[Stunaep]

Originally posted by TrashMan

Stu, you say you see a world without God as Utopia...Well, I'd hate to live in your Utopia...

When I said Utopia, I meant utopia as in 'something that could possibly be not achieved'

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Flipside
Actually, I've always considered spiritualism just a Politically Correct way of saying you believe in the Force

Bah.  Hocus-pocus old religions are no match for a good blaster at your side.

[Stunaep]

Originally posted by mikhael

Um, Stu, I was talking about religion not being a prerequisite for morals. I was not arguing against religion. I'm really fond of religion.

Erm, sorry 'bout that. I guess it was someone else who mentioned wanting to live in a completely atheist world.

You might be looking for the word 'dystopia', not 'utopia'. 'Utopia' is a good thing.

You may well be right on that. Hey, I'm not native english.

You talk about higher principles and that there are none without religion-based morals. This is ridiculous. I can name two "higher" principles without ever mentioning religion: the betterment of mankind and the pursuit of a deeper understanding of the universe. There is no need to appeal to religion to find the value and beauty of Man's works upon this world (nor to find the horrrors and ugliness we likewise have inflicted). One only has to look at something like the Great Wall of China, or the incredible beauty of Manhattan to see that Mankind can create incredible things without resorting to appealing to the supernatural. We've put men on the moon and sent probes to take photographs of parts of the universe we have yet to personally visit. If these achievements are somehow of lesser 'value' than your Notre Dame and your Requiem, I suggest, perhaps that you do not give enough credit to mankind.


I would have to challenge you on both these points.

I'm not saying that morals not based on religion do not exist. I'm simply saying, that most of our morals *are* based on christianity. What christianity is based on is another matter entirely, it certainly doesn't propose anything original, but my point is that Religion is a focal point for morals, and has been throughout it's existence.

The Roman empire did not fall because they were godless. They fell because they were ridiculously large empire built on conquest. Given the logistical difficulties they faced--including the time/distance issues, and the ridiculous cost of maintaining the sort of armies required to secure an empire built on conquest--collapse was inevitable. You can only stack the floors of a building so high before it collapses under its own weight. Such an unwieldy empire did not have the infrastructure to survive. Fragmentation was inevitable. One, indeed, could argue that religion may have helped speed this fall. Instead of having a common religious faith to unite the people, religious differences helped the fragmentation process.

Frankly, I know how the Roman empire collapsed, but I simply didn't want to post another page just to explain it in detail. And yes, one could indeed argue on the religious point you mentioned, which is pretty close to what I intended to say.

Second, I have to argue the idea the average muslim (Islamist is not an appropriate word as it implies a militant, politicised Islam, in modern parlance) is any more attentive to the fine details of his religion than the average Christian, Jew or Hindu. In all cultures, the truly orthodox have, historically, been in the minority, whilst the majority have been of more moderate observance. [/B]

Now this is one point, where I can argue with you


I assume you know that many muslims (thanks, I again forgot the exact english term for it, thus the usage of Islamist, thank you for correcting me), to tell. Frankly, based on the footage I've seen from Afganistan, Iran, and other middle-eastern muslim countries, plus the muslim exchange students I happen to personally know, they follow the five princiiples of Islam to the letter. You go to a muslim country once, and you'll see how every single one of them prays to Allah five days a week, recognise no other god than allah, try to visit Meka at least once during their lifetime, and make donations. If these five are filled, their orthodox enough.

And a good majority do that. They do even more. They are by no means Stryke's Average Joe Christian, who is christian by name only.

[TrashMan]

Originally posted by diamondgeezer
Trash, you believe that everything can be explained by a 2000 year old book, written and constantly revised under some very dubious circumstances.

Atheists do not believe everything can be explained by science. Some people just prefer to put their trust in something they can see or hold or othersie quantify than in an invisible dude in the sky. An invisible guy who wears sandals, for that matter.

To put it simply - this desk in front of me? My computer? Those things I beleive in. The sun, the moon, the stars? Those I believe in also. The invisible guy who tells you what to do? Forgive me if I think you're a bit odd for believing in him.

You think I belive a 2000 year old book can explain everything? No... The Good Book only gives guidelines for a healthy and productive life...and a few wisdoms to boot...

I enjoy watching science programs and I read lot's of stuff about it... Those things facinate me and I do "belive" in science, but not that it can explain everything...
The answes to the most important questions are elswhere..namely by God..

