Religion vs Atheism Book 2

[Castel]

The burden of wading into the muck of value judgements should extend to the believers who use the crux positions that gods and devils make people behave in certain ways. There are values being upheld when we take personal responsibility for actions. Prisons are full of people who believe they are attoned through a mythical figure. A typical atheist probably thinks that forgiveness needs to be earned from his victim. I dont always get that sense from the born again types.

I'm...not sure what you mean here. 

And I wasn't really getting into an issue of particular religious groups, but people who believe in some greater,objective truth or not. It's a much larger tent.

 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Castel,

I believe DWS is arguing for the moral superiority of Atheists.

[DireWolfSpirit]

Scott I dont know as though I'd label it as superior morality because right out of the gate people will take umbrage without considering the message. But I do feel we are likely to find more honest and higher moral ideas by concentrating on personal motivations/actions and casting the concepts of Godheads or higher powers completely out of the equation. From this perspective there is no hidden force or power that controls the waves or influences one to do evil. Forgiveness from a hidden hand is nonsense and instead something to be earned through merit. Attonement from a third party (gods) doesn't seem just, it isn't even someones elses ((outside the victims) to give. So yes, I do see some problems with some of the theist based morality, particularly those that include any sort of outside power( or God/Godhead).

[Mladen]

Scott I dont know as though I'd label it as superior morality because right out of the gate people will take umbrage without considering the message. But I do feel we are likely to find more honest and higher moral ideas by concentrating on personal motivations/actions and casting the concepts of Godheads or higher powers completely out of the equation. From this perspective there is no hidden force or power that controls the waves or influences one to do evil. Forgiveness from a hidden hand is nonsense and instead something to be earned through merit. Attonement from a third party (gods) doesn't seem just, it isn't even someones elses ((outside the victims) to give. So yes, I do see some problems with some of the theist based morality, particularly those that include any sort of outside power( or God/Godhead).

It seems to me that you believe that religious people are void of free will, something that is, at least according to the canon of my religion completely false. I think that there is something inherently narrow-minded in the perspective where we see people with beliefs as some sort of lunatics waiting for someone to whisper to their ear what they should do. Yeah, there are many people who are claiming that God spoken to them and that they should commit God knows what atrocity. Even as a religious person, I have my free will to choose what is right and what is wrong. And that is what define me. My choice. As a religious person.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

DWS,

So, in other words you think Atheists, who are nice, are morally superior to Theists who are nice.  An incredible simplistic and overbroad position, but it seems to be yours.

[Gears of the Beast]

But you're not just arguing about what's true or not (not that this debate has been settled) you're arguing about why people would or should feel a certain way. Specifically; why they shouldn't feel that love or morality are devalued by certain philosophical positions.

You cannot just stand from up above it and snipe the problem away by appealing to "reality" (again,whatever that is) , you have to wade into the muck of value judgments, since you are making one yourself. 

 

Well yeah but it's a little bit of both because I'm dealing with the value judgement (which I explicitly said was wasn't able to say is wrong) and also the conclusion that therefore materialism is not sufficient and these experiences must be tied to some supernatural force. I haven't said they should not feel a certain way (as far as I'm aware) what I said was I can't empathise with people who feel that way and more importantly it's not a necessary reaction to the the idea that everything we experience can be tied to various mechanisms in the brain. What I originally said was "You'll notice that given the available facts it's only people who crave for an explanation beyond the physical that interpret them in such bleak, insipid terms", which is essentially my point.

[Altherion]

Scott I dont know as though I'd label it as superior morality because right out of the gate people will take umbrage without considering the message. But I do feel we are likely to find more honest and higher moral ideas by concentrating on personal motivations/actions and casting the concepts of Godheads or higher powers completely out of the equation. From this perspective there is no hidden force or power that controls the waves or influences one to do evil. Forgiveness from a hidden hand is nonsense and instead something to be earned through merit. Attonement from a third party (gods) doesn't seem just, it isn't even someones elses ((outside the victims) to give. So yes, I do see some problems with some of the theist based morality, particularly those that include any sort of outside power( or God/Godhead).

There is a hidden force no matter what; neuroscience has done a reasonable job of describing it. Furthermore, I'm kind of puzzled by your decision to appropriate religious terms in an atheist morality. I mean, yes, you can sort of do that by giving the role of God to everyone you feel you have wronged, but why? What is the point of continuing on with what Nietzsche calls the slave morality in the absence of God?

