Religion

[Dahnsouff]

14 minutes ago, Benguin said:

To achieve this you would either need to admit that there is no such thing as objective morality and even though I think murdering babies evil, it is not. Or you would need to show how we can ground that murdering babies is always evil without God.

For the bit in red, objective morality is a construct and I personally dismiss it, as I feel we need no such construct, let us say morality only, yet you and others of faith are clearly free to attribute morality as of divine origin.

(To suggest we do need to answer the question 'how do you explain objective morality, is mistaken in my opinion, as this question is a self justifying construct of belief and need not relate to morality as an overall concept.)

 

Now the green, it is to the benefit of the individual to be moral, it is wise to seek acceptance within your clan, your tribe by following the rules, the traditions of the tribe.

 

In our earliest ancestors time, it would have been societally prudent to not kill (you may in turn be killed or shunned by those in your grouping), it would have been societally prudent to help others (you will in turn be eligible for assistance from others within your society) and it would also have been societally prudent to not steal (as you benefit by not being stole from in turn and be protected by those within your grouping).

 

Such traditions and rules form behaviours, societal norms over longer term adherence.

Religious texts proliferate these traditions so are biographers rather than creators.

[Benguin]

8 minutes ago, Dahnsouff said:

For the bit in red, objective morality is a construct and I personally dismiss it, as I feel we need no such construct, let us say morality only, yet you and others of faith are clearly free to attribute morality as of divine origin.

(To suggest we do need to answer the question 'how do you explain objective morality, is mistaken in my opinion, as this question is a self justifying construct of belief and need not relate to morality as an overall concept.)

 

Now the green, it is to the benefit of the individual to be moral, it is wise to seek acceptance within your clan, your tribe by following the rules, the traditions of the tribe.

 

In our earliest ancestors time, it would have been societally prudent to not kill (you may in turn be killed or shunned by those in your grouping), it would have been societally prudent to help others (you will in turn be eligible for assistance from others within your society) and it would also have been societally prudent to not steal (as you benefit by not being stole from in turn and be protected by those within your grouping).

 

Such traditions and rules form behaviours, societal norms over longer term adherence.

Religious texts proliferate these traditions so are biographers rather than creators.

So you are agreeing that if God does not exist, there is not an objective standard and therefore murdering babies, might not benefit society or yourself but ultimately is not evil? 

[Babylon]

37 minutes ago, Benguin said:

You are diverting the actual problem with moral philosophy here either intentionally or through ignorance.

What problem?

 

31 minutes ago, Benguin said:

but rather can an atheist ground objective morality without God.

 

Yes because he doesn't exist. Most social groups, be they human or not will develop an order and rules of expected behaviour. You could study a group of chimps and find it. 

 

We had developed ours before Christianity existed, just because someone write them down, doesn't mean they invented them. 

 

37 minutes ago, Benguin said:

Saying “ I don’t need religion to be moral” is an answer to an entirely different question.

It's not, saying someone is Christian because they "follow Christian values" is just wrong. 

 

 

[Dahnsouff]

Just now, Benguin said:

So you are agreeing that if God does not exist, there is not an objective standard and therefore murdering babies, might not benefit society or yourself but ultimately is not evil? 

Your question is flawed, and in no way entitles you to any hubris, as your question asks if I do not think God exists, this is true, and also it does not benefit society at large, this is also true.

However, you then ask if judging by my two answers, does it make it ultimately evil fully expecting me to draw the biological conclusion that it does not, whereas you are seasoning your argument with theological overtones where I argue there is none.

In my societal norms, the murdering of babies is evil, it is abhorrent, and this is a lesson learnt over endless generations, over continuous reinforcement of what contributes acceptable societal norms.

Do not misunderstand, I applaud religion and those who see the faith many lack, but others should not be maligned for a lack of faith, or indeed assume of them moral turpitude.

[FerrisBueller]

56 minutes ago, UpTheLeagueFox said:

That's true.

Some people still believe in socialism.

Some people still believe in the Tooth Fairy.

Some people still believe if you cross your eyes, you'll stay that way forever.

Didn’t mean to rustle your jimmies Geoff. (Ps from where I’m sat, social democrats are doing alright )

[Benguin]

4 minutes ago, Babylon said:

What problem?

