Why a Morality Based in Theism is Weaker

Tycoon
Posts: 52
Joined: 2009-05-12
User is offlineOffline
Why a Morality Based in Theism is Weaker

I thought I'd make a spin off of this thread's opposite, just for a little fun. Only in this case, I'm not going to set it up as a game, I'm just going to explain why.

Theists have often espoused the idea that morality comes from god, which is obviously not true, because there are many different moral codes out there and only one of them can be right. So, even if one of them did come from god, the rest of them had to come from somewhere else - so even if we assume any morality came from god, not all morality did.

And certainly atheist morality didn't. When atheists come up with their moral code, we have to think about why we believe certain things are good and certain things are bad. We have to consider what we think will have a negative impact on society, and what will not have a negative impact on society. This gives us a clear understanding not only of what we believe to be good and bad, but also why.

Theists do not have that strong backbone in their morality because they follow a moral code given to them, and tend not to question it. For example, I've never known an atheist who has believed that homosexuality is immoral - because they all considered the topic and found it has no negative effect. Christians, however, believe that homosexuality is immoral because it is described as an abomination in the bible. In all of my time debating with Christians, not one of them has given me a single reason why I should believe that homosexuality is immoral other than "god said so".

Another reason why theistic morality is weaker is because theists believe that the inevitable judgement of their actions will come from god, after they die. But god has no real, visible effect on their lives - he takes no interest, and leave them to their own designs. Because of this, theists seem to have less qualms about breaking their own rules, because they know that there will be no real, immediate consequences.

 

Thanks for reading. Smiling

Tyke


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3139
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
What is your definition of

What is your definition of morality? Theist morality is basically 'Might makes right'. God is right only because he is all powerful. Behave this way to get heaven instead hell.

To me, religious morality is a big scam that says behave in ways that are beneficial to others and expect nothing in return(except heaven, we promise). It's really a way for the powerful and rich to maintain control and get more power and control without giving anything in return. Morality is a scam to maintain an unbalanced social order. Do this now and you'll get your reward in the next life, we promise. WHAT A FRICKEN SCAM. Perpetrated by fat pastors that don't want to go out in the working word to earn money and respect. They get it for free by pushing the lie about heaven and hell.

This morality concept goes against what we see in nature. There are mutualistic relationships, communsural relationships, parasitic relationships and belligerent relationships. In a post religious world, all relationship must be based on a social contract that ensures all relationships are mutualistic or commensural. One's decision not steal or kill must be based on society protecting me from thieves and murderers. It's not morality it's a mutualistic contract.

 

 

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


Tycoon
Posts: 52
Joined: 2009-05-12
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:What is your

EXC wrote:

What is your definition of morality? Theist morality is basically 'Might makes right'. God is right only because he is all powerful. Behave this way to get heaven instead hell.

To me, religious morality is a big scam that says behave in ways that are beneficial to others and expect nothing in return(except heaven, we promise). It's really a way for the powerful and rich to maintain control and get more power and control without giving anything in return. Morality is a scam to maintain an unbalanced social order. Do this now and you'll get your reward in the next life, we promise. WHAT A FRICKEN SCAM. Perpetrated by fat pastors that don't want to go out in the working word to earn money and respect. They get it for free by pushing the lie about heaven and hell.

This morality concept goes against what we see in nature. There are mutualistic relationships, communsural relationships, parasitic relationships and belligerent relationships. In a post religious world, all relationship must be based on a social contract that ensures all relationships are mutualistic or commensural. One's decision not steal or kill must be based on society protecting me from thieves and murderers. It's not morality it's a mutualistic contract.

Well, my definition of morality is along the lines of .... "a code of conduct necessitated by a mutual desire amongst humans to live a happy life". And I don't think that most theists believe that god is only right because he is all powerful - most of them believe god is also all knowing, therefore "not only is his morality right, but he has the power to enforce it". Not "his morality is right because he has the power to enforce it".

Religion and religious morality is not so much a scam as a legitimate business built upon customer ignorance... To the pastor, it's not a scam because he believe he really is giving something to the worshippers. To the worshippers, it's not a scam because they believe they are really getting something from the pastor. It's only a scam to an outside observer.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Tycoon wrote:For example,

Tycoon wrote:

For example, I've never known an atheist who has believed that homosexuality is immoral

 

I do.

 

Tycoon wrote:

Another reason why theistic morality is weaker is because theists believe that the inevitable judgement of their actions will come from god, after they die. But god has no real, visible effect on their lives - he takes no interest, and leave them to their own designs. Because of this, theists seem to have less qualms about breaking their own rules, because they know that there will be no real, immediate consequences.

 

 

 

This seems to condratict your whole argument.

 

 

If they have no qualms breaking their own rules, then why do they follow them in the first place?

 

 

 

You can't say that Theists vehmently follow their rules without question, then say that they are willing to break them at a whim.

 

 

 

 


Tycoon
Posts: 52
Joined: 2009-05-12
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:I

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

I do.

This seems to condratict your whole argument.

If they have no qualms breaking their own rules, then why do they follow them in the first place?

You can't say that Theists vehmently follow their rules without question, then say that they are willing to break them at a whim.

Why do you believe that homosexuality is immoral? If you have an answer, then I'll take it to another thread, since that was just an example.

It doesn't contradict my whole argument. First of all, I never said that theists vehemently follow their rules. They certainly believe in those rules without question. Theists see the value in having a moral code, but when the value of breaking their rules appears to be more than the value of following them, they do so.

It's hypocritical, and it reveals the weakness of the theist morality. Certainly there are atheists who do the same thing, but because there are visible reasons why such flaws are present in theistic morality, I think that it's more common among theists.


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
Tycoon wrote:Why do you

Tycoon wrote:

Why do you believe that homosexuality is immoral?

I'm pretty sure she doesn't. She probably means she knows atheists who think homosexuality is immoral.


Tycoon
Posts: 52
Joined: 2009-05-12
User is offlineOffline
Anonymouse wrote:Tycoon

Anonymouse wrote:

Tycoon wrote:

Why do you believe that homosexuality is immoral?

I'm pretty sure she doesn't. She probably means she knows atheists who think homosexuality is immoral.

Ohhhhh, okay. Well, in that case, I'd like to know their reasons, if she knows them.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Tycoon wrote:Why do you

Tycoon wrote:

Why do you believe that homosexuality is immoral?

 

 

I don't, I meant that I know atheist who do, or are at least against it.

 

 

Tycoon wrote:

It doesn't contradict my whole argument. First of all, I never said that theists vehemently follow their rules. They certainly believe in those rules without question. Theists see the value in having a moral code, but when the value of breaking their rules appears to be more than the value of following them, they do so.

 

 

 

In order to break the rule, they would have to justify it, which usually mean they view the rules as "flexiable" or "open to interputation", which can only be acheived if they question the rule.

 

Tycoon wrote:

It's hypocritical, and it reveals the weakness of the theist morality. Certainly there are atheists who do the same thing, but because there are visible reasons why such flaws are present in theistic morality, I think that it's more common among theists.

 

 

Both atheist and Theists get their morals from the same place.

 

 

 

 

 


Tycoon
Posts: 52
Joined: 2009-05-12
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:Tycoon

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

Tycoon wrote:

Why do you believe that homosexuality is immoral?

