[Suska]

Stud, why do you think you need an opinion? That's what really gets me. You can't come along and learn something, I bet you're one of those guys when asked anything about anything you go like "SURE!" I KNOWS HOW TA DO THAT!" and wind up with a catfish half way up your arm running around in a panic. It's pretty obvious you don't know the history and don't acknowledge the contemporary language-culture divides.

I'm gonna make some rules, that's how often we've been over this:

1. English is several languages that share a lot of vocabulary, each language belongs to a distinct culture.

2. You don't know that culture until you know that culture personally, just because the word is familiar doesn't mean anything.

3. You don't know what the words of that culture mean even if you do know that culture personally, until you know the history, the etymology and the theory (in the case of traditionalists, the theology).

Marriage =/= Civil union
Morality =/= Ethics
Religion =/= the Catholic Church
Religious Rite =/= Political Right
God =/= anything open to casual conversation let alone hostile debate

There's so much more to it, all I can say is that too many people on this forum assume WAY TO MUCH.

[Godstud]

There's so much more to it, all I can say is that too many people on this forum assume WAY TO MUCH.

The same applies to you. You like to rant about other people's opinions(yours, incidentally), but blather on with your own uninformed, biased ones, while doing personal attacks on people who don't agree with you.

I know full well what those words mean, and your "assumption"(you do a lot of that) that I don't, is just more of your personal attacks, because you are incapable of attacking the argument.

[Suska]

You like to rant about other people's opinions(yours, incidentally), but blather on with your own uninformed, biased ones, while doing personal attacks on people who don't agree with you.

Ya? Well, your momma dresses you funny. The thing is Stud, read a book.

[Godstud]

You do yourself a disservice, when you post personal attacks, Suska.

[Suska]

You think this is irrelevant, it's my duty to intercept ignorance, you think it's ok, I don't think it's ok that you have constant opinions which you don't feel a need to educate yourself about. And here I am giving you my best info and you're just acting like a child, like this isn't a discussion, we're just here to pat you on the head and make sure you're feeling ok while you barf up stereotypes. Man up stud, critical thinking.

[Godstud]

You disagree with my opinion, so I am wrong, Suska. You are not actually arguing against me, but making personal attacks because you cannot debate the issue. I am neither ignorant, nor uneducated. You haven't a clue what critical thinking is if you can't even debate in a civil manner.

I have opinions. Get used to it. Everyone has opinions.Just because my opinions don't match up with yours, doesn't make them any less valid.

If your duty is to intercept ignorance, then you should start by editing your own posts, in particular when you start name-calling, making assumptions, and insinuations about people that you know fuck-all about.

[Suska]

Don't cry, just get a better defense than 'that's your opinion'

[Godstud]

You sure claim to know a great deal about philosophy while, at the same time, not actually demonstrating knowledge on the topic of argumentation, an important component in philosophy. Why not tell me why my arguments are invalid, instead of continuing on the personal assault that only shows your own lack of knowledge on topic at hand?

just get a better defense than 'that's your opinion'

You're telling me opinion isn't a factor, but we're something discussing something where opinion(based on our own morality), is of utmost import. You have not actually addressed my arguments, but skirted them and then proceeded onto insults, to which I will not respond in kind.

Secular morality:
[youtube]vGZbLz4nNP4[/youtube]

[Suska]

Dawkins is an idiot, you just love it when people act all smort when they give you your opinion.

[Godstud]

Richard Dawkins is not an idiot. That he's an atheist, probably just sticks in your craw. His, and my arguments, are valid. Try attacking the argument instead of the people.

[Rei Murasame]

Dawkins isn't an idiot, it's just that he's concealing the source of his morality there, and is appealing to 'the majority'. He starts with a list of things that he says modern society has accepted, but he isn't able to say what underlying thought he's used to make them acceptable to himself and others.

His argument can make sense if he accepts that his moral assumptions must come from some kind of 'ism'. Perhaps, the neodarwinian synthesis, and dialectical materialism.

But he refuses to do that, because he wants to present himself as being 'just an atheist', beyond ideology. Which is ridiculous. He's a great person, but asking him to talk about ideology and morality is like a facepalm-o-rama.

