Muamba

[Monkeys Fist 42484]

 

"Worship The Mighty Twig, ye sinners"

[NJS 4389]

Just as stupid as the idea that Jehovah gave us morals.

 

What did we do for the thousands of years before that?

 

Erm.... Murdered,raped,enslaved, exploited minorities etc etc

 

Always find it interesting hove those who are "humanist" deride religion which was the very catalyst for said humanity.

 

No - we formed communities - do you think some kind of switch was flicked by the Jews?

 

Mankind would never have got anywahere near civilisation with empathatic morality. Yes a lot of these civilisations were religious but so what - what do you think came first.

 

Also the Jews commited genocide in the name of their God, so again the idea morality was handed down to them is ridiculous.

 

Many, many civilisations grew up in the last 5 thousand years or so - funnily enough all of them, no matter what belief system they follow have generally the same moral code - how does that work if it was exclusive to the Jews or Christians?

[NJS 4389]

 

Put us back 1000 years is laughable, how humane was mankind before Christianity grew up, as an example. Any definition of morals in the western world evolved from the ten commandments, where else did humanity come from??

 

This would be the ten commandments that waste at least 3 talking about how to worship God, contain one that destroys the concept that the western world is based on (capitalism) and sees no need to proscribe rape, slavery or child abuse.

 

Of course theft and murder were okay when Jehovah ordered it - how convenient.

[Kitman 2207]

So....a theological discussion whilst a young man lays crippled in a hospital bed fighting for his life. I'll pray for your souls.

 

Sweet Jesus, help poor Fabrice and look favourably on all the Toontastic sinners. Especially NJS.

[NJS 4389]

Mankind is by nature a cunt and always will be, civilisations don't last, neither will ours which happens to be the most tolerant in history I would suggest.

 

Humans are by nature a very social animal - to imply anything else is breathtaking ignorance.

 

The western world has only reached this level of tolerance in the last 100 years - as religion's infuence wains - see the ongoing opposition to gay marriage as the perfect example of how wrong you are.

[SloopJohn 0]

If there ever was a dark age in human history, its the 20th Century

 

NJS do you believe objective morality exists without God?

[NJS 4389]

If there ever was a dark age in human history, its the 20th Century

 

What do you think The church would have done in the middle ages with gas chambers or A bombs?

 

The 20th century also saw massive advances against disease, hunger and poverty, of course they all still exist but to try and say it was dark age is ludicrous. Also note the widespread advance of human rights, and the increase of tolerance for homosexuality in a lot of the world as a huge step forward.

 

NJS do you believe objective morality exists without God?

 

Which God?

 

As I alluded to there is a broad commonalitty of morality with all human communities. Of course there are aberattions but in general we do have an instinctive "feel" for right and wrong across a large span of ethics.

 

Sociaties which never did know of an Abrahamic God all managed to come up with the same ideas - coincidence or evolved empathy based morality?

[Happy Face 29]

If there ever was a dark age in human history, its the Ashley years

 

NJS do you believe any ambition exists without Shepherd?

 

LM'd your post, this thread has gone on far too long without derailment.

[Kitman 2207]

If there ever was a dark age in human history, its the Ashley years

 

NJS do you believe any ambition exists without Shepherd?

 

LM'd your post, this thread has gone on far too long without derailment.

 

* Fights urge to do LM impersonation *

[Monkeys Fist 42484]

 

Of his own free will.

[Kitman 2207]

 

Of his own free will.

 

Keep your superstitious mumbo-jumbo out of it, MF. This is a rational thread.

[toonotl 2988]

You only need to read the bible to learn that Christianity has contributed very little to Western morality.

 

FWIW, the Hammurabi Code predates the bible and is a much greater example of right and wrong.

 

On the bible and its view on rape you only need to read the story of Lot.

[ChezGiven 0]

Is it? Seems to be coming from an a priori view that God exists to me. Definitely not 'secular', how do you make that out? Either way it's quite insane.

 

Edit: @ SJ

 

Its secular because it's a view that comes from atheistic philosophers - Gray, Hegel, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Dawkins - all believe or believed - free will is an illusion

Modern neurology would back them up too but only because we don't understand how the brain makes choices. When you choose to support a charity, it's not a function that happens at the time you sign a direct debit, it's a culmination of experiences and feelings over time, so much so that the choice begins to actually define the individual character. We are inherently connected to our choices as what determines them, according to neurology anyway, is our lifetime experiences.

 

The idea that we don't have 'choices' in life is just bonkers, it's easy to lose yourself in philosophy texts dribbling on about free will but the debate is framed by the discipline through which you view it. Determinism can be a wholly biological function if you want it to be.

[SloopJohn 0]

If there ever was a dark age in human history, its the 20th Century

 

What do you think The church would have done in the middle ages with gas chambers or A bombs?

 

The 20th century also saw massive advances against disease, hunger and poverty, of course they all still exist but to try and say it was dark age is ludicrous. Also note the widespread advance of human rights, and the increase of tolerance for homosexuality in a lot of the world as a huge step forward.

 

NJS do you believe objective morality exists without God?

 

Which God?

 

As I alluded to there is a broad commonalitty of morality with all human communities. Of course there are aberattions but in general we do have an instinctive "feel" for right and wrong across a large span of ethics.

 

Sociaties which never did know of an Abrahamic God all managed to come up with the same ideas - coincidence or evolved empathy based morality?

 

 

To your first point I don't know what the church would've done but I must say, it's impossible to speculate on such matters. What is certain though, is what progressive, Western societies supported and turned a blind eye too in the 20th Century as to adhere to a culture of progress. To paraphrase Benjamin, every work of culture is also a work of barbarism and for all the progress we made in human rights, disease etc - others clearly suffered for it - whether for right or wrong is another matter

 

On the matter of a 'commonality of morality' within all human communities - there is little evidence to support this - yes the Romans thought murder was bad but they were a-ok with mass pedastry, no human rights for the sickly, the poor or slaves and gladiator fights. For every society that had a system of morality similar to our own there is a society that spits in the face of modern moral standards - we all witnessed how a 1930s German society quickly became content with genocide as to support the status quo - just as as post-Constantine Roman Empire quickly adapted to Christian moral standards.

 

I'm wondering NJS, if you think that all societies that progress will arrive at the same moral conclusion, answer this for me. If Hitler conquered the entire world, 100 years later, would the people of this earth still think that Jews were evil and should be exterminated on mass?

[SloopJohn 0]

You only need to read the bible to learn that Christianity has contributed very little to Western morality.

 

FWIW, the Hammurabi Code predates the bible and is a much greater example of right and wrong.

 

On the bible and its view on rape you only need to read the story of Lot.

 

Christianity's contribution to Western Society morally is huge; one has to remember that when Christianity came along it initially won plaudits for it's sobriety, peacefulness, generosity, care for the poor and sick and above all it's central creed that it was a religious obiligation to act charitably towards others - something that disgusted the Emperor Julian who wrote that "it is a disgrace that these impious Galileans care not only for their own poor for ours as well" - but today would the extolling of such virtues fundamentally shock the leaders of our society? I don't think so.

 

Whether these values are Christianities or not is a historical one, but it is clear that today we can see these virtues underlining our healthcare system for example...

[Kitman 2207]

Can we move this to General Chat please?

[racing_argentina 0]

good luck muamba !

[NJS 4389]

To your first point I don't know what the church would've done but I must say, it's impossible to speculate on such matters. What is certain though, is what progressive, Western societies supported and turned a blind eye too in the 20th Century as to adhere to a culture of progress. To paraphrase Benjamin, every work of culture is also a work of barbarism and for all the progress we made in human rights, disease etc - others clearly suffered for it - whether for right or wrong is another matter

 

On the matter of a 'commonality of morality' within all human communities - there is little evidence to support this - yes the Romans thought murder was bad but they were a-ok with mass pedastry, no human rights for the sickly, the poor or slaves and gladiator fights. For every society that had a system of morality similar to our own there is a society that spits in the face of modern moral standards - we all witnessed how a 1930s German society quickly became content with genocide as to support the status quo - just as as post-Constantine Roman Empire quickly adapted to Christian moral standards.

 

I'm wondering NJS, if you think that all societies that progress will arrive at the same moral conclusion, answer this for me. If Hitler conquered the entire world, 100 years later, would the people of this earth still think that Jews were evil and should be exterminated on mass?

 

Part of that turning a blind eye to excess was and is backed by religion so to suggest that 20th century excesses were somehow a betrayal of better times is nonsense.

 

Of course all civiliasations had brutal facets - I'm not saying humans are perfect but I don't get how you can say that in general the moral code isn't common. I can't think of any era where society wasn't underpinned by a broad notion of the common good - of course some failed to live up to that and got it wrong but even extremes like fascism and communism had a sense of "order" and desire to work at their core.Can you name a civilisation where murder and rape honestly weren't seen as geneally bad?

 

On Hitler I have great "faith" that he could never have conquered the whole world in any meaningful way so the question is moot - there would always have been resistance. Even if they hadn't invaded Russia or had invented the A bomb they could never have conquered the Yanks militarily or China and India numerically.

 

From a hypothetical pov I don't think in the 20th century onwards people would have accepted such a definition of the Jews - but funnily enough that very definition you mention was the official Catholic stance for centuries (minus the active extermination)

Edited March 21, 2012 by NJS

[NJS 4389]

You only need to read the bible to learn that Christianity has contributed very little to Western morality.

 

FWIW, the Hammurabi Code predates the bible and is a much greater example of right and wrong.

 

On the bible and its view on rape you only need to read the story of Lot.

 

Christianity's contribution to Western Society morally is huge; one has to remember that when Christianity came along it initially won plaudits for it's sobriety, peacefulness, generosity, care for the poor and sick and above all it's central creed that it was a religious obiligation to act charitably towards others - something that disgusted the Emperor Julian who wrote that "it is a disgrace that these impious Galileans care not only for their own poor for ours as well" - but today would the extolling of such virtues fundamentally shock the leaders of our society? I don't think so.

 

Whether these values are Christianities or not is a historical one, but it is clear that today we can see these virtues underlining our healthcare system for example...

 

The influence of Christianity on the west is undeniable but also not exclusively beneficial. Every advance in human rights in the last 500 years has been opposed by religious authorities at some point - including the abolition of slavery.

 

To suggest the idea of charity and especially medicine is exclusively Christian is also an insult to all of the Eastern philosophies - for example the service ethos of Buddhism pisses all over Christian charity from that pov.

 

 

Someone mentioned geographical accident earlier which rings true in your case - if you'd been born in the Middle East you'd extoll the virtues of Islam as a cultural influence on humanity (with a degree of truth) or further east another influence - of course various perspectives all have some truth but that's my point - the underlying core values and ethics of all of them are broadly similar because they are all based on evolved human empathy - central to that is the lack of need for a particular tribal deity.

[SloopJohn 0]

You only need to read the bible to learn that Christianity has contributed very little to Western morality.

 

FWIW, the Hammurabi Code predates the bible and is a much greater example of right and wrong.

 

On the bible and its view on rape you only need to read the story of Lot.

 

Christianity's contribution to Western Society morally is huge; one has to remember that when Christianity came along it initially won plaudits for it's sobriety, peacefulness, generosity, care for the poor and sick and above all it's central creed that it was a religious obiligation to act charitably towards others - something that disgusted the Emperor Julian who wrote that "it is a disgrace that these impious Galileans care not only for their own poor for ours as well" - but today would the extolling of such virtues fundamentally shock the leaders of our society? I don't think so.

 

Whether these values are Christianities or not is a historical one, but it is clear that today we can see these virtues underlining our healthcare system for example...

 

The influence of Christianity on the west is undeniable but also not exclusively beneficial. Every advance in human rights in the last 500 years has been opposed by religious authorities at some point - including the abolition of slavery.

 

To suggest the idea of charity and especially medicine is exclusively Christian is also an insult to all of the Eastern philosophies - for example the service ethos of Buddhism pisses all over Christian charity from that pov.

 

 

Someone mentioned geographical accident earlier which rings true in your case - if you'd been born in the Middle East you'd extoll the virtues of Islam as a cultural influence on humanity (with a degree of truth) or further east another influence - of course various perspectives all have some truth but that's my point - the underlying core values and ethics of all of them are broadly similar because they are all based on evolved human empathy - central to that is the lack of need for a particular tribal deity.

 

Every progression in human rights in the past 500 years has also been opposed by fairly elected democratic governments - governments who have also waged unjust wars, incinerated villages of non-combatants, tolerated corruption and inequality, lied to citizens, aided foreign despotic regimes or given power to evil men. Slavery may have been 'abolished' but as we speak, the West sits idly back and watches the slave trade grow to a size that dwarfs (estimated between 20 and 27 million people), in terms of numbers, any other period in human history. However this does not mean democratic governments are a bad thing, its just that they can be easily abused and twisted to justify anything...

 

I guess what I'm saying is that religion and irreligion are cultural variables but evil is a human constant

 

I'm not saying that charity is exclusively Christian but there is a reason why charity and compassion, which are the central virtues of Christianity, are still seen as intrinsic to the functioning of a successful society and it's mainly because of Constantine's conversion..

 

You see NJS, for me the flaw in argument is that humans will be naturally empathetic towards each other if there was no concept of God in society but there is little evidence to suggest this. Humans will always kill each other for no reason other than propagating their own agendas or the agendas of their kin. To say that all underlying values and ethics are similar in the world is simply not true and if they are its only favour of human 'goodness', but if humans, as Darwin suggested, are simply another part of the animal world, why should ethics only apply to our own race and not the brutal laws of the animal kingdom? What makes us different? There is no reason why we should take precedence other than the own selfish instincts of our race...

 

Also am I right in assuming that you believe in 'memes'...as you're constantly talking about how human empathy evolves?

[NJS 4389]

I'll reply fully later but your suggestion that by nature we are all bastards any only religion saves us does not reflect the reality of our history or that of our primate cousins.

 

Cooperation works far better than conflict and that all started before we could even speak.

[Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1]

If you want to trace anti-semetism historically, the Bible is the source of some very dangerous ideas.

Edited March 21, 2012 by Kevin S. Assilleekunt

[toonotl 2988]

What seperates us from the animals is an understanding of altruism but we've had this discussion before.

 

Western society does not base its morals on christian doctrine because christian doctrine did not invent moral behaviour (the selection of useful moral behaviour at least, that can be gleaned from amongst the pages and pages of instructions on how to properly slaughter animals, keep slaves, and worship a vengeful sky fairy) because that moral behaviour either already existed or became common practice despite the instruction found in the bible.

 

Regardless. You obviously believe there is a god. You obviously struggle with your belief that there is a god. So simple question. How does any of this effect whether or not a god exists? And if it doesn't then its meaningless. The truth is whats important because when you start with a lie things will only ever go downhill from there. The, 'its better to believe something otherwise we'd all be killing each other in the street', argument doesn't wash with me and it shouldn't with any right minded person. You can make a million references to Hitler, Stalin, Mao or any other mastouche wearing despot it doesn't change the fact that science, and our understanding of the world around us, and not religion has lead us to where we are and if it were left upto religion we'd all still be throwing rocks at each other and hiding in caves everytime there was a thunderstorm.

Edited March 21, 2012 by toonotl

[Guest CabayeAye]

NJS - you mention 'evil' as in talking about 'evil people'. People aren't born evil, nor are there good or evil forces. Only groups of people with different moral codes who believe they are right. Was the bloke who bombed Hirishima evil? Why did Hitler do what he did? I suspect it's because he (wrongly) believed what he was doing was right due to his past life experiences. Calling people inherently evil is a massive cop out and we need to work hard to learn why people do bad things and tackle the root causes (i.e. the degradation of society due to the media and excessive liberalism) rather than pray to a god that doesn't exist that he will help sinners see the light.

