what is moral. And they can vary greatly depending on time and culture.
But none of them are the source of our feelings about morality.
Click to expand...

Agree and disagree. I agree they try and quantify morality and but that is no different than any other group. I can look at this board and see people from all different demographic groups expressing the concept that their sense of morality is superior to the other.
 
soylentgreen said:
Enough. And probably a few more to come. Still no evidence just people like you who falsely claim it is there if you look for it. But you never actually will provide it.
Click to expand...

Such as?
 
Fishking said:
And how do the results get weighed?
Click to expand...
Considering i am making the argument that it is all subjective then the point would be, you tell me.
Agree and disagree. I agree they try and quantify morality and but that is no different than any other group. I can look at this board and see people from all different demographic groups expressing the concept that their sense of morality is superior to the other.
Click to expand...
I do not think any one group has the moral high ground. I agree that some do think there morality is superior or at least based on objective facts. But morality is simply a subjective opinion. What gives us a sense of morality is our empathy an altruism. How we express our morality is cultural.
 
soylentgreen said:
Considering i am making the argument that it is all subjective then the point would be, you tell me.
Click to expand...

Well that's my point. Now, those who have their religious books can point to that and say, "See? They have no real moral foundation." and in a philosophical sense, they aren't inaccurate. That's not to say that a hardcore atheist can't have what we would generally consider high moral standing and a religious person cannot be a moral reprobate. But, in a sense, they have somewhat of a point as a written book is much less subjective.

I do not think any one group has the moral high ground. I agree that some do think there morality is superior or at least based on objective facts. But morality is simply a subjective opinion. What gives us a sense of morality is our empathy an altruism. How we express our morality is cultural.
Click to expand...

I disagree here. I think everyone has their own sense of moral superiority. That's really just who we are as humans. I'm sure you've run into plenty of people who's moral ideology repulses you and you believe yours to be better. I would probably even agree with you, more often than not. However, the point still stands, especially when you start doing comparisons between culture. I'm sure you think the egregious human rights violations that exist on a systemic level in countries like Saudi Arabia are pretty horrible and that say...women being treated as property is bad and that your position on equality is better. Again...I'd agree with you.
 
" Removable Mind View Post
There is no such thing as right to life...for any stage of human life." #35
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that
they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that
among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.— TJ / DOI
Click to expand...
Your quarrel RM is with Thomas Jefferson, not me. I simply quoted him.
 
soylentgreen said:
That is up to you. As far as i am concerned it is your god therefor your right to explain it. i remain an ignostic until you do.
Click to expand...

I just asked you what books you've read.
 
Fishking said:
Well that's my point. Now, those who have their religious books can point to that and say, "See? They have no real moral foundation." and in a philosophical sense, they aren't inaccurate. That's not to say that a hardcore atheist can't have what we would generally consider high moral standing and a religious person cannot be a moral reprobate. But, in a sense, they have somewhat of a point as a written book is much less subjective.
Click to expand...
Not in a philosophical sense as religion is a theology, not a philosophy. Big difference as the former only tells you what to think and the latter should only enable you to think. There are many guides and books around for atheists to pick up on moral standards that are far better discussions than a book that does nothing more than contradict it self to the point where it can create a moral standard of helping little old ladies across the street too walking into an abortion clinic and shooting doctors. I would disagree that the bible gives any theist any sort of point.


I disagree here. I think everyone has their own sense of moral superiority. That's really just who we are as humans. I'm sure you've run into plenty of people who's moral ideology repulses you and you believe yours to be better. I would probably even agree with you, more often than not. However, the point still stands, especially when you start doing comparisons between culture. I'm sure you think the egregious human rights violations that exist on a systemic level in countries like Saudi Arabia are pretty horrible and that say...women being treated as property is bad and that your position on equality is better. Again...I'd agree with you.
Click to expand...

True, human nature to think better of yourself than others. Some carry that thought to far though and you have the typical alpha male trying to exert dominance. I get back to that bench mark of, does it cause harm. As subjective as even that is it is still the best of standards that can be applied. But harm is relative. A woman who freely agrees to be a second class person to her husbands dominance may be sen as harm to feminist rights of independence. But it is her choice so no harm to her. On the other hand if the husband is beating her then her saying it is her choice becomes suspect and some outside opinion of harm then becomes relevant.
This is why it really is a matter of having the ability to ampathise with rather than exert ones own beliefs and be altruistic enough to interfere or stay away. Empathy and altruism is what guides our own personal beliefs in morality not books.
 
phattonez said:
I just asked you what books you've read.
Click to expand...
For what purpose? It is enough that i have read books. Do not make the usual mistake of theists by claiming that the answer is out there written in a book unless you can actually copy and paste the written words that declare it so.
 
soylentgreen said:
Not in a philosophical sense as religion is a theology, not a philosophy. Big difference as the former only tells you what to think and the latter should only enable you to think. There are many guides and books around for atheists to pick up on moral standards that are far better discussions than a book that does nothing more than contradict it self to the point where it can create a moral standard of helping little old ladies across the street too walking into an abortion clinic and shooting doctors. I would disagree that the bible gives any theist any sort of point.
Click to expand...