And you imagine God like a dude in sandals???? And you call me odd????What a shallow mind you have!

[diamondgeezer]

That's strange, because I know Christians who claim they can answer everything I might ask. I try to explain that 'because God said so' isn't a satisfactory answer but they won't have it

Besides, am I not entitled to believe that God wears sandals if I want? If I take two Christians from random point of the globe, they will disagree on any number of aspects of the religion. There's nothing saying conclusively that God prefers Nike.

This is like the thing with the aliens again - you guys who talk to the invisible guy in the sky say I'm daft for believing in what I believe in. Step outside the box and evalutate that attitude for a mo

[TrashMan]

God doesn't wear sandals....he doesn't have a "body" in the normal sense of speaking to begin with...

[Stunaep]

God is above anything an idea. An idea of some bigger force watching over us. It doesn't matter if he exists or not, what matters is if we believe in him. Because if we don't, by the words of Dostoyevski "If God didn't exist, everything would be allowed".

So another view in the religon issue, is that it's not the existence of god that matters, it our belief in the existence of God.

[karajorma]

Originally posted by Stunaep
God is above anything an idea. An idea of some bigger force watching over us. It doesn't matter if he exists or not, what matters is if we believe in him. Because if we don't, by the words of Dostoyevski "If God didn't exist, everything would be allowed".

What a load of rubbish.

[diamondgeezer]

See what I mean? What, exactly, gives you the right to rubbish other peoples' beliefs?

[mikhael]

He's not calling the believe rubbish. He's calling rubbish on "If God didn't exist, everything would be allowed." I pretty much already put paid to that concept. One doesn't need God to have morality, and if one has morality, everything is not allowed.

[diamondgeezer]

Ow, my head. It's too late at night for this

[karajorma]

Originally posted by diamondgeezer
See what I mean? What, exactly, gives you the right to rubbish other peoples' beliefs?

I didn't say his belief was rubbish. Just his arguement.

I'd already pre-empted people claiming that morality came from God and answered the question. Stunaep just ignored my answer and kept posting the same nonsense which I'd already debunked. On top of that Mik also gave several good answers to the point and he's ignored them too.

If he want's to prove that his arguement isn't nonsense then he's free to answer giving a proper answer to mine and Mikhael's comments. What he can't do is simply stick his fingers in his ears and go "La La La I can't hear you." when someone posts an arguement he doesn't like.

[Stunaep]

Originally posted by karajorma


I didn't say his belief was rubbish. Just his arguement.

I'd already pre-empted people claiming that morality came from God and answered the question. Stunaep just ignored my answer and kept posting the same nonsense which I'd already debunked. On top of that Mik also gave several good answers to the point and he's ignored them too.

If he want's to prove that his arguement isn't nonsense then he's free to answer giving a proper answer to mine and Mikhael's comments. What he can't do is simply stick his fingers in his ears and go "La La La I can't hear you." when someone posts an arguement he doesn't like.

Right....

I haven't stuck my fingers in my ears. I just somehow managed to not notice your latest argument.

Here. Let's review your argument. I mean the argument, in which you actually make a point, as opposed to stating it over again, only two times longer.

wait, I don't have to do that. You've already proven my point! How kind of you!

So if someone were to conclusively prove the bible false tomorrow (say by using a time machine and proving that Jesus didn't perform any miracles) would the religious immediately go out and murder their children and cheat on their wives? Well some of them probably would because it was only the fear of going to hell that was stopping them from acting like animals. But most of them have plugged in to the same morality that I have and wouldn't.
They may dress it up and say that they don't do those things because the bible says it is wrong but deep down even if the bible was proved false most people don't kill their children cause they love them, not cause they are scared of God or convinced by religious texts that it's wrong.

Exactly.


You'd be surprised how big that number is.

You don't cheat on your wife, or murder your children. True. But you also come from a culture with a long christian heritage. I've proven several times, that religion has affected our morals, but you've decided to ignore those points.

Did you know that incest was perfectly normal in Ancient Egypt? Or that leaving your daughters to die was a common thing in Ancient Rome? Hell, while you may not cheat on your wife, the arabs have harems of wives. They also have a religion that allows it.

This has already invalidated the argument that our morals are based on some genetic instinct left over from the cavemen times.

If whoever made that argument (cant' find the post right now), wants more proof, then how 'bout this: Humans can think.