 

My experience? I spent 6 months in a country under sharia law, and it was a living hell hole devoid of any morals.

[SloopJohn 0]

What seperates us from the animals is an understanding of altruism but we've had this discussion before.

 

But animals can and do act altruistically, at times, towards each other - I don't see how an understanding of it changes anything if the action itself is the same. What do you think of Dawkins' theories in The Selfish Gene?

 

Western society does not base its morals on christian doctrine because christian doctrine did not invent moral behaviour (the selection of useful moral behaviour at least, that can be gleaned from amongst the pages and pages of instructions on how to properly slaughter animals, keep slaves, and worship a vengeful sky fairy) because that moral behaviour either already existed or became common practice despite the instruction found in the bible.

 

Of course Christianity didn't invent 'moral behaviour' in the sense that people should live by a set of rules...this is evident in all threads of society before the supposed death of Christ. But to say what we perceive as 'moral behaviour' nowadays existed, en masse, before the beginning of the Christian revolution is simply historically inaccurate. Christianity solidified and institutionilised nearly all the parameters of morality which exist today and whilst it is clear that society has shaken off the darker aspects of the culture that church brought to society (for instance no sex before marriage) it is also true that we have retained all the ideas which now suited and bettered society: orphanages, hospitals, the idea of social progress, the absolute virtue of being a human being, altruism as the most profound of all actions etc.

 

Regardless. You obviously believe there is a god. You obviously struggle with your belief that there is a god. So simple question. How does any of this effect whether or not a god exists? And if it doesn't then its meaningless. The truth is whats important because when you start with a lie things will only ever go downhill from there. The, 'its better to believe something otherwise we'd all be killing each other in the street', argument doesn't wash with me and it shouldn't with any right minded person. You can make a million references to Hitler, Stalin, Mao or any other mastouche wearing despot it doesn't change the fact that science, and our understanding of the world around us, and not religion has lead us to where we are and if it were left upto religion we'd all still be throwing rocks at each other and hiding in caves everytime there was a thunderstorm.

 

I find your dichotomy between science and religion totally bizarre. What we mean today by 'science', that is, the study and analysis of the material world - its methods, principles, controls, its desire to unite theory to discovery, its trust in a unified set of physical laws - came into existence, for whatever reasons, and for better or for worse, only within Christendom, and under the watchful eyes of Christians. Copernicus, for instance, was matriculated at a number of Christian universities and was heir to a long tradition of scholastic mathematical and astronomy which stemmed from the 13th Century. This knowledge became the foundation of his refutation of the Aristotelian view of the cosmos and would have a profound effect on fellow Christians such as Kepler, Newton and Galileo. This is one example out of thousands.

 

This is of course the same science, that as an offshoot, gave rise to better ways of being able to kill each other. There is a barbarity to all progress.

 

I don't believe there is a God. I'm just not arrogant enough to presume that my position is totally right. A sane position is to constantly question ones own thoughts: to read things that are in opposition to your beliefs or ideas and constantly consider the firmness of the intellectual ground you are standing on. I've read Hitchens, Dennett, Gray, Nietzsche, Dawkins, Schopenhauer as well as Chesterton, Bentley Hart, Kierkegaard, Dostoevsky, Tolstoy, Pascal, Augustine, Solovyov in an attempt to get a rounded view, to see both sides equally and what is most apparent to me is that atheists (historical materialists, positivists, fundamental Darwinists etc.), even moreso than Christians, are never willing to challenge their assumptions outside of material fact but still end up recycling anti-theistic philosophical arguments that grew irrelevant in the mid-19th century, whilst at the same time, patronising those who oppose them - you're 'vengeful sky fairy' comment for example...or the Bill Maher film which chose not to engage with religion on any sane level.