[Suska]

His answers are dumb. We continue the Catholic scholastic tradition educating about reason, and we continue the Protestant tradition emphasizing the individuality of religion over the conventional. The values he speaks highly of are all as difficult to rationalize as any found in scripture, they just happen to all be an extension of values cultivated in tradition and extended into modern political idealism.

[govbot]

Nice. Now answer my question. What is a "false sense of mysticism". It would appear that you don't understand what the word "mysticism" means.

Not quite what I meant, but when I look back at it, the choice of words works. From what I could find, mysticism seems to have a definition for one side of the argument and a definition for the other. One might say it is a word to describe perfect god connection, or one might say it is a word to describe any type of irrationality as related to god. I don't know who would most closely experience perfect god connection: the best religious man or the best scientific man. I don't know that the experience would be different.

Too many people in all religions resort to it, instead of consulting a well thought, reasonable foundation for making moral choices.

What "it" this that?

I was just trying to describe what I meant by describing around it. 'It' referring to the words I chose - 'false sense of mysticism' - that you asked about.

Tell me why it is better to decide not to kill your neighbor because you want to maintain the interdependent social construct of a homogenous community than it is because you believe God doesn't want you to.

No, it just so happens that the society benefits when individuals make moral choices. The choice may require a leap of faith for some, and others may really have the logic nailed down. But there's a right choice, and a wrong one. It's not like it's arbitrary. Killing results in worse conditions for all.

And you are confusing mysticism with organized religion.

You rightly assumed I was responding directly to the question of the thread, but I was really just making a statement I thought was relevant.

Morality doesn't require the leap of faith.

Morality is all about faith. Faith in the notion that your idea of wrong and right is the best one to follow. There is no moral absolute. Not in religion or outside of it.

We constantly make choices on incomplete information. But the conclusion of your argument is that we'd just as well as a society teach our children to kill each other, and no one can say that's wrong.

If we look at an individual decision, it may be far too complex to ever know if it was the best choice. But we can narrow down based on the obvious extremities. 'Ethics' is perhaps more accurate.

You would be well to practice some observation. Observe the officially atheist countries of our time...their laws based upon logic and the supposed social welfare. That would be the Soviet Union and The People's Republic of China.

The policies were backed by faulty logic. That says nothing about logic, or using it as the basis for policy.

But anyway. Can morals exist without religion? Yes. In my objective opinion.

[jessupjonesjnr87]

Dawkins is is a real idiot. No matter what question is put before him he will twist it and just start banging on as if all religion is like hard-line Islam. Really, he answered that question like he was just making it up as he went along. Dawkins doesn't like to answer hard questions. All he wants is to sit in front of a load of morons spouting he's pre-written burnt out anti Catholic and Muslim nonsense while the idiot's in the audience howl and clap irrespective of what he says.

Religion has existed as long as civilisation has and longer. You can't simply presume morales would exist without religion when every culture on this planet has been greatly influenced by it for thousands of years. If religion had never existed or died out thousands of years ago life on this planet would be nothing like it is today. Could a society exist even thrive without morales. Would they be replaced with a sense of practicality and clear judgement, where laws existed not for justice but to keep order.

[Pants-of-dog]

Morals can exist without religion. Atheists are just as moral as the next person.

Religion is a useful and traditional tool for instilling morals, but it is not necessary.

We have had morality since we first started using tools, long before our minds were capable of the higher thought that modern religion requires.

[Suska]

"Ethics so far as it springs from the desire to say something about the ultimate meaning of life, the absolute good, the absolute valuable, can be no science."

Wittgenstein, Lecture on Ethics

While it may be fair to say ethics is a subject of the humanities, it would be unfair in the extreme to say that ethics has nothing to do with religion - as if the mother who raised the child was not the mother anymore because the child had changed their name. The fact is that ethics cannot be a science. I would go further and suggest that psychology suffers the same sort of problem in defining things that are invented by being defined. It amounts to artful depiction of experiences, no theory or system of such things exists, if such a thing can exist.