Now this may come as news to some of you, but it's true. Humans are the only species capable of overriding their natural instincts. And we have a tendency to be self-destructive.

Want proof? We all know that we are going to kill ourselves if we destroy the rainforests. We know that the consequences of the greenhouse effect are disastrous. But because we cannot see those consequences yet, we still keep cutting down forests by the thousands, and still keep pouring CO2 into the air.

So, if one day religion would go extint , there would be some who'd say that **** all of this, I can go and have twelve wives, kill my children, ass-**** my dad, and rob a bank.

100 years later, more would think, along the lines of 'what use is staying true to your wife anyway´. And so on, and so on. Until there is chaos.

God, as an idea of an all-seeing force is the best way to enforce our morals. The police can never do as much to enforce order as the belief in some sort of God can. Whether it be Jehova, Allah, or the Universe itself. If you know, that someone will always see, if what you do is right or wrong, you will never have the temptation, to do something wrong. And you know how suspectible people are to temptations.

You want proof, that people need god for a higher moral code?

That does not mean that I disrespect you. It simply means that I try to hold myself to the stricter standards set in the Bible, whereas you try to hold yourself to the looser standards set by the world. And, I freely admit, I'm not a stranger to failure in that regard.

Said by Sandwich.

So, long story short, I again quote Dostoyevski: "If there were no God, everything would be allowed"

[karajorma]

Originally posted by Stunaep
You'd be surprised how big that number is.

You don't cheat on your wife, or murder your children. True. But you also come from a culture with a long christian heritage. I've proven several times, that religion has affected our morals, but you've decided to ignore those points.

Nope. I never argued with you that religion have affected our morals. Feel free to see if you can find somewhere that I stated something so obviously untrue.
 I'm arguing with you over whether religion caused our morals and whether it is possible to have a moral society without religon. See the difference? As an atheist I don't believe that morals came from god because I don't believe in God in the first place.  So it's obvious that morals must have come from somewhere else first and then been dressed up in religion.  

 As for how large the number would be I'm shocked at having to do this to you considering your profession but *Points to the law*
 Even largely theocratic societies have had seperate laws and punishments. The reason why most people don't commit murder etc is not just because it's morally wrong but because you go to jail and get buggered for killing people. In fact I'd say laws actually have a larger effect on preventing random murders etc than morality does.

Originally posted by Stunaep
Did you know that incest was perfectly normal in Ancient Egypt? Or that leaving your daughters to die was a common thing in Ancient Rome? Hell, while you may not cheat on your wife, the arabs have harems of wives. They also have a religion that allows it.

This has already invalidated the argument that our morals are based on some genetic instinct left over from the cavemen times.

It doesn't in the slightest. All it proves is that society can alter those morals. It doesn't disprove what the original source was.

Originally posted by Stunaep
So, if one day religion would go extint , there would be some who'd say that **** all of this, I can go and have twelve wives, kill my children, ass-**** my dad, and rob a bank.

100 years later, more would think, along the lines of 'what use is staying true to your wife anyway´. And so on, and so on. Until there is chaos.

Only if you believe that someone would repeal all the laws in a godless society. I very much doubt that they would. Have a look at the communist countries as an example. Did they repeal all the laws against murder when they attempted to outlaw religion? Of course not. It would be chaos if they did.

Originally posted by Stunaep
God, as an idea of an all-seeing force is the best way to enforce our morals. The police can never do as much to enforce order as the belief in some sort of God can. Whether it be Jehova, Allah, or the Universe itself. If you know, that someone will always see, if what you do is right or wrong, you will never have the temptation, to do something wrong. And you know how suspectible people are to temptations.

If you believe that it's your choice. But next time someone cuts you up in traffic and flips you the bird consider for a second why you don't immediately run them off the road and beat them to death with a tyre iron. Is it cause you believe it's morally wrong or is it cause you don't want to go to jail. I'll bet the latter is the larger part of your reasoning process.

Originally posted by Stunaep
You want proof, that people need god for a higher moral code?

I never said there aren't people alive now who need God but what I deny is that we'll always need him. Sure a rapid transition to an atheistic society would be an upheaval but a long slow gradual change would work.  The fact that there are atheists in the world and we don't go around murdering everyone proves that not everyone needs god.

[mikhael]

Originally posted by Stunaep

Did you know that incest was perfectly normal in Ancient Egypt? Or that leaving your daughters to die was a common thing in Ancient Rome? Hell, while you may not cheat on your wife, the arabs have harems of wives. They also have a religion that allows it.

Well technically Christianity allow for it too. The proclamation that all forms of plural marriage were right out was made in the 10th century. It also had a sunset on that proclamation expired in a thousand years, on the basis that Jesus would be back before it expired to explain things. Muslims don't recognize the authority of the proclamation, so its still allowed for them.

A thousand years have passed, Jesus isn't back yet, and so Christians can, indeed, have plural marriages once again.

So, long story short, I again quote Dostoyevski: "If there were no God, everything would be allowed"

Buddha ain't a God and yet, for Buddhists, everything isn't allowed.

[Stunaep]

okay, so we don't go around murdering everyone. What about "Don't commit adultery" or "Respect your mother and your father" or other such tings.

As for the laws being the supressive force, those laws  for the most derive from religion (as in the case of said incest thing, or monogamy and so on) not the other way around. Atheism is a rather new way of life, only some 500 years old.  Not to mention general humane stuff, like "Love your neighbor like you love yourself", etc.

Oh yeah, I'm not also saying that our morals came from God. I don't believe in a white-bearded guy in sandals, so to speak, so IMO, they couldn't have come from god. I'm saying, that the idea of morality and the idea of religion are closely related, perhaps so closely that one couldn't exist without the other.

One could argue, that religion doesn't have to be based around god. If we take religion as blind faith to something greater than you, then we'd still find, that even if all the gods cease to exist, some form of religion remains. We do call mazdaism or taoism religions, despite neither of them having gods.

So, if one day, all of the gods were to die out, what would you base your morals on? Apparently, as you state on your previous posts, empathy. Respecting people, because you can see how they would feel if put in your position. Doing the humane thing.
This is usually called humanism around these parts of the world, in fact, what Mik is describing is basically the principles of modern humanism.

But they still rely on some form of irrational larger beliefs. Do what you want, feelings cannot be explained by science, and in extent, so can't be empathy. So, in this case your religion would be empathy. God=Empathy. It's just people have given it a name and a form.

But this requires an immense amount of brainpower, and willpower to actually get it right. Think of all the moral things, that the law doesn't enforce. And look how many people are willing to screw those. People cheat money out of people, using the laws as a back-up. People incite wars for their own profit, people **** with peoples husbands/wives. This is why we still need religion. And looking how long it took us to come from a society with gods to a society that is at least willing to accept the possible lack of a god, I doubt the godless day will come within the next 10000 years or so.

So, in short, I'm not saying a world without God is an impossibility. I'm just saying, it's not something that would be achieved overnight, and perhaps not even something to be strived for.

[Stunaep]

Originally posted by mikhael

Buddha ain't a God and yet, for Buddhists, everything isn't allowed.

And once again, read my post before that post. The one about God being an idea.

I've never been a religious person. For me, God doesn't exist. Yet I still recognise, that the morals aren't just some words some guy made up and wrote down in a book. I believe them to be something bigger, something resembling Plato's Idea. Something to be strived for. Unfortunately, not everyone can deal with that, which is why we, for at least now, need religion. For those who otherwise lack the passion or the willpower, or the need to be moral, still would do that.

And also, religion has in the past been the prime shaper of morals. Both you and Karajorma have admitted that. Why change that? As they say, if it works, don't fix it.

[karajorma]

Originally posted by Stunaep
okay, so we don't go around murdering everyone. What about "Don't commit adultery" or "Respect your mother and your father" or other such tings.  

Again. As stated I don't cheat on my girfriend cause I love her. I don't need any other reason. The same goes for respecting mum and dad.

Originally posted by Stunaep
As for the laws being the supressive force, those laws  for the most derive from religion (as in the case of said incest thing, or monogamy and so on) not the other way around. Atheism is a rather new way of life, only some 500 years old.  Not to mention general humane stuff, like "Love your neighbor like you love yourself", etc.

Actually atheism is older than religion. We mearly forgot it for a few hundred thousend years Unless you believe that the first human ancestor to be self aware also discovered religion it's pretty obvious that the religious point of view came about later

Originally posted by Stunaep
Oh yeah, I'm not also saying that our morals came from God. I don't believe in a white-bearded guy in sandals, so to speak, so IMO, they couldn't have come from god. I'm saying, that the idea of morality and the idea of religion are closely related, perhaps so closely that one couldn't exist without the other.

