What the hell? In what way does "This thread is specifically directed at those of you on KMC (and there's quite a few) who have no religious preference." imply that atheists "make up morality as they go along"?
The second quote was a jab at Dawkins, if that.
And am I correcting your spelling? I thought it was very evident that I was.
Originally posted by backdoorman
What the hell? In what way does "This thread is specifically directed at those of you on KMC (and there's quite a few) who have no religious preference." imply that atheists "make up morality as they go along"?
The way I see it no religous perference can mean that you dont really believe in religon, its like saying you dont have an opinion on a subject. If you dont have an opinion you dont care or think the subject is irrelevant, if you dont have religous prefernce you dont care about religon and think its irrelevant. I think athiesm comes under that.
Originally posted by backdoorman
The second quote was a jab at Dawkins, if that.
Right....so how did the issue of Dawkins come up? Did it come up because somebody thought that atheism was an example of no religous pereference? Also did you notice that Quiero didnt say "Hey man I said people with no religous preference, that doesnt include atheism!" Therefore you can see that Quiero saw Dawkins as somebody who had no religous preference.
😐
The way I see it no religous perference can mean that you dont really believe in religon, its like saying you dont have an opinion on a subject. If you dont have an opinion you dont care or think the subject is irrelevant, if you dont have religous prefernce you dont care about religon and think its irrelevant. I think athiesm comes under that.
Right....so how did the issue of Dawkins come up? Did it come up because somebody thought that atheism was an example of no religous pereference? Also did you notice that Quiero didnt say "Hey man I said people with no religous preference, that doesnt include atheism!" Therefore you can see that Quiero saw Dawkins as somebody who had no religous preference.
Bottom line, you're making a ridiculous and incoherent argument.
Originally posted by backdoorman
Oh god, you have to be kidding. All he was saying was that the thread was aimed at people that don't have religious beliefs. I.E. atheists and agnostics.
Originally posted by Alfheim
The way I see it no religous perference can mean that you dont really believe in religon, its like saying you dont have an opinion on a subject. If you dont have an opinion you dont care or think the subject is irrelevant, if you dont have religous prefernce you dont care about religon and think its irrelevant. I think athiesm comes under that.
Originally posted by backdoorman
Atheism does ****ing fall under "no religious preference" in the context in which Quiero said it.Bottom line, you're making a ridiculous and incoherent argument.
Is this some sort of joke?
Originally posted by backdoorman
Hahaha, no.
What so i didnt say that the thread was aimed at atheists?
Originally posted by backdoorman
I asked you where he implied that "Atheists make up morality as they go along".
Because the thread was aimed at athiests. Christians get their morality from the Bible, therefore its not illogical to assume that he thinks that athiests create their own morality. Is there an athiest bible, no.
I mean look at this. He even put decided in italics.
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
I see. So you just made up your own morals, or otherwise decided on some for reasons that weren't already existent. Is there anyhing else that you just decided was right and wrong?
Here he is implying that Dawkins makes up his morality.
Originally posted by Quiero MotaI'm not denying that at all. Richard Dawkins said in The God Delusion "Atheists can be moral." Ok, fine, but where do these morals come from? Did Dawkins just pull his morals out of his ass "I think this is wrong. I didn't get this from any formulized rules, I just arbitrarily made this up. This is what I will live by"?
I dont see how thats an illogical conclusion.
Originally posted by backdoormanAtheism does ****ing fall under "no religious preference" in the context in which Quiero said it.
...but you said earlier that the thread was aimed at agnostics and atheists, didnt you?
Originally posted by backdoorman
Oh god, you have to be kidding. All he was saying was that the thread was aimed at people that don't have religious beliefs. I.E. atheists and agnostics.
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
I see. So you just made up your own morals, or otherwise decided on some for reasons that weren't already existent. Is there anyhing else that you just decided was right and wrong?
In a more general, historic sense, it isn't as easy as saying "so you just made up your own morals" - there are already morals in the world today that have, in one form or another, predated Christianity by thousands of years, and are in no way unique to it.
Because morals are more things of a grand, social nature. Rarely does a single person define the moral nature of all people. Now people can say Christianity has impacted largely on Western values and that is correct. But it has always been a balance of social and religious thought. We are raised socially in a moral climate of predefined rights and wrongs that have, themselves, developed over time in accordance with (as others have mentioned) altruism, empathy and the need for social order for stability and develoment.
If one is open to the idea that God/gods/whatever may not exist then the morals you draw from the Bible are human in origin, as I believe all morals to be anyway.
I don't make up my own morals - I am morally inspired by a moral code that has developed over countless years as a result of increasing human understanding and reason coupled with a desire and the ideal things should be good for as many people as possible for as much time as possible. And due to my own mind there are areas I can look at and think "that isn't right, we can do better" - and when enough people think like that for long enough morality changes over time.