I don't, I meant that I know atheist who do, or are at least against it.

Tycoon wrote:

It doesn't contradict my whole argument. First of all, I never said that theists vehemently follow their rules. They certainly believe in those rules without question. Theists see the value in having a moral code, but when the value of breaking their rules appears to be more than the value of following them, they do so.

In order to break the rule, they would have to justify it, which usually mean they view the rules as "flexiable" or "open to interputation", which can only be acheived if they question the rule.

Tycoon wrote:

It's hypocritical, and it reveals the weakness of the theist morality. Certainly there are atheists who do the same thing, but because there are visible reasons why such flaws are present in theistic morality, I think that it's more common among theists.

Both atheist and Theists get their morals from the same place.

What are their reasons for believing that homosexuality is immoral? Do you know?

I disagree with your assumption that they have to justify breaking their rules. People break rules all the time without considering the implications or necessity for a justification all the time, and they do so by simply ignoring the rule and trying to forget it. Hypocrites don't usually need a justification.

We do not get our morals from the same place. And what place do you think this is?


Thomathy
SuperfanBronze Member
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
Tycoon wrote:Why do you

Tycoon wrote:
Why do you believe that homosexuality is immoral? If you have an answer, then I'll take it to another thread, since that was just an example.
She doesn't.  She's saying that she's known atheists who believe that homosexuality is immoral.  Personally, I do not (know any atheists who believe that homosexuality is immoral).  I wouldn't not be surprised that there are, however.

 

Quote:
It doesn't contradict my whole argument. First of all, I never said that theists vehemently follow their rules. They certainly believe in those rules without question. Theists see the value in having a moral code, but when the value of breaking their rules appears to be more than the value of following them, they do so.
Well, that happens to everyone.  Clearly, theists do not believe in the rules (commandments) of their religions without question, if you mean that they don't question those rules.  Many, perhaps, do, but not all.  If you mean that they follow those rules unilaterally, you are also mistaken and contradict yourself by stating that if breaking the rule has more value than following it, a theist would break the rule.

Quote:
It's hypocritical, and it reveals the weakness of the theist morality. Certainly there are atheists who do the same thing, but because there are visible reasons why such flaws are present in theistic morality, I think that it's more common among theists.
It's common among everyone and it isn't necessarily a flaw of any given morality.

Game Theory, which you are (apparently) unwittingly utilizing, accounts for people acting in their best interest against the 'rules' when it is in their best interest.  The flaw this shows in a particular theistic morality, say Christianity, is not that people do what we would intuitively think they would do in a given situation (like where it's in their best interest to break the 'rules'), it is that their morality is not objective and is not necessarily more moral.  What it shows, I believe, is that despite their claims about their morality (objective and divinely inspired and thusly enforced), it is only a mask they throw over reality.

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."


Thomathy
SuperfanBronze Member
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
Tycoon wrote:We do not get

Tycoon wrote:
We do not get our morals from the same place. And what place do you think this is?
Yes, we do.  Theists, and you must mean more precisely the religious, may explain their morals by invoking some scripture or holy person, but they really, really do, just as us, get their morals from the same place.  The zeitgeist and our evolution have molded our morals.  Whatever their claims, the religious obviously don't and can't get their morals from their religion.  the apparent overlap in some areas is only that.

 

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Tycoon wrote:What are their

Tycoon wrote:

What are their reasons for believing that homosexuality is immoral? Do you know?

 

 

I don't know, but I would assume that it's because they would not kiss a person of the same gender themselves, hence they view it as "unnatural", or they were taught to get a member of the opposite gender and make babies and you need to produce kids for a "family life", since homosexual couples cannot produce babies, same thing as above.

 

 

While religion can most certaintly amplify these feelings. They may think "I think it's gross, therefore God thinks it's gross, therefore it is wrong."

 

The problem with getting them to change their behaviour is when they drop the first part, and only rely on the last part.

[There Hamby, happy now?]

 

Tycoon wrote:

 

I disagree with your assumption that they have to justify breaking their rules. People break rules all the time without considering the implications or necessity for a justification all the time, and they do so by simply ignoring the rule and trying to forget it. Hypocrites don't usually need a justification.

 

 

 

It's called cognitive dissonance, they DO need justification, it is a psychological necessity

 

"God says I should not do X. I am doing X."

 

Cognitive dissonance occurs when your behaviour does not match your beliefs. As the example above, their behaviour [X] does not match their beliefs [God says I shouldn't do X].

 

 

This causes dissonance so they must overcome it.

 

The hypocrite may say that "The rule only applies for X." or "There is an exception to every rule." etc....

 

 

There are other ways of course [such as stop doing X], but that is a common one.

 

Tycoon wrote:

We do not get our morals from the same place. And what place do you think this is?

 

 

 

Society, instincts etc....

 

 

 

 


Tycoon
Posts: 52
Joined: 2009-05-12
User is offlineOffline
Thomathy wrote:She

Thomathy wrote:

She doesn't.  She's saying that she's known atheists who believe that homosexuality is immoral.  Personally, I do not (know any atheists who believe that homosexuality is immoral).  I wouldn't not be surprised that there are, however.

It's common among everyone and it isn't necessarily a flaw of any given morality. Clearly, theists do not believe in the rules (commandments) of their religions without question, if you mean that they don't question those rules.  Many, perhaps do, but not all.  If you mean that they follow those rules unilaterally, you are also mistaken and contradict yourself by stating that if breaking the rule has more value than following it, a theist would break the rule.

Game Theory, which you are (apparently) unwittingly utilizing, accounts for people acting in their best interest against the 'rules' when it is in their best interest.  The flaw this shows in a particular theistic morality, say Christianity, is not that people do what we would intuitively think they would do in a given situation (like where it's in their best interest to break the 'rules'), it is that their morality is not objective and is not necessarily more moral.  What it shows, I believe, is that despite their claims about their morality (objective and divinely inspired and thusly enforced), it is only a mask they throw over reality.

I wouldn't be surprised if there were any atheists who believed that homosexuality is immoral either. I doubt that there are as many though, not by a longshot.

Let me use an example... one of my friends liked this Christian girl. She liked him back. She believes that having sex before marriage is a bad and immoral thing, and was taught this by her religion. Yet, with my friend, she clearly indicated that she was willing to completely ignore that rule in the heat of the moment and getting what she wanted. If it weren't for my friend's qualms with that action, she would have gotten what she wanted.

It is possible to simply ignore one's rules without questioning them, and much easier when there aren't any visible real-life consequences, because it is harder to ignore those.


Thomathy
SuperfanBronze Member
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
Tycoon wrote:I wouldn't be

Tycoon wrote:
I wouldn't be surprised if there were any atheists who believed that homosexuality is immoral either. I doubt that there are as many though, not by a longshot.

Let me use an example... one of my friends liked this Christian girl. She liked him back. She believes that having sex before marriage is a bad and immoral thing, and was taught this by her religion. Yet, with my friend, she clearly indicated that she was willing to completely ignore that rule in the heat of the moment and getting what she wanted. If it weren't for my friend's qualms with that action, she would have gotten what she wanted.

It is possible to simply ignore one's rules without questioning them, and much easier when there aren't any visible real-life consequences, because it is harder to ignore those.

That's the point, Tyke.  (I get all giddy when I can use a diminutive name!)  There are no consequences in and of the act of pre-marital sex -so long as her parents don't find out, I imagine.  She can blatantly ignore the rule in order to have sex because in reality there's nothing wrong with what she's doing.  Your friend, bizarrely, turned her down (well, I would have too).  Perhaps she's ugly or he's gay?  Whatever.  The point is that the rule has no basis in reality.  She makes claims to some higher moral, the virginal bride, but biologically she finds it difficult not to attempt to engage in (what she likely thought would be) consenual sex.

Again, the problem with the morality here is not that she can contradict it (that gets done all the time), it's that it's not based in reality and doesn't represent the total input of her moral judgements.

Obviously, the only immoral thing there was the practice of a reverse cock-block.

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."


Tycoon
Posts: 52
Joined: 2009-05-12
User is offlineOffline
Thomathy wrote:Tycoon

Thomathy wrote:

Tycoon wrote:
We do not get our morals from the same place. And what place do you think this is?
Yes, we do.  Theists, and you must mean more precisely the religious, may explain their morals by invoking some scripture or holy person, but they really, really do, just as us, get their morals from the same place.  The zeitgeist and our evolution have molded our morals.  Whatever their claims, the religious obviously don't and can't get their morals from their religion.  the apparent overlap in some areas is only that.

While evolution and instinct are the sources of religious morality, the reasoning used to support that morality is very much outdated. It's been handed down for two-thousand years. Reasoning and science have imrpoved since then, and provided us with a new sense of morality - but religion is still stuck with 2,000 year old reasoning. It is different.


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:3

Morality is a human construct that is simply influence of the social contract. It is what is perceived as enlightened self interest.

 

What you perceive as harmful to you and to society you will view as "bad" and what you perceive as helpful to both you will view as "good".

 

It is that simple. That is why even religions have to look the other way and ignore their own "holy books" when in contradiction with the majority of society, or else be called radicals as they risk being too much of a detriment to society.

 

 

 

 

It is also why morals vary so much from culture to culture, as the societies involved view the world differently and think different things are beneficial or harmful to them and their community.

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


Thomathy
SuperfanBronze Member
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
Tycoon wrote:Thomathy

Tycoon wrote:

Thomathy wrote:

Tycoon wrote:
We do not get our morals from the same place. And what place do you think this is?
Yes, we do.  Theists, and you must mean more precisely the religious, may explain their morals by invoking some scripture or holy person, but they really, really do, just as us, get their morals from the same place.  The zeitgeist and our evolution have molded our morals.  Whatever their claims, the religious obviously don't and can't get their morals from their religion.  the apparent overlap in some areas is only that.

While evolution and instinct are the sources of religious morality, the reasoning used to support that morality is very much outdated. It's been handed down for two-thousand years. Reasoning and science have imrpoved since then, and provided us with a new sense of morality - but religion is still stuck with 2,000 year old reasoning. It is different.

Wait, you're missing something.  Let me make this exceptionally clear: Every human on Earth has gotten their morality from the society in which they live and intrinsically from their evolutionary heritage.  I am talking about reasoning and science.  I am not talking about the source(s) of religious morality.  You really need to go to the list of Hamby's articles and read, well all of it.  Or just wiki Game Theory.


 

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."


Tycoon
Posts: 52
Joined: 2009-05-12
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:I don't

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

I don't know, but I would assume that it's because they would not kiss a person of the same gender themselves, hence they view it as "unnatural", or they were taught to get a member of the opposite gender and make babies and you need to produce kids for a "family life", since homosexual couples cannot produce babies, same thing as above.

While religion can most certaintly amplify these feelings. They may think "I think it's gross, therefore God thinks it's gross, therefore it is wrong."

The problem with getting them to change their behaviour is when they drop the first part, and only rely on the last part.

[There Hamby, happy now?]

It's called cognitive dissonance, they DO need justification, it is a psychological necessity

"God says I should not do X. I am doing X."

Cognitive dissonance occurs when your behaviour does not match your beliefs. As the example above, their behaviour [X] does not match their beliefs [God says I shouldn't do X].

This causes dissonance so they must overcome it.

The hypocrite may say that "The rule only applies for X." or "There is an exception to every rule." etc....

There are other ways of course [such as stop doing X], but that is a common one

Society, instincts etc....

I still disagree. They don't need justification, it's not necessary at all. Here's what they might think...

"I want to do X. I really, really, want to do X. Wait, but god - who cares?"

In the heat of the moment, god can seem really irrelevant, and all reason is set aside in order to overlook that according to their beliefs god is very relevant. In other words, they ignore their beliefs to get what they want. This is called being hypocritical, and hypocrites often know they are being hypocritical but don't care because they just want to do one thing and don't care if they've said that it's wrong before, because they want to do that thing so badly.

And if religious morality comes from society and instinct, it comes from a two-thousand year old society and supports its instinct with two-thousand year old reasoning.


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:3

Wait a while, churches will apologize for persecution of gays, and gay marriage will be legal in this country. It's a civil rights issue that will happen in time, the religions are just trying really hard to be relevant in society and cling to old beliefs, but they will eventually abandon those passages just like they did with the Bible approving slavery and treating women as property.

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


Thomathy
SuperfanBronze Member
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
Tycoon wrote:Cpt_pineapple

Tycoon wrote:

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

I don't know, but I would assume that it's because they would not kiss a person of the same gender themselves, hence they view it as "unnatural", or they were taught to get a member of the opposite gender and make babies and you need to produce kids for a "family life", since homosexual couples cannot produce babies, same thing as above.

While religion can most certaintly amplify these feelings. They may think "I think it's gross, therefore God thinks it's gross, therefore it is wrong."

The problem with getting them to change their behaviour is when they drop the first part, and only rely on the last part.

[There Hamby, happy now?]

It's called cognitive dissonance, they DO need justification, it is a psychological necessity

"God says I should not do X. I am doing X."

Cognitive dissonance occurs when your behaviour does not match your beliefs. As the example above, their behaviour [X] does not match their beliefs [God says I shouldn't do X].

This causes dissonance so they must overcome it.

The hypocrite may say that "The rule only applies for X." or "There is an exception to every rule." etc....

There are other ways of course [such as stop doing X], but that is a common one

Society, instincts etc....

I still disagree. They don't need justification, it's not necessary at all. Here's what they might think...

"I want to do X. I really, really, want to do X. Wait, but god - who cares?"

In the heat of the moment, god can seem really irrelevant, and all reason is set aside in order to overlook that according to their beliefs god is very relevant. In other words, they ignore their beliefs to get what they want. This is called being hypocritical, and hypocrites often know they are being hypocritical but don't care because they just want to do one thing and don't care if they've said that it's wrong before, because they want to do that thing so badly.

And if religious morality comes from society and instinct, it comes from a two-thousand year old society and supports its instinct with two-thousand year old reasoning.

They don't need justification to perform the act, but they do need justification to overcome the cognitive dissonance.  It's called rationalizing.  People do that when they don't want to be at odds with some belief they believe they must hold, but which they want to circumvent.


 

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."


Tycoon
Posts: 52
Joined: 2009-05-12
User is offlineOffline
ClockCat wrote:Wait a while,

ClockCat wrote:

Wait a while, churches will apologize for persecution of gays, and gay marriage will be legal in this country. It's a civil rights issue that will happen in time, the religions are just trying really hard to be relevant in society and cling to old beliefs, but they will eventually abandon those passages just like they did with the Bible approving slavery and treating women as property.

Yeah... I just wish I could be a part of the political movement for gay rights. It sucks being 16.


Tycoon
Posts: 52
Joined: 2009-05-12
User is offlineOffline
Thomathy wrote:Tycoon

Thomathy wrote:

Tycoon wrote:

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

I don't know, but I would assume that it's because they would not kiss a person of the same gender themselves, hence they view it as "unnatural", or they were taught to get a member of the opposite gender and make babies and you need to produce kids for a "family life", since homosexual couples cannot produce babies, same thing as above.

While religion can most certaintly amplify these feelings. They may think "I think it's gross, therefore God thinks it's gross, therefore it is wrong."

The problem with getting them to change their behaviour is when they drop the first part, and only rely on the last part.

[There Hamby, happy now?]

It's called cognitive dissonance, they DO need justification, it is a psychological necessity

"God says I should not do X. I am doing X."

Cognitive dissonance occurs when your behaviour does not match your beliefs. As the example above, their behaviour [X] does not match their beliefs [God says I shouldn't do X].

This causes dissonance so they must overcome it.

The hypocrite may say that "The rule only applies for X." or "There is an exception to every rule." etc....

There are other ways of course [such as stop doing X], but that is a common one

Society, instincts etc....

I still disagree. They don't need justification, it's not necessary at all. Here's what they might think...

"I want to do X. I really, really, want to do X. Wait, but god - who cares?"

In the heat of the moment, god can seem really irrelevant, and all reason is set aside in order to overlook that according to their beliefs god is very relevant. In other words, they ignore their beliefs to get what they want. This is called being hypocritical, and hypocrites often know they are being hypocritical but don't care because they just want to do one thing and don't care if they've said that it's wrong before, because they want to do that thing so badly.

And if religious morality comes from society and instinct, it comes from a two-thousand year old society and supports its instinct with two-thousand year old reasoning.

They don't need justification to perform the act, but they do need justification to overcome the cognitive dissonance.  It's called rationalizing.  People do that when they don't want to be at odds with some belief they believe they must hold, but which they want to circumvent.

I still don't understand how "I want to" does not serve as justification. It serves as plenty of justification. When somebody wants to do something more than they want to follow the rule, there's no need for justification.


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:3

Tycoon wrote:

ClockCat wrote:

Wait a while, churches will apologize for persecution of gays, and gay marriage will be legal in this country. It's a civil rights issue that will happen in time, the religions are just trying really hard to be relevant in society and cling to old beliefs, but they will eventually abandon those passages just like they did with the Bible approving slavery and treating women as property.

Yeah... I just wish I could be a part of the political movement for gay rights. It sucks being 16.

 

 

...Why can't you be part of it? Last I remember, there was no age requirement.

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
Tycoon wrote:Thomathy

Tycoon wrote:

Thomathy wrote:

Tycoon wrote:

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

I don't know, but I would assume that it's because they would not kiss a person of the same gender themselves, hence they view it as "unnatural", or they were taught to get a member of the opposite gender and make babies and you need to produce kids for a "family life", since homosexual couples cannot produce babies, same thing as above.

While religion can most certaintly amplify these feelings. They may think "I think it's gross, therefore God thinks it's gross, therefore it is wrong."

The problem with getting them to change their behaviour is when they drop the first part, and only rely on the last part.

[There Hamby, happy now?]

It's called cognitive dissonance, they DO need justification, it is a psychological necessity

"God says I should not do X. I am doing X."

Cognitive dissonance occurs when your behaviour does not match your beliefs. As the example above, their behaviour [X] does not match their beliefs [God says I shouldn't do X].

This causes dissonance so they must overcome it.

The hypocrite may say that "The rule only applies for X." or "There is an exception to every rule." etc....

There are other ways of course [such as stop doing X], but that is a common one

Society, instincts etc....

I still disagree. They don't need justification, it's not necessary at all. Here's what they might think...

"I want to do X. I really, really, want to do X. Wait, but god - who cares?"

In the heat of the moment, god can seem really irrelevant, and all reason is set aside in order to overlook that according to their beliefs god is very relevant. In other words, they ignore their beliefs to get what they want. This is called being hypocritical, and hypocrites often know they are being hypocritical but don't care because they just want to do one thing and don't care if they've said that it's wrong before, because they want to do that thing so badly.

And if religious morality comes from society and instinct, it comes from a two-thousand year old society and supports its instinct with two-thousand year old reasoning.

They don't need justification to perform the act, but they do need justification to overcome the cognitive dissonance.  It's called rationalizing.  People do that when they don't want to be at odds with some belief they believe they must hold, but which they want to circumvent.

I still don't understand how "I want to" does not serve as justification. It serves as plenty of justification. When somebody wants to do something more than they want to follow the rule, there's no need for justification.

Guilt, and belief that they would be in the wrong. You see, they want to both do what they want, AND have the moral high ground.

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5852
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
I see two issues.One is the

I see two issues.

One is the basis of the ethical guidelines, or moral rules. The Theist, at least nominally, bases them on proscriptions believed to originate from an imagined ultimate authority figure who is also envisaged to define 'good' and 'evil'.

Whereas secular morality is based on specific considerations of individual and societal harm and suffering, and empathy and personal emotional rewards when positively helping people. Theist rules probably originate in basically similar ways, before becoming encoded in the emerging religious systems of belief. The flaw is that they have lost sight of, or never consciously or explicitly acknowledged this, which inhibits them from properly refining and adjusting them as understanding and insight into human nature advanced.

EDIT: The religious rules also incorporate attitudes based on emotional disgust reactions, such as is felt by many heterosexuals toward homosexual acts.

The other issue is how well the rules are actually followed in practice. The Theist system looks toward an ultimate reward/punishment system in an afterlife, whereas secular morality looks to more immediate 'feedback', closely connected with the justifications for the rules and guidelines in the first place. The delayed nature of the Theist system is a deep flaw as an enforcement system, making it much easier for the individual to ignore or simply not think about the 'consequences', under the pressure of immediate emotional pressures, urges, drives, etc. The prospect, in some faiths, of 'forgiveness' after the fact further weakens the system, requiring the scale of the promised rewards and punishments to be ramped up to 'eternal bliss' vs 'infinite pain' in an effort to compensate.

Again, in practice, the differences in actual behavior are more blurred, but still noticeable in the extremes of fundamentalist belief on one hand to the more relaxed and tolerant largely secular societies, such as in the Scandinavian countries.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Tycoon wrote:I still

Tycoon wrote:

I still disagree. They don't need justification, it's not necessary at all. Here's what they might think...

"I want to do X. I really, really, want to do X. Wait, but god - who cares?"

