Reply to: what happened to free speech

[shaunbhoy]

there is a small, but growing, cognitive elite

Which you would simply love to feel you were a part of, you pompous dork. Sadly however, that is not the case.
Hard luck Mr Thicky!!

HTH

[SupremeSpod]

In the big scheme of things, humans are young and under-developed, latecomers to the universe; only in the last 400-500 years have a small proportion of them started to understand their environment.
It is not a surprise then that the vast majority are mired in ignorance and superstition, their understanding of cause and effect poor in the extreme.
Thankfully there is a small, but growing, cognitive elite: atheists, ready to slowly lead the rest of you from your infantilism* and fairy tale beliefs.

Changed childishness to infantalism, it's more accurate.

What you fail to mention is that our presence is probably transitory anyway.

Yet another species to become extinct in the fullness of time.

[Gibbon]

For instance why would an atheist want to believe they were "a good person"?

Because "the good life is at once a life of contentment and one of moral virtue and the two are inescapably intertwined"

Paraphrased from Marcus Tullus Cicero aprox 48 BCE.

His 'The Good Life' is probably the most influential book that I have read. It goes into the reasons why it is to a persons advantage to behave in a moral way without any religious doctrine. It also influeneced a lot of the early church fathers and interestingly looks into the transmigration of the soul.

[NorthWestPerm2Contr]

WHS

I was born in a Muslim province of an African country where people have suffered and still suffer at the hands of Islamic extremism, usually funded by Wahabis from Saudi Arabia or by drugs money, and I know quite a lot of muslims there who are sick to the back teeth of the violence, live quite peacefully with their christian neighbours, but are quite simply too scared to speak out for fear of their own lives. Of all the victims of Islamic extremism, I'd dare to bet that most are actually moderate muslims who are seen by the extremists as 'not sticking to the true faith' and they have had enough of it, but they can't do anything about it. That's why it's good that programmes like this have been made; it gives people a chance to debate, but unfortunately there are safety considerations, and if the safety issues are not considered there'll never be a debate.

As an aside, while some think that muslims are planning to take over Europe, why are there no Islamic party MPs in nearly all European countries? OK, Britain has a different electoral system to many other countries, but the paranoid BS of the islamophobes had any substance at all, there'd be about 10 seats in the Dutch parliament held by a muslim party, annd several seats in Germany, France, Italy and Spain; it's actually 0, zero, zilch, nada, and I'll tell you why; the vast majority of muslims vote for secular parties like the liberal or the social democratic parties, parties who are very cricital of religion. A few more vote for Christian Democrat parties, who aren't exactly religious zealots either. That's because most muslims know only too well the dangers of religious power and extremism and they don't want to encourage it. Pretty much like most Christians and most atheists, actually.



Oops, I'm making that stupid mistake again of thinking that facts actually matter.

Smashing posts from Mich and NF. The violent "Islam" you are seeing these days is funded by $Billions of petro-dollars. They are the Man City of the religious world and their influence/poison is spreading. Bear in mind the violence eminates from a portion of a portion of the followers. You could split the followers along 3 lines - sunni, suffi, shia. Have you ever heard of a Suffi/Shia suicide bomber (please provide a single example). Then within the sunnis there are several factions - the violent faction is just one of them an they are a faction of that faction. The problem is that faction has literally Billions of dollars of oil money behind it....

Also to add that the extremism originates from a "Key Ally" of the US and UK......

[doodab]

For instance why would an atheist want to believe they were "a good person"?

Because although ideas of what exactly constitute right and wrong vary among individuals the concepts themselves are more or less universal. The human brain is hard wired with "moral sense" in order to feel guilt and shame and conform to social norms because it confers an evolutionary advantage.

[doodab]

I would also assert that an atheist cannot possibly defend the idea of moral absolutism.

It seems to me that most "moral codes" are expressions of taboos that have evolved because they benefit the social group of which an individual is a member. Many things that are considered wrong when done to your neighbor are considered honorable when done to your and your neighbors shared enemy. Simple "absolute" rules break down as social interaction becomes more complex and widespread and we're forced to deal with greay areas.

I'd hold that an absolute moral code, were it to exist, ought to take the form of universal rules that give consistent (in the sense of being non-contradictory, not always the same) answers in all frames of reference. So sometimes thieving or killing would be wrong, sometimes not, but the underlying principle that made it right or wrong would always be the same.

In practice I suspect this might mean choosing "the lesser of two evils", in which case some sort of concept of " total utility" seems like a perfectly reasonable place to start.

Personally I think such a "rational morality" ought to be a goal of philosophy.

[d000hg]

Of course there are questions but there are just as many with religious ideas of morality which, in practice, are flexible and easily bent to suit the rulers of the time or the public mood. Christianity is supposed to be loving thy neighbour, turning the other cheek etc but how many "just wars" has it embarked upon, how many Muslim or Jewish women and children did the Crusaders massacre? How many witches or heretics has it tortured and burnt?

People are still people... in the context of Christianity it is more apt to look at the things Jesus did - since he was/is the perfect example - than the things done in his name

There's a wonderful passage in A Christmas Carol about this:

"There are some upon this earth of yours," returned the Spirit, "who lay claim to know us, and who do their deeds of passion, pride, ill-will, hatred, envy, bigotry, and selfishness in our name, who are as strange to us and all our kith and kin, as if they had never lived. Remember that, and charge their doings on themselves, not us."

[d000hg]

Who cares about morality? An ordered society is about serving our needs in a practical way. We may not know why but it is in our nature to seek certain things like happiness, emotional comfort and mental stimulation and to avoid others like, pain, loneliness and boredom. Man is a social animal and to maximise our experience of life we cooperate with our fellows. We don't need the ten commandments to tell us that stealing or violence is wrong, nature tells us that by making us unhappy when we experience them.

Now there is the main reason I have no truck with superstition, this stupid assertion that only religion can give morality.

You two don't seem to be in agreement. Of course we can create some kind of rules and term it morality. But it's not morality because morality is about terming things as right or wrong and those concepts are surely meaningless when we're just talking about trying to make a framework to minimise misery.

For instance why would an atheist want to believe they were "a good person"?

[d000hg]

Whether one is an athiest or not, religious teachings can be a good thing.

But only if you carefully pick out the parts which agree with the position you want to preach in the first place. You could equally well pick bits out of Harry Potter or Speaker for the Dead or Star Wars

[escapeUK]

We don't need the ten commandments to tell us that stealing or violence is wrong, nature tells us that by making us unhappy when we experience them.!

But being the one doing them leads to much happiness, doesnt it?

[Gibbon]

TBH I find the whole idea of morality without a higher power to be as daft as you consider a religious group telling the world they know what 'the truth' is.

Now there is the main reason I have no truck with superstition, this stupid assertion that only religion can give morality.

[xoggoth]

are they really wrong? etc

I would say the normal majority would be the decider on that one. Actually, I would cross out "wrong" which suggests morality, and put "not in the public interest". Whatever serves and satisfies the greater number of people. I don't think that leads to the less able being seen as disposable, we are social animals and have empathy and sympathy with those we can relate to and feel are deserving.

Of course there are questions but there are just as many with religious ideas of morality which, in practice, are flexible and easily bent to suit the rulers of the time or the public mood. Christianity is supposed to be loving thy neighbour, turning the other cheek etc but how many "just wars" has it embarked upon, how many Muslim or Jewish women and children did the Crusaders massacre? How many witches or heretics has it tortured and burnt?

[hyperD]

are they really wrong?
Or just wrong in certain circumstances but perfectly justified in others?
where do you draw the line, what extenuating circumstances would you consider?
Some people feel happy committing violence... does that make it not wrong in those cases?

That's a good point, at what stage does it become morally wrong to steal food from others, for instance when one seizes an easy opportunity on the welfare of others, or when one is desperate for food for one's starving child?

I have a family member that I guess I'll call a militant fundamentalist christian that is certainly no advert for the cause, but unlike d000gh who has gracefully and reasonably argued his faith, he simply believes in absolutes.

I've a good mind to print this thread out and make him read it.

Great discussion folks.

[Spacecadet]

Who cares about morality? An ordered society is about serving our needs in a practical way. We may not know why but it is in our nature to seek certain things like happiness, emotional comfort and mental stimulation and to avoid others like, pain, loneliness and boredom. Man is a social animal and to maximise our experience of life we cooperate with our fellows. We don't need the ten commandments to tell us that stealing or violence is wrong, nature tells us that by making us unhappy when we experience them.



You're quite right on that one. No atheist would ever be daft enough to believe in moral absolutism!

are they really wrong?
Or just wrong in certain circumstances but perfectly justified in others?
where do you draw the line, what extenuating circumstances would you consider?
Some people feel happy committing violence... does that make it not wrong in those cases?

[xoggoth]

TBH I find the whole idea of morality without a higher power to be as daft as you consider a religious group telling the world they know what 'the truth' is

Who cares about morality? An ordered society is about serving our needs in a practical way. We may not know why but it is in our nature to seek certain things like happiness, emotional comfort and mental stimulation and to avoid others like, pain, loneliness and boredom. Man is a social animal and to maximise our experience of life we cooperate with our fellows. We don't need the ten commandments to tell us that stealing or violence is wrong, nature tells us that by making us unhappy when we experience them.

I would also assert that an atheist cannot possibly defend the idea of moral absolutism

You're quite right on that one. No atheist would ever be daft enough to believe in moral absolutism!