Christ you're dense. I will try a different approach.
Because the thread was aimed at athiests. Christians get their morality from the Bible, therefore its not illogical to assume that he thinks that athiests create their own morality. Is there an athiest bible, no.
...but you said earlier that the thread was aimed at agnostics and atheists, didnt you?
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
If I asked you the same question 3 000 years ago, I am not sure your answer would be the same.
I read through most of this, its been a fairly good discussion 🙂
I just wanted to sort of add 2cents here, since it is something I have seen a lot.
A often touted idea is that it was impossible to be an atheist prior to Darwin or geology or modern science, however (and like any good scholar I can't remember the reference, only that Hitchens talks about this case in his new book) there are times where even during the inquisition, regular uneducated people who were to be burned for heresy would say things like "I have been so made that I cannot believe".
I'm not arguing your point B, in fact I probably agree with it, I just wanted to point out that even though we do live in a modern world, the idea of disbelief is not an inherently modern one. It is actually really romantic of an idea to me, to think that smart, everyday working people throughout history may not have been as brainwashed as we think (if they were more oppressed for thinking).
Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
I don't make up my own morals - I am morally inspired by a moral code that has developed over countless years as a result of increasing human understanding and reason coupled with a desire and the ideal things should be good for as many people as possible for as much time as possible. And due to my own mind there are areas I can look at and think "that isn't right, we can do better" - and when enough people think like that for long enough morality changes over time.
This is not to insult you but what is so complex about:
Originally posted by chithappens
Morals could damn near be summed up in stuff you just would not do to yourself.Examples:
Would you ass rape yourself?
Would you kill yourself?
Steal from yourself?
So on and so on.
Morality becomes complex ONLY when trying to justifying these actions that you would never do to yourself.
Slave masters did not give a damn about dehumanizing a slave,but you never heard of any black man touching a railroad track. Know why? Cause slaves were worth too much money. That is not a moral thought, that is a business thought.
*This happens to be an example from American history but this could be applied in many eras of history and many locations
Should it have been wrong morally? Yes. Did they give a damn? Apparently not. Maybe slave masters happened to all be agnostic until right before they die, then they tell Jesus they are sorry and go to heaven. 💃
A person should NOT put the reasoning of the masses as their #1 reason for certain morality (not saying Samura does that; just saying...). I don't give a damn what people thought and have "developed" because when the shit hits the fan, all that goes out the window, ALL OF IT.
I try my best to live as a man I will respect tomorrow. That is as complex as my morality goes.
The big problem with basing morality off of "Do unto others as you would see them do unto you" is when people start thinking "Well, if I was gay I'd certainly kill myself."
It doesn't work like that, a system of morals has to be based on something social, not personal.
And indeed a huge amount of phiosophical thought has gone into this area over time.
I don't really have much truck with this idea that all modern western thought is spun off from Christianity; that does not stand up to close examination.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
The big problem with basing morality off of "Do unto others as you would see them do unto you" is when people start thinking "Well, if I was gay I'd certainly kill myself."
Touche, to an extent...
I don't know what most people assume with the "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" thing. I don't go off the assumption of changing traits and assuming I was white or tall or anything like that.
I am Chit, and I can only view it from Chit's point of view. What you are talking about it speaking in some sort of logical fallacy.
I agree though, I could see some people totally ****ing up the entire idea though.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
I don't really have much truck with this idea that all modern western thought is spun off from Christianity; that does not stand up to close examination.
However, when compared to any other historical philosophical tradition, it was that of Europe and Christianity that came up with secularism and the freedoms we enjoy today.
Yes, the church opposed every major scientific and social advance ever, but the philosophy of western christianity contained the proper memes that eventually lead progressive thinkers to adopt modern values.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
No, a developed system of morality has to be social, as I say, not personal.
agreed 🙂
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Some people WOULD do that, though, and would justify it on the 'Do unto others' principle.The Holocaust could justify itself with such a viewpoint. It simply doesn't work.
But I think that is twisting the entire point for gain.
It's not "If if were you, this is what I would do to me" idea. It is a "I am me, and I would not violate myself, so I won't violate you." It has nothing to do with "putting yourself in their shoes." You are you and it is not meant to be said any other way.
This is how I understand it.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
The problem with that, inimalist, is that the Greeks were already working with such memes, and so much of the Renaissance was about the rediscovery of such approaches.In fact, sources for such secularist advance are many and varied.
No, I totally agree with that. I took a big chunk out of my post about the Greeks.
However, Christian society allowed for such a renaissance.
lol, we can get all chicken and egg, but I don't think I am disagreeing with you...