[sologdin]

DWS--

i'd resist placing atonement for wrongful acts in the hands of the victims of the acts aforesaid.  our criminal law excludes the victim as a party to the litigation for a good reason.

[DireWolfSpirit]

 Always with the crafty attempts at assigning language, relax your not in court. I went out of my way to disavow this phraseology of grading morals like it's a pumpkin contest - poor, fair, good, superior, etc.

I like the honesty to oneself that is required to be atheist or agnostic in a society that is heavily religious like the one I grew up in. Honesty is pretty important when considering morals so I do think it's most conducive for finding the highest ideas for ethics, morals and trust type situations. That said, I don't go around thinking one is superior or inferior based on groupings. Gandhi seemed pretty impressive and had a clear belief in God. His position being, it mattered not whether the lesson was from Vedas, Torah or the NT, as long as it was good that was being taught.

My only question is over the honesty(lack) to oneself that is required to hold onto religious indoctrination and whether it shouldn't be more of a trust concern? Especially when we see so many that consider their faith their bedrock, it's a concern.

[DireWolfSpirit]

I made my last post before  I saw Altherion or Sologdin posts so that response was from previous posters.

[DireWolfSpirit]

DWS--

i'd resist placing atonement for wrongful acts in the hands of the victims of the acts aforesaid.  our criminal law excludes the victim as a party to the litigation for a good reason.

My concern is with the kind of self absolution you see when one claims "God forgives me." Alrighty then, but that wasn't Gods car they stole, they owe the restitution to the victim. Plus something that doesn't exist can't really forgive so it's a construct the perpetrator uses to forgive him or herself. If they want to engage in that self healing ( through delusion) fine, but healing the victim (if even possible) should be the priority for all involved.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

DWS,

I like the honesty to oneself that is required to be atheist or agnostic in a society that is heavily religious like the one I grew up in. Honesty is pretty important when considering morals so I do think it's most conducive for finding the highest ideas for ethics, morals and trust type situations. That said, I don't go around thinking one is superior or inferior based on groupings. Gandhi seemed pretty impressive and had a clear belief in God. His position being, it mattered not whether the lesson was from Vedas, Torah or the NT, as long as it was good that was being taught.

My only question is over the honesty(lack) to oneself that is required to hold onto religious indoctrination and whether it shouldn't be more of a trust concern? Especially when we see so many that consider their faith their bedrock, it's a concern.

So, Atheists aren't "morally superior" they're simple more honest than those of use who, like I do, believe God or Gods exist?

[DireWolfSpirit]

I think there's more self honesty going on with folks that reject a society's dominant indoctrination. If you were born in Riyadh Scott do you think you would be a Sunni Muslim? But even so, there's a difference between self honesty and honesty i'm told, so being a believer wouldn't preclude one from being honest at cards, so far as I'm aware.

[Stubby]

DWS are you talking more about intellectual honesty?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

DWS,

I'm an Orthodox Christian amongst a sea of Protestant Christians who are all very perplexed about "what kind of Catholic" I am.  When I was Roman Catholic I'll never forget being floored when the father if a friend of mine told me, "You do realize that Catholics aren't actually Christian, right?".

My point is that if I had been born in Riyadh to Muslim Parents I have no idea what my faith would be today as my life would be completely different.  Honestly, before I converted to Orthodoxy the faith I was really drawn to was zen Buddism.

[sologdin]

the catholics-aren't-christian thing is one of the standard  supergross tics of the protestant splitter fundy, isn't it? it's only beaten by the what-kinda-catholic-is-orthodox stuff; the orthodox church is probably the pons asinorum of religion 101 in the US. you should tell them that you fell initially on the wrong side of the apostasy of 1054, but have corrected that mistake, and don't they by contrast hate being followers of a heresiarch within a schism?

[DireWolfSpirit]

In other news-

Its Hanukkah! http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hanukkah-2015_5660a76ce4b079b2818dc921

 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

DWS,

Happy Hanukkah!

[DireWolfSpirit]

DWS are you talking more about intellectual honesty?

Well probably, in so much as I could understand the term. But I dont know as though it's something I would bring up without being pressed. This is where I think I understand the critique of New Atheists, theres a huge cringe factor involved with some of this Dawkins style brow beating that I don't really seek out.

 

[sologdin]

new atheists are slackers, insufficiently hardcore.  I need real atheists, people like marx, freud, nietzsche, in whose books gods are actually slain and consigned to perdition.