I don't think it to be overly contradictory. That aside, yes there are books that atheists can pick up but there is no "the book". I mean, we can see this if we look at our society on a macro level. Social conservatives are not conservative because they don't change their views at all but they do change them much slower than the secular demographics do. That's the concept behind conservatism, it changes less easily/more rigid.

True, human nature to think better of yourself than others. Some carry that thought to far though and you have the typical alpha male trying to exert dominance. I get back to that bench mark of, does it cause harm. As subjective as even that is it is still the best of standards that can be applied. But harm is relative. A woman who freely agrees to be a second class person to her husbands dominance may be sen as harm to feminist rights of independence. But it is her choice so no harm to her. On the other hand if the husband is beating her then her saying it is her choice becomes suspect and some outside opinion of harm then becomes relevant.
This is why it really is a matter of having the ability to ampathise with rather than exert ones own beliefs and be altruistic enough to interfere or stay away. Empathy and altruism is what guides our own personal beliefs in morality not books.
Click to expand...

Again, why does empathy have to rate as a more valid premise? Is a shark or lion so concerned about such things? Natural selection seems to be based on somewhat of a premise of lack of empathy. Those who are the fittest survive and pass on their genes over those that aren't. You could almost make a case for our modern technology, combined with empathy, is a negative force to the process, if you wanted to look at it coldly.
 
soylentgreen said:
For what purpose? It is enough that i have read books. Do not make the usual mistake of theists by claiming that the answer is out there written in a book unless you can actually copy and paste the written words that declare it so.
Click to expand...

It's odd how defensive you've gotten. I would think that this is a simple question.
 
Fishking said:
I don't think it to be overly contradictory. That aside, yes there are books that atheists can pick up but there is no "the book". I mean, we can see this if we look at our society on a macro level. Social conservatives are not conservative because they don't change their views at all but they do change them much slower than the secular demographics do. That's the concept behind conservatism, it changes less easily/more rigid.
Click to expand...
The bible is a very badly written book. And i do not mean that as a criticism but instead as a critique of the book. It fails in whatever genre you wish to place it. It is full of contradictions. And as a book of morals, as i said it can either do good or be used for evil depending on how the reader cherry picks it.
Again, why does empathy have to rate as a more valid premise? Is a shark or lion so concerned about such things? Natural selection seems to be based on somewhat of a premise of lack of empathy. Those who are the fittest survive and pass on their genes over those that aren't. You could almost make a case for our modern technology, combined with empathy, is a negative force to the process, if you wanted to look at it coldly
Click to expand...
.
A shark would not be but a lion would. The difference is that empathy only exists among creatures that live in groups. Solitary predators such as sharks, crocodiles or snakes for example only meet to mate otherwise even there own kind is just food to them.
Natural selection among animals, including humans that are social by nature are dependent on empathy and altruism in order to maintain a social structure.

And no, i see no reason why modern technology would impact negatively on empathy or altruism. And again no, the survival of the fittest is a theory that is only relevant to species and does not work at all on an individual level. Modern technology allows people who would not live long enough to mate to live long enough to mate.
 
phattonez said:
It's odd how defensive you've gotten. I would think that this is a simple question.
Click to expand...

It is a simple question. Not one that has any relevance either. Another simple question is what purpose does it serve to ask such questions. And not defensive, i just recognise a con when i see one.
 
soylentgreen said:
The bible is a very badly written book. And i do not mean that as a criticism but instead as a critique of the book. It fails in whatever genre you wish to place it. It is full of contradictions. And as a book of morals, as i said it can either do good or be used for evil depending on how the reader cherry picks it.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I see lots of people say this and that it has a lot of contradictions but that's merely born out of an extremely poor understanding of what they are reading.
.
A shark would not be but a lion would. The difference is that empathy only exists among creatures that live in groups. Solitary predators such as sharks, crocodiles or snakes for example only meet to mate otherwise even there own kind is just food to them.
Natural selection among animals, including humans that are social by nature are dependent on empathy and altruism in order to maintain a social structure.
Click to expand...

