[mikhael]

You are incorrect.

Religion does not imply morality, nor does morality imply religion. The two are seperate. Linking the two with any form of dependency is a false relationship.

You can use either one to SUPPORT the other, but neither one NEEDS the other.

[Stunaep]

Yes, but morality does imply faith. We all take morality as some kind of higher principles, none of which can really be explained by science. So morality is in and of itself a religion.

[Rictor]

Heres an analogy.

You have two paintings. One is 1m X 1m, the other is 1000m X 1000m. m is meters.

You have then hanging on a wall, side by side. The room is dark, and there are two spotlights being shone on the paintings. The spotlights are 1m X 1m. So, they illuminate the entire smaller picture, but only a portion of the larger picture. With the spotlight set up the way they are, you percieve that there are two pictures, side by side. You only see what is illuminated by the spotlight, so you think that both are 1m X 1m in size.

The part of the larger picture that is illuminated by the spotlight shows the same stuff as the whole of the smaller pciture. That is to say, it is the same subject, painted the same way etc. Only in the smaller picture, this is done more masterully. The technique is better, the colours are better and so forth. In regards to this specific part of the pciture, the smaller one is superiour to the larger one. However, because its dark, you can't see the rest of the larger pciture. So, you assume that that is all there is, and you think the smaller one is  better. But it is also more limited. Much more. In fact, the rest of the larger pciture, which is not illuminated, is beautifully drawn. Its stunning how amazig it iS. But you can't see it. You can only see the small portion, and becuase of this, you think that the smaller picture is a superior substitute for the larger picture.

The small picture is science, and large one is faith.

[Rictor]

I didn't say religion. I said faith. Religion is a subset of faith. Faith is larger than just religion, or just morality or any one of its subsets.

eg. Not all clothing is pants, but all pants are clothing.

[mikhael]

Originally posted by Stunaep
Yes, but morality does imply faith. We all take morality as some kind of higher principles, none of which can really be explained by science. So morality is in and of itself a religion.

Morality does not imply faith.

My idea of morality come from acting in my own self interests.  I don't need faith or religion to guide me. I only have to look to my own comfort and survival.

Thus, I am the single example that proves your "we all" false.

[Stunaep]

Originally posted by mikhael

Morality does not imply faith.

My idea of morality come from acting in my own self interests.  I don't need faith or religion to guide me. I only have to look to my own comfort and survival.

Thus, I am the single example that proves your "we all" false.

So, if people let you randomly go around, and viciously kill everyone you want, without any kind of punsihment, you'd do that?

Your comfort is based on the general moral that killing, mocking people etc. is bad. This is based straight on christianity at these parts of the world. It still remains faith-related.

[mikhael]

Incorrect. I don't go around randomly killing because I hold people's right to life higher than my urge to kill. It is in my best interests to hold strong to my personal, intellectually reasoned out morals.

You may base your morality on faith. That's good. Be careful about telling me upon what I base mine. Until you're in my skull, you can't really speak intelligently about how I think and feel.

[Stunaep]

Originally posted by mikhael
Incorrect. I don't go around randomly killing because I hold people's right to life higher than my urge to kill. It is in my best interests to hold strong to my personal, intellectually reasoned out morals.
 

So tell me, on what grounds do you hold a persons right to life higher than your urge to kill? Logically, you should do whatever fits your agenda best. If you could kill someone weaker, without punishment to achieve something that you would evolve through, the rules of evolution dictate that you should do it.

[mikhael]

Obviously you don't understand game theory.

Short term gains and long term gains are not intrinsically related. In other words, if I kill someone now, I cannot exploit them for resources later. Further, they may have friends who may kill me in revenge.

Logically, I must examine a reasonable number of possible alternatives for any choice and take the course that leads to the best possible result for me with least possible negative repercussions.

BTW: The 'rules of evolution' say nothing about what an individual must or should do. You might mean that 'natural selection' implys what an individual should do.THat's hardly the same thing.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Stunaep


So tell me, on what grounds do you hold a persons right to life higher than your urge to kill? Logically, you should do whatever fits your agenda best. If you could kill someone weaker, without punishment to achieve something that you would evolve through, the rules of evolution dictate that you should do it.

but not the group dynamic..... humankind evolved as a very weak creature, in physical terms.   What this meant was that we had to work in groups to compensate, which probably forms the bulk of what has become the moral code.   In stone age times, every person would be needed.  Those who were too weak, would have died rather than be killed - killing them would be a waste of time & energy in tough times.