 

In the heat of the moment, god can seem really irrelevant, and all reason is set aside in order to overlook that according to their beliefs god is very relevant. In other words, they ignore their beliefs to get what they want. This is called being hypocritical, and hypocrites often know they are being hypocritical but don't care because they just want to do one thing and don't care if they've said that it's wrong before, because they want to do that thing so badly.

 

Then the "benifits of X override the rule against X." is the justification, which would be adding new cognitions.

 

A smoker may say the smoking relaxes them and this overrides the risk of cancer.

 

Tycoon wrote:


And if religious morality comes from society and instinct, it comes from a two-thousand year old society and supports its instinct with two-thousand year old reasoning.

 

Not necessarily. While that can happen [appeal to tradition], there is still too much of a difference between Theists for me to swallow this.

 

An American Christian is different than a Canadian Christian, which is different than a Lebanese Christian etc...

 

 

 

 


Tycoon
Posts: 52
Joined: 2009-05-12
User is offlineOffline
ClockCat wrote:Tycoon

ClockCat wrote:

Tycoon wrote:

ClockCat wrote:

Wait a while, churches will apologize for persecution of gays, and gay marriage will be legal in this country. It's a civil rights issue that will happen in time, the religions are just trying really hard to be relevant in society and cling to old beliefs, but they will eventually abandon those passages just like they did with the Bible approving slavery and treating women as property.

Yeah... I just wish I could be a part of the political movement for gay rights. It sucks being 16.

 

 

...Why can't you be part of it? Last I remember, there was no age requirement.

Everybody ignores a sixteen year old. I don't have the time, with all my schoolwork.... I don't have the freedom.... my parents would have to drive me there, and they are usually pretty lazy and would object to me going to some rally or protest anyways.


Tycoon
Posts: 52
Joined: 2009-05-12
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:I see two

BobSpence1 wrote:

I see two issues.

One is the basis of the ethical guidelines, or moral rules. The Theist, at least nominally, bases them on proscriptions believed to originate from an imagined ultimate authority figure who is also envisaged to define 'good' and 'evil'.

Whereas secular morality is based on specific considerations of individual and societal harm and suffering, and empathy and personal emotional rewards when positively helping people. Theist rules probably originate in basically similar ways, before becoming encoded in the emerging religious systems of belief. The flaw is that they have lost sight of, or never consciously or explicitly acknowledged this, which inhibits them from properly refining and adjusting them as understanding and insight into human nature advanced.

The other issue is how well the rules are actually followed in practice. The Theist system looks toward an ultimate reward/punishment system in an afterlife, whereas secular morality looks to more immediate 'feedback', closely connected with the justifications for the rules and guidelines in the first place. The delayed nature of the Theist system is a deep flaw as an enforcement system, making it much easier for the individual to ignore or simply not think about the 'consequences', under the pressure of immediate emotional pressures, urges, drives, etc. The prospect, in some faiths, of 'forgiveness' after the fact further weakens the system, requiring the scale of the promised rewards and punishments to be ramped up to 'eternal bliss' vs 'infinite pain' in an effort to compensate.

Again, in practice, the differences in actual behavior are more blurred, but still noticeable in the extremes of fundamentalist belief on one hand to the more relaxed and tolerant largely secular societies, such as in the Scandinavian countries.

Very well written. You put to words what I was failing to.


Thomathy
SuperfanBronze Member
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
Tycoon wrote:I still don't

Tycoon wrote:
I still don't understand how "I want to" does not serve as justification. It serves as plenty of justification. When somebody wants to do something more than they want to follow the rule, there's no need for justification.
Does this apply to you?  Think of your answer carefully.  Does wanting to do something, even if it may be wrong (even wrong within an artificial morality) provide justification for performing that action?  Hopefully, you'll realise something about morality once you answer that question.


 

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."


Tycoon
Posts: 52
Joined: 2009-05-12
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:Tycoon

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

Tycoon wrote:

I still disagree. They don't need justification, it's not necessary at all. Here's what they might think...

"I want to do X. I really, really, want to do X. Wait, but god - who cares?"

 

In the heat of the moment, god can seem really irrelevant, and all reason is set aside in order to overlook that according to their beliefs god is very relevant. In other words, they ignore their beliefs to get what they want. This is called being hypocritical, and hypocrites often know they are being hypocritical but don't care because they just want to do one thing and don't care if they've said that it's wrong before, because they want to do that thing so badly.

 

Then the "benifits of X override the rule against X." is the justification, which would be adding new cognitions.

 

A smoker may say the smoking relaxes them and this overrides the risk of cancer.

 

Tycoon wrote:

 

And if religious morality comes from society and instinct, it comes from a two-thousand year old society and supports its instinct with two-thousand year old reasoning.

 

Not necessarily. While that can happen [appeal to tradition], there is still too much of a difference between Theists for me to swallow this.

 

An American Christian is different than a Canadian Christian, which is different than a Lebanese Christian etc...

But at the bottom line, they all at least believe that the bible serves as a collection of stories designed to present moral guidelines. And those moral guidelines are supposed to come from the stories, which came from....

 

2,000 years ago.


Thomathy
SuperfanBronze Member
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
Oh, ignore my post.  Bob

Oh, ignore my post.  Bob has come to articulate what I've failed to.  Good work, Bob.  I'm surprised Hamby didn't show up first.

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."


Tycoon
Posts: 52
Joined: 2009-05-12
User is offlineOffline
Thomathy wrote:Tycoon

Thomathy wrote:

Tycoon wrote:
I still don't understand how "I want to" does not serve as justification. It serves as plenty of justification. When somebody wants to do something more than they want to follow the rule, there's no need for justification.

Does this apply to you?  Think of your answer carefully.  Does wanting to do something, even if it may be wrong (even wrong within an artificial morality) provide justification for performing that action?  Hopefully, you'll realise something about morality once you answer that question.

It has been reason enough for me before... but not anymore. I was once offered two to three hundred dollars to get confirmed in a church, and while I certainly wanted three-hundred dollars, it did not justify making myself a hypocrite and a liar.


Tycoon
Posts: 52
Joined: 2009-05-12
User is offlineOffline
Thomathy wrote:Oh, ignore my

Thomathy wrote:

Oh, ignore my post.  Bob has come to articulate what I've failed to.  Good work, Bob.  I'm surprised Hamby didn't show up first.

Actually, Bob supported my points. Did you read his post?


Thomathy
SuperfanBronze Member
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
Tycoon wrote:But at the

Tycoon wrote:
But at the bottom line, they all at least believe that the bible serves as a collection of stories designed to present moral guidelines. And those moral guidelines are supposed to come from the stories, which came from....

 

2,000 years ago.

Yes, the bible is 2000 years old.  Yes, Christians believe that it represents a collection of stories designed to present moral guidelines.  Those moral guidelines are, however, as has been pointed out, not necessarily based in the reality of human morality.  Insert what Bob wrote here.  Now, put what I wrote in.


 

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."


Tycoon
Posts: 52
Joined: 2009-05-12
User is offlineOffline
Thomathy wrote:Tycoon

Thomathy wrote:

Tycoon wrote:
But at the bottom line, they all at least believe that the bible serves as a collection of stories designed to present moral guidelines. And those moral guidelines are supposed to come from the stories, which came from....

 

2,000 years ago.

Yes, the bible is 2000 years old.  Yes, Christians believe that it represents a collection of stories designed to present moral guidelines.  Those moral guidelines are, however, as has been pointed out, not necessarily based in the reality of human morality.  Insert what Bob wrote here.  Now, put what I wrote in.

You're getting things mixed up here. Christians believe in the bible and its moral guidelines, regardless of its relation to human instinct and reality. When you describe the reality of human morality, you're describing what morality ought to be, not what Christian morality is. Christian morality is similar, just outdated - which is why people are able to accept it despite its poor hold on today's reality. That and the fact that the majority of Americans agree with them, making it seem like it has a good hold on today's reality.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:The delayed

BobSpence1 wrote:

The delayed nature of the Theist system is a deep flaw as an enforcement system, making it much easier for the individual to ignore or simply not think about the 'consequences', under the pressure of immediate emotional pressures, urges, drives, etc. The prospect, in some faiths, of 'forgiveness' after the fact further weakens the system, requiring the scale of the promised rewards and punishments to be ramped up to 'eternal bliss' vs 'infinite pain' in an effort to compensate.

 

I may have missed something during the influx of posts all of a sudden., but I would argue that taking into account immediate emotional pressures/urges/drives etc... are natural instincts, and I have yet to be convinced that religion can override these.

 

For example, abstinence only education  goes against our instincts which is why it fails. Even if somebody wants to  abstain for religious reasons, the instincts override this.

 

 

 

 

 


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:3

Tycoon wrote:

Thomathy wrote:

Tycoon wrote:
But at the bottom line, they all at least believe that the bible serves as a collection of stories designed to present moral guidelines. And those moral guidelines are supposed to come from the stories, which came from....

 

2,000 years ago.

Yes, the bible is 2000 years old.  Yes, Christians believe that it represents a collection of stories designed to present moral guidelines.  Those moral guidelines are, however, as has been pointed out, not necessarily based in the reality of human morality.  Insert what Bob wrote here.  Now, put what I wrote in.

You're getting things mixed up here. Christians believe in the bible and its moral guidelines, regardless of its relation to human instinct and reality. When you describe the reality of human morality, you're describing what morality ought to be, not what Christian morality is. Christian morality is similar, just outdated - which is why people are able to accept it despite its poor hold on today's reality. That and the fact that the majority of Americans agree with them, making it seem like it has a good hold on today's reality.

 

Christians do not follow the Bible for their morality. They like to claim they do, but the majority at least have given up large segments of it's moral compass because it doesn't mesh with modern society. The ones that stay true to their Bibles are viewed as outcasts and extremists, like I said.

 

The Bible condones slavery, and ownership of women. I don't see many people promoting that here in the states. Modern society is pushing for civil rights for gays, and soon that will be added to the list of atrocities the Bible approves of.

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


Tycoon
Posts: 52
Joined: 2009-05-12
User is offlineOffline
ClockCat wrote:Tycoon

ClockCat wrote:

Tycoon wrote:

Thomathy wrote:

Tycoon wrote:
But at the bottom line, they all at least believe that the bible serves as a collection of stories designed to present moral guidelines. And those moral guidelines are supposed to come from the stories, which came from....

 

2,000 years ago.

Yes, the bible is 2000 years old.  Yes, Christians believe that it represents a collection of stories designed to present moral guidelines.  Those moral guidelines are, however, as has been pointed out, not necessarily based in the reality of human morality.  Insert what Bob wrote here.  Now, put what I wrote in.

You're getting things mixed up here. Christians believe in the bible and its moral guidelines, regardless of its relation to human instinct and reality. When you describe the reality of human morality, you're describing what morality ought to be, not what Christian morality is. Christian morality is similar, just outdated - which is why people are able to accept it despite its poor hold on today's reality. That and the fact that the majority of Americans agree with them, making it seem like it has a good hold on today's reality.

 

Christians do not follow the Bible for their morality. They like to claim they do, but the majority at least have given up large segments of it's moral compass because it doesn't mesh with modern society. The ones that stay true to their Bibles are viewed as outcasts and extremists, like I said.

 

The Bible condones slavery, and ownership of women. I don't see many people promoting that here in the states. Modern society is pushing for civil rights for gays, and soon that will be added to the list of atrocities the Bible approves of.

Yes, but the motivations for giving up ideas such as chauvinism and slavery were not reality and human instinct - they were a desire to conform with society in order to attract a larger following. The morality is still based, for the most part, in the bible - and is simply being slowly defeated by reason and modern sociology.

 

Gay rights are still overwhelmingly opposed in the United States. Several of the few states that currently allow gay marriage only do so because the Supreme Court did their job and protected a minority - but you can be sure at the next chance the majority will pass laws revoking that ruling, just as they did in California. Yes, eventually gay rights will be acheived, but you can be sure that the Christian majority is not going to be happy about that - they are simply forced to conform with society.


Thomathy
SuperfanBronze Member
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
Tycoon wrote:Thomathy

Tycoon wrote:

Thomathy wrote:

Tycoon wrote:
But at the bottom line, they all at least believe that the bible serves as a collection of stories designed to present moral guidelines. And those moral guidelines are supposed to come from the stories, which came from....

 

2,000 years ago.

Yes, the bible is 2000 years old.  Yes, Christians believe that it represents a collection of stories designed to present moral guidelines.  Those moral guidelines are, however, as has been pointed out, not necessarily based in the reality of human morality.  Insert what Bob wrote here.  Now, put what I wrote in.

You're getting things mixed up here. Christians believe in the bible and its moral guidelines, regardless of its relation to human instinct and reality. When you describe the reality of human morality, you're describing what morality ought to be, not what Christian morality is. Christian morality is similar, just outdated - which is why people are able to accept it despite its poor hold on today's reality. That and the fact that the majority of Americans agree with them, making it seem like it has a good hold on today's reality.

I'm not getting things mixed up here.  I'm describing what morality objectively is despite what 'Christian morality' is.  If you can agree with that we can move on.

When you write, 'When you describe the reality of human morality, you're describing what morality ought to be, ...' you are performing an error of logic.  If I am describing the reality, then I am describing what objectively is, not what ought to be.  I'm not going to be hung up on that, though, because you seem to agree that whatever Christian's claim their morality is or from whence it came, it is illusory.  Christian morality is not similar to what is objectively the basis for human morality.  It is largely contrived and often contradictory.

The fact is the morality Christians claim to practice has never been something that people have had a hard time practicing.  Christians, largely, have never practiced their morality, even upon its inception.  The fact that it so apparently contradicts the morals of today (or of society) only emphasises this.  No one goes around stoning children to death for disobediance, but the bible clearly instructs people that that is the punishment.

I can't make claims as to what the majority of Americans agree with.  I am not American nor do I have the resources to presently look up the necessary information.  Ostenbsily, however, Americans do not agree with those ~80% who are Christian, or I suspect their laws would not be secular, but rather would be based in Christianity, which they are not.

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."


Tycoon
Posts: 52
Joined: 2009-05-12
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

The delayed nature of the Theist system is a deep flaw as an enforcement system, making it much easier for the individual to ignore or simply not think about the 'consequences', under the pressure of immediate emotional pressures, urges, drives, etc. The prospect, in some faiths, of 'forgiveness' after the fact further weakens the system, requiring the scale of the promised rewards and punishments to be ramped up to 'eternal bliss' vs 'infinite pain' in an effort to compensate.

 

I may have missed something during the influx of posts all of a sudden., but I would argue that taking into account immediate emotional pressures/urges/drives etc... are natural instincts, and I have yet to be convinced that religion can override these.

 

For example, abstinence only education  goes against our instincts which is why it fails. Even if somebody wants to  abstain for religious reasons, the instincts override this.

That's exactly the point that I've been trying to make - religious reasons are not strong enough to resist instinct.


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:3

Tycoon wrote:

ClockCat wrote:

Tycoon wrote:

Thomathy wrote:

Tycoon wrote:
But at the bottom line, they all at least believe that the bible serves as a collection of stories designed to present moral guidelines. And those moral guidelines are supposed to come from the stories, which came from....

 

2,000 years ago.

Yes, the bible is 2000 years old.  Yes, Christians believe that it represents a collection of stories designed to present moral guidelines.  Those moral guidelines are, however, as has been pointed out, not necessarily based in the reality of human morality.  Insert what Bob wrote here.  Now, put what I wrote in.

You're getting things mixed up here. Christians believe in the bible and its moral guidelines, regardless of its relation to human instinct and reality. When you describe the reality of human morality, you're describing what morality ought to be, not what Christian morality is. Christian morality is similar, just outdated - which is why people are able to accept it despite its poor hold on today's reality. That and the fact that the majority of Americans agree with them, making it seem like it has a good hold on today's reality.

 

Christians do not follow the Bible for their morality. They like to claim they do, but the majority at least have given up large segments of it's moral compass because it doesn't mesh with modern society. The ones that stay true to their Bibles are viewed as outcasts and extremists, like I said.

 

The Bible condones slavery, and ownership of women. I don't see many people promoting that here in the states. Modern society is pushing for civil rights for gays, and soon that will be added to the list of atrocities the Bible approves of.

Yes, but the motivations for giving up ideas such as chauvinism and slavery were not reality and human instinct - they were a desire to conform with society in order to attract a larger following. The morality is still based, for the most part, in the bible - and is simply being slowly defeated by reason and modern sociology.

 

Gay rights are still overwhelmingly opposed in the United States. Several of the few states that currently allow gay marriage only do so because the Supreme Court did their job and protected a minority - but you can be sure at the next chance the majority will pass laws revoking that ruling, just as they did in California. Yes, eventually gay rights will be acheived, but you can be sure that the Christian majority is not going to be happy about that - they are simply forced to conform with society.

 

Just like they were forced to conform over slavery, and women's rights. It is usually never a willing change.

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


Thomathy
SuperfanBronze Member
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
Tycoon wrote:Gay rights are

Tycoon wrote:
Gay rights are still overwhelmingly opposed in the United States. Several of the few states that currently allow gay marriage only do so because the Supreme Court did their job and protected a minority - but you can be sure at the next chance the majority will pass laws revoking that ruling, just as they did in California. Yes, eventually gay rights will be acheived, but you can be sure that the Christian majority is not going to be happy about that - they are simply forced to conform with society.
Do you not see that Christians are part of society?  They are not being forced to conform to society.  In the case that you describe they are being forced to conform to a secular ruling based in the secular legislation which formed your country to protect people (even the Christians) from religiosity.  Since Christians make up the larger part of the society in which you live (and, indeed, in which I live), they comprise the majority of society.  It is evident that that majority is divided in what they believe to be moral and in how they 'practice' their 'Christian morality'.  In other words, not all Christians believe that homosexuality is immoral, and despite the intense opposition in your country, the larger part of society apparently wishes to give homosexuals equality and thusly line up with the reasoned, secular decisions of your supreme court.

Did you know, that's almost exactly how it happened in Canada?

(Incidentally, I'm Canadian.)

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."


Thomathy
SuperfanBronze Member
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
Tycoon wrote:Cpt_pineapple

Tycoon wrote:

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

The delayed nature of the Theist system is a deep flaw as an enforcement system, making it much easier for the individual to ignore or simply not think about the 'consequences', under the pressure of immediate emotional pressures, urges, drives, etc. The prospect, in some faiths, of 'forgiveness' after the fact further weakens the system, requiring the scale of the promised rewards and punishments to be ramped up to 'eternal bliss' vs 'infinite pain' in an effort to compensate.

 

I may have missed something during the influx of posts all of a sudden., but I would argue that taking into account immediate emotional pressures/urges/drives etc... are natural instincts, and I have yet to be convinced that religion can override these.

 

For example, abstinence only education  goes against our instincts which is why it fails. Even if somebody wants to  abstain for religious reasons, the instincts override this.

That's exactly the point that I've been trying to make - religious reasons are not strong enough to resist instinct.

Which is what I've been trying to articulate to you!

I'm laughing right now.  Honestly.


 

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."


Tycoon
Posts: 52
Joined: 2009-05-12
User is offlineOffline
Thomathy wrote:Tycoon

Thomathy wrote:

Tycoon wrote:

Thomathy wrote:

Tycoon wrote:
But at the bottom line, they all at least believe that the bible serves as a collection of stories designed to present moral guidelines. And those moral guidelines are supposed to come from the stories, which came from....

 

2,000 years ago.

Yes, the bible is 2000 years old.  Yes, Christians believe that it represents a collection of stories designed to present moral guidelines.  Those moral guidelines are, however, as has been pointed out, not necessarily based in the reality of human morality.  Insert what Bob wrote here.  Now, put what I wrote in.

You're getting things mixed up here. Christians believe in the bible and its moral guidelines, regardless of its relation to human instinct and reality. When you describe the reality of human morality, you're describing what morality ought to be, not what Christian morality is. Christian morality is similar, just outdated - which is why people are able to accept it despite its poor hold on today's reality. That and the fact that the majority of Americans agree with them, making it seem like it has a good hold on today's reality.

I'm not getting things mixed up here.  I'm describing what morality objectively is despite what 'Christian morality' is.  If you can agree with that we can move on.

When you write, 'When you describe the reality of human morality, you're describing what morality ought to be, ...' you are performing an error of logic.  If I am describing the reality, then I am describing what objectively is, not what ought to be.  I'm not going to be hung up on that, though, because you seem to agree that whatever Christian's claim their morality is or from whence it came, it is illusory.  Christian morality is not similar to what is objectively the basis for human morality.  It is largely contrived and often contradictory.

The fact is the morality Christians claim to practice has never been something that people have had a hard time practicing.  Christians, largely, have never practiced their morality, even upon its inception.  The fact that it so apparently contradicts the morals of today (or of society) only emphasises this.  No one goes around stoning children to death for disobediance, but the bible clearly instructs people that that is the punishment.

I can't make claims as to what the majority of Americans agree with.  I am not American nor do I have the resources to presently look up the necessary information.  Ostenbsily, however, Americans do not agree with those ~80% who are Christian, or I suspect their laws would not be secular, but rather would be based in Christianity, which they are not.

I'm simply failing to put to words what I want to here.