Is it empathy or is it dominance that gets their genes passed on?

And no, i see no reason why modern technology would impact negatively on empathy or altruism. And again no, the survival of the fittest is a theory that is only relevant to species and does not work at all on an individual level. Modern technology allows people who would not live long enough to mate to live long enough to mate.
Click to expand...

But it also keeps people alive that normally wouldn't and bring offspring from those who normally wouldn't.
 
soylentgreen said:
The bible is a very badly written book. And i do not mean that as a criticism but instead as a critique of the book. It fails in whatever genre you wish to place it.
Click to expand...

Oddly, it's taught as literature. I wonder why. :roll:
 
Fishking said:
Yeah, I see lots of people say this and that it has a lot of contradictions but that's merely born out of an extremely poor understanding of what they are reading.
.
Click to expand...
And i see a lot of that. The excuse that it must be the reader instead of the book itself. That i do not buy into the message of a god does not mean that i do not have an understanding of the book.

Is it empathy or is it dominance that gets their genes passed on?
Click to expand...
We also have feelings could sadness. They usually do not help with passing genes on either but never the ess still exist as feelings. Not everything is about passing on genes . That again is the mistake pf people who erroneously confuse survival of the fittest with individual survival instead of species survival.


But it also keeps people alive that normally wouldn't and bring offspring from those who normally wouldn't.
Click to expand...
True which has nothing to do with the survival of the species theory. that is only a useful insight when looking at whole species and has nothing to do with how any individual with the species behaves.
 
nota bene said:
Oddly, it's taught as literature. I wonder why. :roll:
Click to expand...

That is about its only worth and barely at that. It is a book of stories and as such that is where it belongs. But any analysis or interpretations of those stories as works of literature show they are poorly written. often giving very one dimensional characters and plots that contradict other stories.
 
soylentgreen said:
And i see a lot of that. The excuse that it must be the reader instead of the book itself. That i do not buy into the message of a god does not mean that i do not have an understanding of the book.
Click to expand...

Eh...I've personally corrected every single misconception out there. There are many concepts those who are looking at it from an antagonistic POV simply don't get it. Hell, most people who do believe in it barely know what's in there. I'd advice those who think there are contradictions to look up sources that are pro-belief for clarification and not those who are bias against it. Many of the apparent contradictions can be address by something as simple as dispensationalism and those criticizing aren't even aware of that doctrine.

We also have feelings could sadness. They usually do not help with passing genes on either but never the ess still exist as feelings. Not everything is about passing on genes . That again is the mistake pf people who erroneously confuse survival of the fittest with individual survival instead of species survival.
Click to expand...

Sadness definitely helps pass on genes, so does empathy. All these emotional bonds are usually helpful to the herd or offspring. It can cause an individual to sacrifice itself for the good of the many.

True which has nothing to do with the survival of the species theory. that is only a useful insight when looking at whole species and has nothing to do with how any individual with the species behaves.
Click to expand...

When flawed genetic traits are passed on at higher rates than what would happen without medical intervention, yeah, it actually is possible to have an effect. There are plenty of smart people in the field that are kicking around this idea.

Are humans still evolving by Darwin's natural selection? - BBC News
 
Fishking said:
Eh...I've personally corrected every single misconception out there. There are many concepts those who are looking at it from an antagonistic POV simply don't get it. Hell, most people who do believe in it barely know what's in there. I'd advice those who think there are contradictions to look up sources that are pro-belief for clarification and not those who are bias against it. Many of the apparent contradictions can be address by something as simple as dispensationalism and those criticizing aren't even aware of that doctrine.
Click to expand...
dispensationalism ! There is a fancy word for cherry picking.

Sadness definitely helps pass on genes, so does empathy. All these emotional bonds are usually helpful to the herd or offspring. It can cause an individual to sacrifice itself for the good of the many.




When flawed genetic traits are passed on at higher rates than what would happen without medical intervention, yeah, it actually is possible to have an effect. There are plenty of smart people in the field that are kicking around this idea.

Are humans still evolving by Darwin's natural selection? - BBC News
Click to expand...

Evolution happens Nothing new there.
 
soylentgreen said:
dispensationalism ! There is a fancy word for cherry picking.
Click to expand...

No, it really isn't. That's what some may say when they are either uneducated or bias against the subject. It's really easy to demonstrate how it isn't cherry-picking. Christians aren't prohibited from eating pork. Right there is a very simple and easily understood example to show that different times are under different standards. Another simple example, there was no law to follow before the law of Moses was given. Those two examples shows the three different dispensations that have existed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom