Jash

Moash, and the fans who hate him

233 posts in this topic

44 minutes ago, Frustration said:

So someone living in isolation can't be moral because morality only exists in a culture?

That is debatable - I lean towards a no or a kind-off. Living in a state where you can't do anything immoral is not exactly the same as choosing not to when you are tempted. What I tried to say in a sentence you quoted is that morality wasn't really a concept relevant to tribes of hunter-gatherers and the like. 

1 hour ago, Frustration said:

And why is that impossible?

1 hour ago, Bejardin1250 said:

Pretty much yes.

If aliens exist, and I’ve seen no evidence they do, and they have intelligence, their morality should be very similar to humans.

Because not every species has the same values. An intelligent mushroom or insect would have a very different perspective on some things we consider moral because they would be irrelevant to them in the first place.

8 minutes ago, Oltux72 said:

In fact we have very good evidence that the basics of morality is biologic.

We might just have to disagree on that. I absolutely agree that what we consider moral is biological in origin, but a being has to have reasoning beyond instincts to exercise those values, whatever they are to them.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Pathfinder said:

So I say this with complete respect to your beliefs and your right to believe them. I am just responding to your reasoning. Religion on whole across the globe is seeing a decline in numbers. Atheism is climbing, or people are just apathetic regarding religion in general. Regardless if you believe this is true or not, for the purpose of your reasoning, let us act as if it is. So:

if this is in fact taking place, where atheism is becoming or on its way to becoming the dominant view regarding religion, does this then mean your religious beliefs are becoming false? Because it sounds like you are positing the numeric value of people believing something validates its veracity. So if the numbers of your religion decrease, while athiesm or another religion increase, does that make the god of your religion null and void?

Actually my religion is gaining members right now. But that's besides the point, what I was saying is that, if say, Odin was real don't you think he would have saved the people worshiping him? Or done something to retain influence?

 

5 minutes ago, Pathfinder said:

I think the point is if someone existed outside the knowledge of a religion that requires that god to be the source of morals, and requires subservience to that god in order to attain salvation, then by your logic, that person could be born, live, and die not knowing any better and be deemed evil and amoral all because of the location of their birth. This can be verified as incorrect due to existence of isolated cultures from modern society exhibiting morals. Further societal groups of animals, such as crows and apes have exhibited care and morals, unconnected to sapience and religion. 

You are argueing on the tenets of my religion without even knowing them.

Someone who died without knowing Gods will, who if they had known it would have followed it is still saved.

In fact my religion has one of if not the most open views of Heaven, everyone gets at least some degree of glory, a Heaven you could say, but how much is determined by how you live. Exceept the people who know God and refuse to accept salvation.

 

5 minutes ago, Pathfinder said:

Because a main tenet of some religions is that man was made in the image of god, and is supremely unique. If another alien race exists, and is sapient and holds beliefs different than us, that disproves that tenet. 

And yet mine holds God populated worlds without number.

 

4 minutes ago, ScadrianTank said:

Because not every species has the same values. An intelligent mushroom or insect would have a very different perspective on some things we consider moral because they would be irrelevant to them in the first place.

To make that claim you would have to find a scentient species other than us who had different moral values first.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Pathfinder said:

if this is in fact taking place, where atheism is becoming or on its way to becoming the dominant view regarding religion, does this then mean your religious beliefs are becoming false? Because it sounds like you are positing the numeric value of people believing something validates its veracity. So if the numbers of your religion decrease, while athiesm or another religion increase, does that make the god of your religion null and void?

Quote

You got it backwards. It’s not that people stoped believing and it became false (this ain’t a Rick Riordan book…) it’s that it was always false and then people stopped believing after they realized 

It’s not a numbers game and nobody cares what the individual thinks 

Quote

I think the point is if someone existed outside the knowledge of a religion that requires that god to be the source of morals, and requires subservience to that god in order to attain salvation, then by your logic, that person could be born, live, and die not knowing any better and be deemed evil and amoral all because of the location of their birth.

Well an individual living by himself not knowing the existence of religion really only needs to do a very few obvious things

And religion is very complicated and you are making a gross oversimplification of what you can spend your entire life studying and not understand

I did not think I would be having a philosophical discussion today but I’m fine with it as long as the OP doesn’t mind the derail

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Frustration said:

Actually my religion is gaining members right now. But that's besides the point, what I was saying is that, if say, Odin was real don't you think he would have saved the people worshiping him? Or done something to retain influence?

I did say even if you do not believe that, for the purpose of your reasoning let us act as if it was so. The point is if you are applying a blanket statement that, as you have just reinforced by your Odin example, is the proof of whether or not a religion is valid is based on the numeric value of its followers. That if the religion is true, the number of followers would grow, not reduce. So my point is, if that occurred to religion on whole (all denominations and beliefs), would that then mean religion on whole was false?

16 minutes ago, Frustration said:

You are argueing on the tenets of my religion without even knowing them.

Someone who died without knowing Gods will, who if they had known it would have followed it is still saved.

In fact my religion has one of if not the most open views of Heaven, everyone gets at least some degree of glory, a Heaven you could say, but how much is determined by how you live. Exceept the people who know God and refuse to accept salvation.

I said "the main tenet of some religions". Your religion has its own beliefs and structures. Some of which have evolved or changed over the years, or split off. You are speaking to a change or evolution made later to take this issue into account. Originally, and still still stands in many religions, if the individual does not accept that religion's deity as supreme power, then they cannot have salvation. Which is problematic due to isolated cultures, or aliens as mentioned. 

16 minutes ago, Frustration said:

And yet mine holds God populated worlds without number.

So by your logic, if that is changing, or ends up changing, does that mean your god becomes invalid?

16 minutes ago, Frustration said:

To make that claim you would have to find a scentient species other than us who had different moral values first.

Exactly. Which is entirely possible. I was not stating it was factual, just where such an issue would be problematic for religion. 

15 minutes ago, Bejardin1250 said:

You got it backwards. It’s not that people stoped believing and it became false (this ain’t a Rick Riordan book…) it’s that it was always false and then people stopped believing after they realized 

I respectfully disagree. My point is, if Frustration is positing that he believes religions such as norse mythology is proven false simply because people no longer believe, because if such a religion was true, then the deity would make sure people would believe, then that logic should apply to all religion. Including his or her own. 

15 minutes ago, Bejardin1250 said:

It’s not a numbers game and nobody cares what the individual thinks 

But that is what Frustration has put forward. I was merely replying to it. 

15 minutes ago, Bejardin1250 said:

Well an individual living by himself not knowing the existence of religion really only needs to do a very few obvious things

But that individual wouldn't know what those obvious things are, because in the example (this is a real argument that has come up in the history of religion, and resulted in changes in doctrine for many religions), this isolated group or individual live their entire life without running into a member of such faiths that require this of their members. So as per those religions doctrines, this person who did not wrong other than exist in an isolated location, is immoral, and evil. 

15 minutes ago, Bejardin1250 said:

And religion is very complicated and you are making a gross oversimplification of what you can spend your entire life studying and not understand

I am merely responding to the reasoning presented. 

 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Pathfinder said:

I did say even if you do not believe that, for the purpose of your reasoning let us act as if it was so. The point is if you are applying a blanket statement that, as you have just reinforced by your Odin example, is the proof of whether or not a religion is valid is based on the numeric value of its followers. That if the religion is true, the number of followers would grow, not reduce. So my point is, if that occurred to religion on whole (all denominations and beliefs), would that then mean religion on whole was false?

I respectfully disagree. My point is, if Frustration is positing that he believes religions such as norse mythology is proven false simply because people no longer believe, because if such a religion was true, then the deity would make sure people would believe, then that logic should apply to all religion. Including his or her own. 

But that is what Frustration has put forward. I was merely replying to it.

You are trying to argue a hypothetical, it's like saying well, if we found something that was faster than light but had mass it would prove science is false.

Which fun thought exsperiment it might be isn't the point.

5 minutes ago, Pathfinder said:

So by your logic, if that is changing, or ends up changing, does that mean your god becomes invalid?