You simply cannot remove yourself from the equation and know anything about values.

[jessupjonesjnr87]

Yes atheists can have morales but they are also greatly affected by religion. Just because an atheist doesn't believe in god doesn't also mean they aren't influenced by the religion that surrounds them, most nations cultures have been moulded by their religions.

Mankind's belief in a higher power goes far beyond their belief in modern organised religion, it may even pre-date our use of tools.

[Rich]

[youtube]vGZbLz4nNP4[/youtube]

Dawkins starts off reasonably well but rapidly degenerates. He mentions kindness to animals. Nothing illustrates better the hypocrisy of western morality than attitude to animals. Animals are farmed for the benefit of western humans in astronomical numbers in conditions that clearly cause vast suffering, but people love their feel good animal cruelty laws. The whole matter is government by sentimentally, glossing over ruthless self interest. He then degenerates further into the most puerile idealistic fantasy. What has caused the astounding change in the status of women in the last three hundred and fifty years? It is quite clearly the change in the modes of production, the revolutionary changes to our economy that have driven this change, not that suddenly some people started wining some "rationale arguments."

[Drlee]

Drlee wrote:
You would be well to practice some observation. Observe the officially atheist countries of our time...their laws based upon logic and the supposed social welfare. That would be the Soviet Union and The People's Republic of China.

govbot replied: The policies were backed by faulty logic. That says nothing about logic, or using it as the basis for policy.

On the contrary. It says a great deal. Please tell me why you think their logic was faulty and upon which authority you arrived at that. If you are not relying on an authority other than your own conjecture then please tell me how you know that your conjecture is "truth".

govbot: No, it just so happens that the society benefits when individuals make moral choices. The choice may require a leap of faith for some, and others may really have the logic nailed down. But there's a right choice, and a wrong one. It's not like it's arbitrary. Killing results in worse conditions for all.

My bold. Govbot. How long do you think it would take for me to find any number of examples where killing has resulted in better conditions for all? Need I bother?

As to your assertion:

But there's a right choice, and a wrong one. It's not like it's arbitrary.

Quite often it is exactly that. Maybe more often than not. Further, there is considerable debate about what is the "right choice and the wrong one". Two terribly easy examples....The death penalty and abortion. Tell me what your logic tells you on both of these subjects and why you are convinced that you have arrived at universal truth. And having arrived at that universal truth through logic please tell me how it is that other atheists might disagree with your logic.

[work-in-progress]

Yes atheists can have morales but they are also greatly affected by religion. Just because an atheist doesn't believe in god doesn't also mean they aren't influenced by the religion that surrounds them, most nations cultures have been moulded by their religions.

Mankind's belief in a higher power goes far beyond their belief in modern organised religion, it may even pre-date our use of tools.

I still don't see much attempt made to separate the issues: "does God exist" from "is religion harmful or beneficial for individuals and societies?" Because the celebrity atheists, like Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens etc. try to argue that incorrect or unlikely beliefs are necessarily harmful, while providing no real evidence to prove the point.

I believe that all supernatural beliefs are created from errors in how we intuitively understand the world and even our own personal sense of self. A quick example would be what psychologist - Bruce Hood calls "Supersense" - where we attribute some sort of personal essences (both good and bad) being passed on by people we admire or loathe. We might try to discount the effect, but what sense does celebrity memorabilia that can be worth thousands or even millions of dollars make unless collectors and prospective buyers believe that having John Lennon's guitar or Michael Jackson's white glove has been graced with some sort of magical essence from whoever the celebrity icon is? Otherwise it's just a glove, and just a guitar! Or how else do we explain all of the elaborate ritual purity laws and rules that have come about through religions? Why do we even go to such degrees to bury the dead? Or why visit a grave site filled with decaying bones six feet under ground unless there is an unconscious sense that it is a way to maintain contact with a lost loved one?

So, I'm not really a believer in gods or anything supernatural, but neither am I a believer in the new religion of scientism...where according to some of Dawkins's old essays, all traces of supernaturalism will be banished by science and belief in scientific facts as we enter a glorious new age of enlightenment. That's got to be the most absurd religion of them all!