Also,  because human children are born relatively underdeveloped, there's a requirement to look after them more - again, this would have transferred to a part of the moral code.

And over time, this moral code has become at least partially instinctual.  Certainly, the parental instinct is something that doesn't need taught.... and I reckon the majority of 'caring' morals can be traced to that.

[Rictor]

I see no other place where you can get it. There is no inherent morailty. Its is not self evident. I'm not talking organized religion here. Religion also had to get its ideals from somewhere. Humanity existed for a long time without religion. But not without faith. Morality is a matter of faith. Morals cannot be proven, cannot be deduced, cannot be expalined. They are not a creation of science. Therefore, they are a matter of faith.

Faith is part of your life to the point where you don't even realize its there. You may say its not there but thats because its so basic, its a given. You know of no other way to be.

[Stunaep]

Well then, I must just assume that you lead a very sad life.

Okay, I stand corrected. Most people base their morals on faith. Even most of those who are atheists. If it were any other way, we wouldn't have morals. Because the general morals the western society works on are based on religion.

[Stunaep]

Originally posted by aldo_14


And over time, this moral code has become at least partially instinctual.  Certainly, the parental instinct is something that doesn't need taught.... and I reckon the majority of 'caring' morals can be traced to that.

Yet by your logic, the injured, mentally ill and sick should be left for dead. Yet it is considered moral to care for them.

[aldo_14]

I'd say the majority of morals are based on the group dynamic.

 i.e. upon what is good for the group rather than the individual.

The definition of the group (tribe, religion, town, city, friends, family, etc) does change, as does the morality within that group.

Anyways, who says the morality from religion didn't originate itself from the aforementioned group dynamic?  i.e. if you're aetheistic / agnostic, and you don't believe God (or Allah, etc) handed down moral rules, then the obvious answer is that those moral rules were already known and either part of, or necessarry for, the socitey of the time.  So they were just written down.

Originally posted by Stunaep

Yet by your logic, the injured, mentally ill and sick should be left for dead. Yet it is considered moral to care for them.

That's the overriding parental / caring instinct coming in, right there.  As civillisation has advanced, the cost of caring has decreased.  And as the ability to care for these people (and cure them) has improved, so has their potential benefit to the group.

[Rictor]

I should mention that for all this talk, I behave more or less like an aethiest. I mean, I have the same quarells with religion as do aethiests and so forth. I will agree with an aethiest more often than not. But I do not believe in having no faith. No organized, codified faith, maybe, bvut not none at all.

I also object to substituting faith for science in those areas in which science does a better job. We shouln't live in the 15th century. But faith is universal  and basic in mankind and streches back to when we first developed consciousness.

Having no faith, though false it may be, is a modern claim. You have two arms, two legs, one nose and faith. These are the components of man.

[Kazan]

When does the stupidity stop

[Rictor]

Originally posted by aldo_14

i.e. if you're aetheistic / agnostic, and you don't believe God (or Allan, etc) handed down moral rules,

I believe in Allan :D Who doesn't. Allan shall be our guide and our saviour :D

[aldo_14]

Faith is one of those things in life that is very hard to quantify in real terms, I think - because everyone has a set of beliefs in some way or the other.

Originally posted by Rictor


I believe in Allan :D Who doesn't. Allan shall be our guide and our saviour :D

D'oh!

Y'know, my name is actually Alan...i wonder if that was a Freudian slip

[Rictor]

Originally posted by Kazan
When does the stupidity stop

Ok, name one human culture that have ever existed that had no faith. One. Its human, its basic. You can no more deny it than deny your opposable thumbs.

And since your such a proponent of logic, would you mind going through my posts (there are like 2, so its not difficult) and pointing out where I am in error. I promise to be civil and dispute the manner in an apporpriate fashion

[Stunaep]

well, which comes down to the point, that morality and religion and faith are related.

But, I'd rather leave the biology out of this, and stay on a philosophical level. Otherwise we could end up discussing the effects of mixing natriumhydroxide with dihydrogenphosphoracid or some such ****.