What I meant to say is your description was of what morality ought to be, and you claimed that it was of what morality is. Clearly, Christian morality differs from your description because of its basis in 2,000 year old society - therefore, your description was not really of what morality is, because you didn't account for Christian morality.

As I discussed in my post just previous to this, when society changes then religion is forced to change with it. If society had continued to support the stoning of children, then so would have Christianity. But the morals that Christians still do follow originate from 2,000 years ago - one that is still outdated is the belief that homosexuality is immoral.

Americans are 80% Christian, which means that the vast majority of them agree with Christianity... but yet most laws are not based in Christianity, and you ask for an explanation. It's because when a law is based in Christianity, a minority religion can sue the government and have that law overturned - which is what the gay community is trying to do right now.


Tycoon
Posts: 52
Joined: 2009-05-12
User is offlineOffline
Thomathy wrote:Tycoon

Thomathy wrote:

Tycoon wrote:

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

The delayed nature of the Theist system is a deep flaw as an enforcement system, making it much easier for the individual to ignore or simply not think about the 'consequences', under the pressure of immediate emotional pressures, urges, drives, etc. The prospect, in some faiths, of 'forgiveness' after the fact further weakens the system, requiring the scale of the promised rewards and punishments to be ramped up to 'eternal bliss' vs 'infinite pain' in an effort to compensate.

 

I may have missed something during the influx of posts all of a sudden., but I would argue that taking into account immediate emotional pressures/urges/drives etc... are natural instincts, and I have yet to be convinced that religion can override these.

 

For example, abstinence only education  goes against our instincts which is why it fails. Even if somebody wants to  abstain for religious reasons, the instincts override this.

That's exactly the point that I've been trying to make - religious reasons are not strong enough to resist instinct.

Which is what I've been trying to articulate to you!

I'm laughing right now.  Honestly

Was it? Well, maybe I got confused, because what I was trying to prove was that religious morality is weak - which clearly, we just agreed on, yet you've been arguing with me the whole time.


Thomathy
SuperfanBronze Member
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
Tycoon wrote:Thomathy

Tycoon wrote:

Thomathy wrote:

Tycoon wrote:

Thomathy wrote:

Tycoon wrote:
But at the bottom line, they all at least believe that the bible serves as a collection of stories designed to present moral guidelines. And those moral guidelines are supposed to come from the stories, which came from....

 

2,000 years ago.

Yes, the bible is 2000 years old.  Yes, Christians believe that it represents a collection of stories designed to present moral guidelines.  Those moral guidelines are, however, as has been pointed out, not necessarily based in the reality of human morality.  Insert what Bob wrote here.  Now, put what I wrote in.

You're getting things mixed up here. Christians believe in the bible and its moral guidelines, regardless of its relation to human instinct and reality. When you describe the reality of human morality, you're describing what morality ought to be, not what Christian morality is. Christian morality is similar, just outdated - which is why people are able to accept it despite its poor hold on today's reality. That and the fact that the majority of Americans agree with them, making it seem like it has a good hold on today's reality.

I'm not getting things mixed up here.  I'm describing what morality objectively is despite what 'Christian morality' is.  If you can agree with that we can move on.

When you write, 'When you describe the reality of human morality, you're describing what morality ought to be, ...' you are performing an error of logic.  If I am describing the reality, then I am describing what objectively is, not what ought to be.  I'm not going to be hung up on that, though, because you seem to agree that whatever Christian's claim their morality is or from whence it came, it is illusory.  Christian morality is not similar to what is objectively the basis for human morality.  It is largely contrived and often contradictory.

The fact is the morality Christians claim to practice has never been something that people have had a hard time practicing.  Christians, largely, have never practiced their morality, even upon its inception.  The fact that it so apparently contradicts the morals of today (or of society) only emphasises this.  No one goes around stoning children to death for disobediance, but the bible clearly instructs people that that is the punishment.

I can't make claims as to what the majority of Americans agree with.  I am not American nor do I have the resources to presently look up the necessary information.  Ostenbsily, however, Americans do not agree with those ~80% who are Christian, or I suspect their laws would not be secular, but rather would be based in Christianity, which they are not.

I'm simply failing to put to words what I want to here.

What I meant to say is your description was of what morality ought to be, and you claimed that it was of what morality is. Clearly, Christian morality differs from your description because of its basis in 2,000 year old society - therefore, your description was not really of what morality is, because you didn't account for Christian morality.

As I discussed in my post just previous to this, when society changes then religion is forced to change with it. If society had continued to support the stoning of children, then so would have Christianity. But the morals that Christians still do follow originate from 2,000 years ago - one that is still outdated is the belief that homosexuality is immoral.

Americans are 80% Christian, which means that the vast majority of them agree with Christianity... but yet most laws are not based in Christianity, and you ask for an explanation. It's because when a law is based in Christianity, a minority religion can sue the government and have that law overturned - which is what the gay community is trying to do right now.

I'm well aware of how the legal system in your country functions.  I also know that your laws are not based in Christianity.  I did not ask for an explanation.  I'm aware that some Christians still believe that homosexuality is immoral.  I know that the moral system to which they claim their morals descends is outdated and that their morals have often aligned with the societal norms of the time (the present is no exception).

As for the rest, I don't know how to respond to it.  You have so clearly misunderstood me this entire time that a complete restart is necessary.  Unfortunately, I no longer have any time to be on the boards in order to clear up the mistake, so I'll charge someone with attempting to clear the water. 

Captain?  Bob?  Hamby?  (Anyone, really) Can you please attempt to clarify my points for Tycoon and clear up this misunderstanding?  Pretty please?

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."


Thomathy
SuperfanBronze Member
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
Tycoon wrote:Was it? Well,

Tycoon wrote:
Was it? Well, maybe I got confused, because what I was trying to prove was that religious morality is weak - which clearly, we just agreed on, yet you've been arguing with me the whole time.
Yeah, but no.  I've not been arguing with you about what you think I have.  Disregard my above post.  Can someone please clear this up in my absence? Laughing out loud


 

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5852
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Cpt_pineapple

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

The delayed nature of the Theist system is a deep flaw as an enforcement system, making it much easier for the individual to ignore or simply not think about the 'consequences', under the pressure of immediate emotional pressures, urges, drives, etc. The prospect, in some faiths, of 'forgiveness' after the fact further weakens the system, requiring the scale of the promised rewards and punishments to be ramped up to 'eternal bliss' vs 'infinite pain' in an effort to compensate.

I may have missed something during the influx of posts all of a sudden., but I would argue that taking into account immediate emotional pressures/urges/drives etc... are natural instincts, and I have yet to be convinced that religion can override these.

For example, abstinence only education  goes against our instincts which is why it fails. Even if somebody wants to  abstain for religious reasons, the instincts override this.

Which is basically what I was saying.

IOW religious beliefs have only limited effect against such instincts and emotions, and the lack of immediate 'punishment' and the prospect of 'forgiveness' further weaken their actual effect on behavior. Which is not to say they don't have some effect on behavior under some circumstances with some individuals.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Thomathy
SuperfanBronze Member
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
:P  No one helped!  I

:P  No one helped!  I suppose it's put to rest anyhow.

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
   

 

 

 


Thomathy
SuperfanBronze Member
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
Quoi?

Quoi?

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."