 

 

Yes because he doesn't exist. Most social groups, be they human or not will develop an order and rules of expected behaviour. You could study a group of chimps and find it. 

 

We had developed ours before Christianity existed, just because someone write them down, doesn't mean they invented them. 

 

It's not, saying someone is Christian because they "follow Christian values" is just wrong. 

 

 

Is murdering babies objectively wrong? If so by what standard can we be sure it is always wrong, without an absolute standard? 

[Babylon]

4 minutes ago, Benguin said:

Is murdering babies objectively wrong? If so by what standard can we be sure it is always wrong, without an absolute standard? 

Where has murdering babies come from? 

[Benguin]

3 minutes ago, Dahnsouff said:

Your question is flawed, and in no way entitles you to any hubris, as your question asks if I do not think God exists, this is true, and also it does not benefit society at large, this is also true.

However, you then ask if judging by my two answers, does it make it ultimately evil fully expecting me to draw the biological conclusion that it does not, whereas you are seasoning your argument with theological overtones where I argue there is none.

In my societal norms, the murdering of babies is evil, it is abhorrent, and this is a lesson learnt over endless generations, over continuous reinforcement of what contributes acceptable societal norms.

Do not misunderstand, I applaud religion and those who see the faith many lack, but others should not be maligned for a lack of faith, or indeed assume of them moral turpitude.

You’re using sophistry to answer the question with an answer to another question. The moral argument does not imply and has never implied that withou god you can’t be moral but rather without god you can’t justify why you are moral. 
 

you have gone as far as to explain why a form of morality can exist without God but have failed to explain how something can be universally wrong. If you don’t think think something can be universally wrong then you can’t possibly say that murdering babies is always wrong. I respect that you are not saying that but it’s not because the question is flawed but rather that it means you have to admit something that doesn’t align with your worldview. 
 

If there is no absolute standard, then there is no absolute. This is not a wordplay, just basic logic. 

[Dahnsouff]

1 minute ago, Babylon said:

Where has murdering babies come from? 

Herod?

[Benguin]

2 minutes ago, Babylon said:

Where has murdering babies come from? 

I’m asking you if you think it’s always wrong and then if you do to explain why without God?

[whitlock]

Do you believe that there are other Gods, for the other religions out there, or there is only one God - your one?

[Babylon]

20 minutes ago, Benguin said:

So you are agreeing that if God does not exist, there is not an objective standard and therefore murdering babies, might not benefit society or yourself but ultimately is not evil? 

If you take religion off the table and pretend it does not exist, and pretend we live in world of old not connected by technology or travel.  What's morally repugnant will change between different groups around the world. 

 

Left to their own devices, you would find that most construct a very similar basis for what's acceptable within the group, because they learn they are better as a group and learn to live that way. You might find that there are peaks of weirdness, because you are back in the days of tribe leaders and a tribe not connected to anyone else, meaning it just takes one nutter to exert their will on their tribe, through fear etc and bingo, it's fine to eat babies. See many Christians in Germany seeing nothing wrong with slaughtering a load of people at the whim of Hitler. 

 

 

[UpTheLeagueFox]

4 minutes ago, Babylon said:

many Christians in Germany seeing nothing wrong with slaughtering a load of people at the whim of Hitler. 

[Dahnsouff]

1 minute ago, Benguin said:

You’re using sophistry to answer the question with an answer to another question. The moral argument does not imply and has never implied that withou god you can’t be moral but rather without god you can’t justify why you are moral. 
 

you have gone as far as to explain why a form of morality can exist without God but have failed to explain how something can be universally wrong. If you don’t think think something can be universally wrong then you can’t possibly say that murdering babies is always wrong. I respect that you are not saying that but it’s not because the question is flawed but rather that it means you have to admit something that doesn’t align with your worldview. 
 

If there is no absolute standard, then there is no absolute. This is not a wordplay, just basic logic. 

I would suggest the sophistry is yours! I am afraid the question  is flawed as it is made only in the language of people of faith

The use of the term universally in lieu of the term objectively is naught but trickery! There needs to be no global, objective nor universal gold standard of moral behaviour, as requirement of a moral standard are inevitable in any society (And will likely vary in different societies), and failure to adhere to the standards expected of member of the society would result in ostracisation or worse.