God teaches us one concept at a time, if something new comes up it's because it wasn't important enough for us before, you don't worry about teaching a child to drive a car, when it still can't walk.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

40 minutes ago, Pathfinder said:

But that individual wouldn't know what those obvious things are, because in the example (this is a real argument that has come up in the history of religion, and resulted in changes in doctrine for many religions), this isolated group or individual live their entire life without running into a member of such faiths that require this of their members. So as per those religions doctrines, this person who did not wrong other than exist in an isolated location, is immoral, and evil. 

Things are required of you in life, it’s not all fun and games. For the vast vast vast majority of people you need to do the fundamental basics of a human society (Don’t kill don’t steal, eat animals when their dead) that sort of thing

If you can’t do that and it was reasonably accepted you could, then your out of luck.

Wouldn’t call you evil and immoral but life has its expectations 

40 minutes ago, Pathfinder said:

But that is what Frustration has put forward. I was merely replying to it. 

Then I disagree with Frustration and I apologize for attacking you

Spoiler

What’s the point of this conversation again

Edit: Reread the thread and I found the point of this conversation

Not much. This is a side tangent that we all feel very strongly about and none of us are going to change our minds on what is true based on this conversation.

I personally don’t see the point of continuing but by all means continue if you want it was partially my fault for it starting in the first place

if you quote me and I don’t like what your saying for some reason I may respond but otherwise…

Edited by Bejardin1250
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Frustration said:

You are trying to argue a hypothetical, it's like saying well, if we found something that was faster than light but had mass it would prove science is false.

Which fun thought exsperiment it might be isn't the point.

My whole point is to challenge the reasoning, not the belief in religion. I disagree with the reasoning that the numeric value of dominant religions in the world today is indicative of their validity. Which is why I presented the hypothetical. I am applying the reasoning fairly across the board. My intention is not to deceive, trick, or change anyone's belief system. Just replying to the reasoning. 

17 minutes ago, Frustration said:

God teaches us one concept at a time, if something new comes up it's because it wasn't important enough for us before, you don't worry about teaching a child to drive a car, when it still can't walk.

But with all due respect, you are acting as if I am speaking specifically of your personal religion, and are trying to disprove it. That is not my intention. You are certainly entitled to believe that, and I respect your beliefs. However, that does not change that it was a main tenet of many religions, and it is still a main tenet of many religions. Again, I am not trying to turn you from your faith, or say your god does not exist. I was merely presenting the arguments of how morality can exist outside of religion. 

15 minutes ago, Bejardin1250 said:

Things are required of you in life, it’s not all fun and games. For the vast vast vast majority of people you need to do the fundamental basics of a human society (Don’t kill don’t steal, eat animals when their dead) that sort of thing

If you can’t do that and it was reasonably accepted you could, then your out of luck.

Wouldn’t call you evil and immoral but life has its expectations 

And that is great, and I respect your beliefs. As I have said above to frustration, I am not trying to change your belief system, nor say you are wrong for believing them. I am a firm believer in people can believe in whatever they wish if it gives them solace, hope, and helps them live a healthy, happy, and good life. So long as their beliefs do not impinge, harm, or limit other individuals their beliefs. My intention was to demonstrate some of the arguments showing that morals can exist outside the purview of religion. And that example is a real argument that has been used, and is still used to this day, because it was an issue, and for some religions it still is to this day. 

I also mentioned that societal groups of crows and apes (and others though I would have to pull them up) do the things you mentioned and yet they have no idea of religion. They exhibit morals. Crows mourn the loss of the members of their group. Crows when treated kindly (and I don't even mean intentional training with treats. I mean just pleasantly coexisting), have demonstrated calculated reasoning. For instance (just one of the many), realizing an individual lost something meaningful to that person, and actually flying back to the location to pick up the item where the person lost it, and returning it to the person. They have exhibited care, where if a member of their group is injured, they will gather additional resources to feed the incapacitated member till it recovers. Even if that means they receive less resources personally as result. 

15 minutes ago, Bejardin1250 said:

Then I disagree with Frustration and I apologize for attacking you

No problemo. Thank you for understanding. 

 

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Frustration said:

By that logic there is no such thing as morals, just some things we imagined. And the only basis for any moral judgement is that more people agree with you.

How do you live like this?

Legitamate question, I don't even think I could.

You believe the same thing, you just apply something else out of your control than I do. I offer "society" as the thing that is the main source of human morals. You posit "religion". Both require one to participate in it, and is a place from which an individual would be receiving their morals. I actually believe morals come within individuals, as what is a society, if not a group of individuals. You however are positing that morals exist beyond the human conscious, which, no I don't believe. If that was the case, morals would be identical across every society, throughout time...but they aren't. Yes, there are some basic things...but then, I would say the most basic morals come from how we evolved. We evolved completely as a social creature. Humans without society essentially aren't human (A note : I think some people are mistaking "agricultural society" for "society". Hunters and gathers are a society. Society pre-dates homo sapiens, we have been living in groups since we were Australopithecuses. In fact, you know there is actual studies of this. If a human grows up outside of society...like somehow survives to adulthood..they won't really ever develop completely. We require human society to exist.) So things like "Don't murder", "Be empathetic", "Don't steal", etc. are morals that make sense for the survival of our species as a group. Here, though, to show how much I think morals come from society, I think one prime tenant of US society is that "working hard always and being competitive to succeed" is the core of human nature, and I actually think mutualism, support for fellow people, and love/compassion are the core of human nature...however our society has gone away from those things. So, to summarize, I believe morals come from A. Society, and B. Evolved traits to survive as a cooperative species. This, by the way, does not mean religion is not important. If you choose to get your morals from your religion that is perfect, completely and perfectly okay. My dad is a Christian Minister. I love him with all my heart, and respect his religion completely. However, my loving and amazing partner is ALSO an amazing person. She was raised by two atheists in a society with little visual signs of religion. She learned her morals from her parents and her society, and for her, I would guess social justice plays a strong role in how she developed her set of morals. Anyways, the point is....she is okay too. I am not suggesting you should not be religious, but...stop telling other people their morals exist because of your religion. They don't. And by the way, another core of US culture is freedom of religion, so please stop pressing your ideas on others here. 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Bejardin1250 said:

Just going to answer this pretty quick: These we’re never accepted. Religion is not homogeneous I would wager a lot of money that me and Frustration disagree on basically everything and I think he’s completely wrong and I assume he thinks the same with me. And just because everyone realized Greeks were wrong does not mean anything 

anyway this is a complete side tangent with no meaning and if you want @Jash we could continue in a PM but there’s really no reason to have the discussion here

I'm pretty sure I said that religions wasn't homogenous. That was my whole point. Based purely on this, you seem to agree with me, so I'm not sure why you are disagreeing with me. I am not trying to disprove religion, I'm trying to disprove Frustration that he thinks religion is the core of human morality, because...it's not. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Frustration said:

By that logic there is no such thing as morals, just some things we imagined. And the only basis for any moral judgement is that more people agree with you.

How do you live like this?

Legitamate question, I don't even think I could.

I read this again, because I needed to understand it. Okay, I get it. You couldn't live if you didn't believe that our morals come from a higher power. I could. In fact, I live easier knowing that my goodness comes from within me and not from an external source. I believe that human beings are basically good, unlike many religions (with concepts like original sin), and I live much better with that belief system. 
"And the only basis for any moral judgement is that more people agree with you" - Sadly, this is in fact, how many people think. Not me though, not sure how you read that from me. Read some of the other stuff I wrote again, I'm not going to repeat things I've already said. A note on other people though : I knew many people who thought it was morally acceptable to be homophobic in the year 1998. In the year 2021, they no longer do. Guess what changed? Hint : It wasn't their religion. 
How do you live without thinking a higher power has endowed us with morals? Lol, I can't believe someone couldn't imagine this. Even when I was religious (surprise, I used to be religious), I never thought atheists were immoral or couldn't have concepts of morals. In fact, the church I belonged too pretty strongly believed humans could be good without religion. Legitimate Question : Do you think there is 0 chance that human beings created morals themselves, that our morals come from a combination of evolving to be a group animal and society? like seriously no chance? Just to be a Jasnah Kholin here...I very much do think it is possible that a higher power exists (in fact I'm Deist/Agnostic, not Athiest)...I simply believe that morals come from within us. Another legitimate question, I believe dolphins, great apes, corvid birds, and other animals can also a sense of morals/ethics, so...how would you explain a dolphin helping a person or porpoise or something? Like, where does that dolphin's sense of morals come from? I don't believe we have any scientific evidence of religion among dolphins (not that 100% disproves they could have it), however, they do 100% have societies. 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

19 minutes ago, Jash said:

I'm pretty sure I said that religions wasn't homogenous. That was my whole point. Based purely on this, you seem to agree with me, so I'm not sure why you are disagreeing with me. I am not trying to disprove religion, I'm trying to disprove Frustration that he thinks religion is the core of human morality, because...it's not. 

I misunderstood a point you were trying to make and replied with a different premise 

I do disagree with what your saying though

I’m not saying that you have to be religious to be moral I’m saying that all these cultures were once long ago religious and this influenced and shaped them

Now the Atheist numbers have gone up but that doesn’t mean those values the Founders instilled into the society they created aren’t there

If you go back 1000 years to these Indian and European cultures the vast majority, nearly every single one, had a religion 

India had the Karma Darma and Ahimza thing which was the basis for Confucism which is the basis for many many cultures which are not very religious

Same for Amarica which is Semi A religous but still holds many of the same values as religious people since they are all influenced by the same cultures that come from the same 2 or 3 religions (Mostly Muslim Christian and I think Hindu)

If you can bring some proof of an non religious culture that was always non religious and has succeeded (and by just an outlier a statistical appropriate number) That would further this argument

Let me posit this question to you as a thought experiment I’m not challenging you or assuming you would do this I’m genuinely curious on a atheistic point of view on this

If you could steal 1 million dollars from someone and he wouldn’t know it was you and the Government would never find you, you know that for a 100% certain. What is the downside of doing it?

Why do morals matter if there is no downsides of not having them?Edit: 

Quote

 

Do you think there is 0 chance that human beings created morals themselves, that our morals come from a combination of evolving to be a group animal and society? like seriously no chance?


 

Yes @Jash

 

I know I said I wouldn’t respond but the OP has expressed interest in continuing the conversation and I will oblige

Edited by Bejardin1250
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

1 hour ago, Bejardin1250 said:

Let me posit this question to you as a thought experiment I’m not challenging you or assuming you would do this I’m genuinely curious on a atheistic point of view on this

If you could steal 1 million dollars from someone and he wouldn’t know it was you and the Government would never find you, you know that for a 100% certain. What is the downside of doing it?

Why do morals matter if there is no downsides of not having them?

That moral thought experiment has been brought up and discussed extensively since Plato. It is colloquially known as "The Ring of Gyges". It is a ring that grants the power of invisibility. Thereby the user can commit crimes without fear of repercussion. I have linked the wikipedia article below because it probably explains the concept better than I do, but the crux is if the only reason you are moral is due to fear of punishment (whether from law, society, or a higher power), you are not in fact moral. You are enslaved to your own appetites. The man who chose not to commit crimes remains rationally in control of himself and is therefore happy. 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_of_Gyges

Edited by Pathfinder
3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Bejardin1250 said:

Let me posit this question to you as a thought experiment I’m not challenging you or assuming you would do this I’m genuinely curious on a atheistic point of view on this

If you could steal 1 million dollars from someone and he wouldn’t know it was you and the Government would never find you, you know that for a 100% certain. What is the downside of doing it?

Why do morals matter if there is no downsides of not having them?

Firstly, disclaimer: there isn’t going to be one singular atheist point of view on something. Because we don’t have religious leaders or sacred texts, we don’t have a ‘right answer’ that comes from a place of authority that all of us agree on. But I can tell you my take on this thought experiment, and as far as I know this is a fairly uncontroversial view among atheists.

The downside of stealing the $1mil is that you will feel guilty about doing it.

The reason you will feel guilt is that human societies work better without theft, so billions of years of selective pressure have resulted in (most) humans feeling guilt if they steal. You won’t be thinking about this while you’re feeling guilty - you will probably be thinking about how the person you stole from is upset, or how you don’t deserve the money - but that’s the underlying reason why the guilt exists.

Most atheists believe that humans hold themselves to moral standards, and they do it because that’s how humans work. This doesn’t mean morals or being a good person are unimportant. They are essential to being human. They just don’t come from outside of ourselves.

 

That’s my view on the subject, of course you are free to disagree. I hope that helps you to understand where non-religious people are coming from.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

9 hours ago, Bejardin1250 said:

If you could steal 1 million dollars from someone and he wouldn’t know it was you and the Government would never find you, you know that for a 100% certain. What is the downside of doing it?

First, I think this is another misinterpretation you have, I think humans made up religion to explain things they couldn’t understand and create a cohesive set of moral standards for their society, so yes most primitive society have religion, but that doesn’t prove anything to me. I think we made it up. 

Second of all, depends whom I’m stealing from. I believe the rich are already stealing from us, so I in fact think it would be morally right to say steal even a billion dollars from Jeff Bezos and then I don’t know create a charity, where that money gets spread around. If anything, being religious taught me being rich was bad, it started me down this road to having morals that obviously conflict with yours. Although if I was to highlight this again, individuals develope their morals from what surrounds them. If you raised a society in a non-religious vacuum, people would still develop morals. I’ll be quite honest, I think the idea that morals come from religion and a higher power something we shouldn’t believe in our  modern scientific times, Like, it is just obviously something religions made up, as they want to be authorities in morals. You are acting like the burden of proof is on me. Prove that religion created morals and not people created morals and religion. (a note : you can’t, just as I can’t prove that all human society doesn’t trace some religion to its morals, it’s a pointless and fruitless question meant to put the burden of proof on one side while taking none of that burden yourself).
Again - respond to what I said about dolphins. Where does a dolphin’s sense of morals come from. He/She lives in a society, but they do not (as far as we know) have religion. 

Edited by Jash
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Jash said:

First, I think this is another misinterpretation you have, I think humans made up religion to explain things they couldn’t understand and create a cohesive set of moral standards for their society, so yes most primitive society have religion, but that doesn’t prove anything to me. I think we made it up. 

What difference does it make? Practically none.

Religion was the embassy of culture same thing however you want to phrase it.

Im not asking you to believe anything, I couldn’t care less if you did. We’re not arguing whether religion was true

Im saying that at the heart of every culture a religion ( who 99% were wrong) and they imbued moral values

And why do dolphins have morals? They don’t. They have no concept of doing what’s right because it’s right. They do it because of some reason that I don’t know but prove to me they do have morals

And stop telling me to not put my ideas on you then calling my ideas “deranged” at least be sensible to not apply a double standard of what’s right. I’ve tried to be civil I really have but your  making it really really hard 

At least put some basics of fact into your argument with instead of just asserting something then moving on

Anyway I’m going on a trip for two months so feel free to respond but I physically can’t 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Bejardin1250 said:

What difference does it make? Practically none.

Religion was the embassy of culture same thing however you want to phrase it.

Im not asking you to believe anything, I couldn’t care less if you did. We’re not arguing whether religion was true

Im saying that at the heart of every culture a religion ( who 99% were wrong) and they imbued moral values

And why do dolphins have morals? They don’t. They have no concept of doing what’s right because it’s right. They do it because of some reason that I don’t know but prove to me they do have morals

And stop telling me to not put my ideas on you then calling my ideas “deranged” at least be sensible to not apply a double standard of what’s right. I’ve tried to be civil I really have but your  making it really really hard 

At least put some basics of fact into your argument with instead of just asserting something then moving on

Anyway I’m going on a trip for two months so feel free to respond but I physically can’t 

I erased deranged, sorry about that. I am trying to be civil as well. I find it frustrating when you keep moving the goal posts. 

As to dolphins, yes they do. There are actual studies on this. We have proved that dolphins do have a concept of right and wrong and can act on it (by we, I mean scientists). Links below, but also you can just type it into google. 

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/342352188_The_Moral_Duties_of_Dolphins

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/286043210_In_Defense_of_Dolphins_The_New_Moral_Frontier

https://animallawconference.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Humans-Dolphins-and-Moral-Inclusivity.pdf

They have no concept of doing what’s right because it’s right. They do it because of some reason that I don’t know but prove to me they do have morals” - They do if for the same reason people do. We are not better than them. We are not morally superior to them. In fact, there is evidence that they may even have similar emotional intelligence to humans (meaning things like having empathy). 

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rstb.2006.1997

The above article is great general study on dolphin intelligence, and what I love about it, is you could do the exact same study on human beings. It explains why social relationships are important to dolphin intelligence (which includes what we call empathy and morals) and could just as easily be a study of human beings’ evolution. Honestly, you can research this yourself. There is ample scientific evidence and studies about why human beings need to say, not steal. We evolved to not steal from people within our in group. Any study on human brain development, emotional intelligence evolution, or social group evolution could be used as evidence against the idea of religion, and not biology, as the source of our morals. The fact that you out of turn dismiss dolphins of having moral thought, kind of shows where you stand. They do have morals, and I absolutely believe from my moral perspective, that we should ethically treat them that way. And I think, it is on fact religion blocking us, in many cases, from treating non-human animals better. Now of course not all religions, but especially the major monotheistic religions that posit humans and superior to animals. Many other religions do not elevate humans above other animals or nature, again an example of how religion is not a monolith (for those thinking it is). If only one of those religions had risen to prominence in our world, we would probably live in a better world. You are right about one thing : Religion often shapes individuals ideas about morals, unfortunately with many religions making people actively worse people in the modern world. Excusing the excesses of capitalism, denying scientific consensus, and being an excuse for (what I believe are extremely non ethical beliefs of) homophobia and racism. By giving religion authority to shape morals, we allow excuses for those in power (large corporations mostly) to get away with obviously non-ethical actions (to anyone who thinks about even for a short amount of time). 

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Btw, if good is following god, isn't Moash good? He's following Odium, who is a god in many Rosharan cultures, Odium's a Shard of Adonalsium, so by power too as close as one can get to a god, aside from being Adonalsium.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Honorless said:

Btw, if good is following god, isn't Moash good? He's following Odium, who is a god in many Rosharan cultures, Odium's a Shard of Adonalsium, so by power too as close as one can get to a god, aside from being Adonalsium.

ok, one thing here

Can Odium make mistakes? Yes

is Odium perfecct? No

Can Odium die? Yes

not God, not even close

Adonalsium isn't God, we're talking God Beyond, anything less won't cut it.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Frustration said:

ok, one thing here

Can Odium make mistakes? Yes

is Odium perfecct? No

Can Odium die? Yes

not God, not even close

Adonalsium isn't God, we're talking God Beyond, anything less won't cut it.

How is the God Beyond perfect? By virtue of being being unverifiable & unfalsifiable?

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Honorless said:

How is the God Beyond perfect? By virtue of being being unverifiable & unfalsifiable?

Is he not intended to be a stand in for God IRL?

Therefore if God is perfect so must the God Beyond.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Frustration said:

Is he not intended to be a stand in for God IRL?

Therefore if God is perfect so must the God Beyond.

And how is God perfect?

By virtue of being being unverifiable & unfalsifiable? Because he supposedly said so?

That is how we atheists see it, btw

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Honorless said:

And how is God perfect?

By virtue of being being unverifiable & unfalsifiable? Because he supposedly said so?

That is how we atheists see it, btw

And by refusing to even try is why you can't see it.

I have felt his spirit, I know he is, and God cannot lie, Therefore he must be perfect.

I know it makes no difference to you, but I know.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

1 hour ago, Frustration said:

And by refusing to even try is why you can't see it.

I have felt his spirit, I know he is, and God cannot lie, Therefore he must be perfect.

I know it makes no difference to you, but I know.

It's not like I was born an atheist, I did try. Ultimately, I left religion not just because I couldn't believe in things that weren't verifiable but also because of the people, after all there's a three letter word that could've destroyed any relationship I built with most of them. We're not out to get you, you know. Getting out of religion is a very difficult choice. There's a phrase "living without god is like living in a house without a roof" that describes the first experiences of atheists.

 

I think that in the context of debating god or religion as a source of morality, we have to separate the idea of truth and reality. We don't know the truth of the existence or non-existence of god, debating on no proof of existence not being proof of non-existence or the problem of evil are ultimately thought exercises, hypotheticals. The effects of religion, on the other hand, are tangible and very real. Open any history textbook, religion has demonstrably been used towards bad ends. When talking about moral principles, the effectiveness and viability of those moral principles is also important, though do note that difficulty in applying certain moral principles is not proof of it being unsound. Ultimately, history shows religion has been used to do some pretty bad things, things that people then thought permissible and that people now find questionable. What changed? It's the same religion, venerating the same god. People changed. It is people that moral standards are applied to, regardless of the source. People who interpret it, adapt it and/or to it, apply it.

Edited by Honorless
3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Honorless said:

It's not like I was born an atheist, I did try. Ultimately, I left religion not just because I couldn't believe in things that weren't verifiable but also because of the people, after all there's a three letter word that could've destroyed any relationship I built with most of them. We're not out to get you, you know. Getting out of religion is a very difficult choice. There's a phrase "living without god is like living in a house without a roof" that describes the first experiences of atheists.

 

I think that in the context of debating god or religion as a source of morality, we have to separate the idea of truth and reality. We don't know the truth of the existence or non-existence of god, debating on no proof of existence not being proof of non-existence or the problem of evil are ultimately thought exercises, hypotheticals. The effects of religion, on the other hand, are tangible and very real. Open any history textbook, religion has demonstrably been used towards bad ends. When talking about moral principles, the effectiveness and viability of those moral principles is also important, though do note that difficulty in applying certain moral principles is not proof of it being unsound. Ultimately, history shows religion has been used to do some pretty bad things, things that people then thought permissible and that people now find questionable. What changed? It's the same religion, venerating the same god. People changed. It is people that moral standards are applied to, regardless of the source. People who interpret it, adapt it and/or to it, apply it.

You keep outdoing yourself, this is my favorite reply on this entire topic, even though we somehow ended up having a morality philosophical discussion about…why people hate Moash? lol Anyways everyone else - I agree with what Honorless said above

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Honorless said:

It's not like I was born an atheist, I did try. Ultimately, I left religion not just because I couldn't believe in things that weren't verifiable but also because of the people, after all there's a three letter word that could've destroyed any relationship I built with most of them. We're not out to get you, you know. Getting out of religion is a very difficult choice. There's a phrase "living without god is like living in a house without a roof" that describes the first experiences of atheists.

 

I think that in the context of debating god or religion as a source of morality, we have to separate the idea of truth and reality. We don't know the truth of the existence or non-existence of god, debating on no proof of existence not being proof of non-existence or the problem of evil are ultimately thought exercises, hypotheticals. The effects of religion, on the other hand, are tangible and very real. Open any history textbook, religion has demonstrably been used towards bad ends. When talking about moral principles, the effectiveness and viability of those moral principles is also important, though do note that difficulty in applying certain moral principles is not proof of it being unsound. Ultimately, history shows religion has been used to do some pretty bad things, things that people then thought permissible and that people now find questionable. What changed? It's the same religion, venerating the same god. People changed. It is people that moral standards are applied to, regardless of the source. People who interpret it, adapt it and/or to it, apply it.

I would first like to say, I understand where you are coming from and why you believe this.

I don’t think that someone loving God, and you not, can destroy a relationship. I’ve heard people say this before, but I actually think that any relationship with God involved is an equilateral triangle. If you get closer to God, then you must also get closer to your significant other.

Yes, religion has been used by humans to justify their wrong doings. So has science and innovation. I think that most often when religion is used to justify wrongdoing, it is when you focus on a single part of doctrine or when you think that you are better than everyone else. As long as people think about the whole picture and remember that everyone is equal, people don’t die (I think. I haven’t majored in history, so this is just my rudimentary knowledge). 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.