 

[ealingfox]

So to sum up, Babylon murders babies.

[Benguin]

7 minutes ago, Babylon said:

If you take religion off the table and pretend it does not exist, and pretend we live in world of old not connected by technology or travel.  What's morally repugnant will change between different groups around the world. 

 

Left to their own devices, you would find that most construct a very similar basis for what's acceptable within the group, because they learn they are better as a group and learn to live that way. You might find that there are peaks of weirdness, because you are back in the days of tribe leaders and a tribe not connected to anyone else, meaning it just takes one nutter to exert their will on their tribe, through fear etc and bingo, it's fine to eat babies. See many Christians in Germany seeing nothing wrong with slaughtering a load of people at the whim of Hitler. 

 

 

Recommend you watch this. Particularly the points about the Holocaust 

 

 

 

[Benguin]

6 minutes ago, Dahnsouff said:

I would suggest the sophistry is yours! I am afraid the question  is flawed as it is made only in the language of people of faith

The use of the term universally in lieu of the term objectively is naught but trickery! There needs to be no global, objective nor universal gold standard of moral behaviour, as requirement of a moral standard are inevitable in any society (And will likely vary in different societies), and failure to adhere to the standards expected of member of the society would result in ostracisation or worse.

 

So people don’t murder babies because it’s evil but because they fear ostracisation or worse? 

[Babylon]

4 minutes ago, ealingfox said:

So to sum up, Babylon murders babies.

Can think of a few I would would have. 

[foxile5]

10 minutes ago, UpTheLeagueFox said:

I think that the events of that particular time don't necessarily reflect on religion, per se, but are representative of people's acutal investment in religion.

 

Near to none when the chips are down.

[Buce]

6 minutes ago, ealingfox said:

So to sum up, Babylon murders babies.

 

Dunno, but it hasn't taken him long to invoke Godwin's Law...

[Dahnsouff]

Just now, Benguin said:

So people don’t murder babies because it’s evil but because they fear ostracisation or worse? 

Exactly!

[Babylon]

22 minutes ago, Benguin said:

You’re using sophistry to answer the question with an answer to another question. The moral argument does not imply and has never implied that withou god you can’t be moral but rather without god you can’t justify why you are moral. 
 

you have gone as far as to explain why a form of morality can exist without God but have failed to explain how something can be universally wrong. If you don’t think think something can be universally wrong then you can’t possibly say that murdering babies is always wrong. I respect that you are not saying that but it’s not because the question is flawed but rather that it means you have to admit something that doesn’t align with your worldview. 
 

If there is no absolute standard, then there is no absolute. This is not a wordplay, just basic logic. 

It wasn't that long ago (in universe terms anyway) that certain religions made human and other sacrifices to their gods, not everything has always been universally wrong and many things certainly still are not universally wrong. People and their beliefs evolve as they learn, as they connect with others, as the nutters die who thought it was a good idea to kill their own people. 

 

Now, did Christianity speed up that process. I'm sure it did, someone packaged up already held beliefs, took them around the world and scared the shit out of people into following them. 

[Benguin]

5 minutes ago, Dahnsouff said:

Exactly!

Ah okay, so the ones that do murder babies aren’t evil, they’re just happy to embrace the consequences? 

[Benguin]

6 minutes ago, Babylon said:

It wasn't that long ago (in universe terms anyway) that certain religions made human and other sacrifices to their gods, not everything has always been universally wrong and many things certainly still are not universally wrong. People and their beliefs evolve as they learn, as they connect with others, as the nutters die who thought it was a good idea to kill their own people. 

 

Now, did Christianity speed up that process. I'm sure it did, someone packaged up already held beliefs, took them around the world and scared the shit out of people into following them. 

Are you saying some things are universally wrong now? 

[Dahnsouff]

1 minute ago, Benguin said:

Ah okay, so the ones that do murder babies aren’t evil, they’re just happy to embrace the consequences? 

I would prefer to describe it as those that do not murder babies do so because of two reasons

1. It does not benefit them or their family
2. It would result in the consequences we have discussed

It is the same as you said, but in a less sensationalist way