That arguement doesn't make sense though. If morals came from somewhere other than God it's obvious that they aren't that closely related. By following your logic you could claim that the big bang theory is also so closely related to God it can't be seperated because for many years everyone thought that the universe was created by God.

Originally posted by Stunaep
So, if one day, all of the gods were to die out, what would you base your morals on? Apparently, as you state on your previous posts, empathy. Respecting people, because you can see how they would feel if put in your position. Doing the humane thing.
This is usually called humanism around these parts of the world, in fact, what Mik is describing is basically the principles of modern humanism.

But they still rely on some form of irrational larger beliefs. Do what you want, feelings cannot be explained by science, and in extent, so can't be empathy. So, in this case your religion would be empathy. God=Empathy. It's just people have given it a name and a form.

Lets say that you're right. You're not but lets assume you are. Isn't that a step in the right direction at least? By getting rid of god and turning to what you call humanism at least you get rid of all the mystical mumbo-jumbo and are basing you morals on what society is like at the moment rather than what it was like 2000 years ago.

However you're wrong. God is not empathy for other humans. A lot of what religion teaches has nothing to do with empathy and more to do with religious leaders maintaining control.

Worse I'm not simply talking about basing morals on empathy alone. I agree with a lot of what mikhael said about application of game theory. I'd base my morals on simply trying to let everyone live their lives with as much ease as possible. And that can largely be distilled down by science.

Originally posted by Stunaep
But this requires an immense amount of brainpower, and willpower to actually get it right. Think of all the moral things, that the law doesn't enforce. And look how many people are willing to screw those. People cheat money out of people, using the laws as a back-up. People incite wars for their own profit, people **** with peoples husbands/wives. This is why we still need religion. And looking how long it took us to come from a society with gods to a society that is at least willing to accept the possible lack of a god, I doubt the godless day will come within the next 10000 years or so.

So, in short, I'm not saying a world without God is an impossibility. I'm just saying, it's not something that would be achieved overnight, and perhaps not even something to be strived for.

And religion works? I don't actually feel it has as much of an effect as you ascribe to it. Sure there are lots of people who don't get up and commit random violence because of it but there are lots who who commit murder not in spite of religion but because of it. Lets not forget the wave of low grade evil spread by politicians in the name of religion. You give examples of people doing things like inciting wars for profit. Want to deny that those same people often believe in God and do it anyway?
  I feel that at worst we'll have traded religious immorality for atheistic immorality. And again that's a step in the right direction cause at least I don't have to listen to fairy stories about why someone wants to do something immoral.

Getting rid of God won't stop people doing ****ty things. I'm not claiming it would but religion doesn't hold back the floodgates half as much as you seem to believe it does.

Originally posted by Stunaep
And also, religion has in the past been the prime shaper of morals. Both you and Karajorma have admitted that. Why change that? As they say, if it works, don't fix it.

But it doesn't work. What it did was allow a framework of laws and morals to be thrown up. We have those. The scaffolding can come down now.

[Stunaep]

Originally posted by karajorma


Lets say that you're right. You're not but lets assume you are. Isn't that a step in the right direction at least? By getting rid of god and turning to what you call humanism at least you get rid of all the mystical mumbo-jumbo and are basing you morals on what society is like at the moment rather than what it was like 2000 years ago.

And if we based our morals on what society is like today, we'd make it okay to drink since the age of 7, **** anything that moves and has something with a vague resemblance of a hole, etc.

If anything, the morals should be based on an ideal. And that ideal has remained pretty much the same within the 2000 years. And it's not like the christian doctrines haven't been revised during that time.

However you're wrong. God is not empathy for other humans. A lot of what religion teaches has nothing to do with empathy and more to do with religious leaders maintaining control.

Worse I'm not simply talking about basing morals on empathy alone. I agree with a lot of what mikhael said about application of game theory. I'd base my morals on simply trying to let everyone live their lives with as much ease as possible. And that can largely be distilled down by science.

Actually, my point here was describing, how God is not only a white bearded man with sandals. For you, empathy is God. God is this ultimate larger than life creature that you base your actions on. Once you start basing your actions on yourself, you'll inevitably fall into self-destruction. Which is why we need a god, at least for the time being.

And religion works? I don't actually feel it has as much of an effect as you ascribe to it. Sure there are lots of people who don't get up and commit random violence because of it but there are lots who who commit murder not in spite of religion but because of it. Lets not forget the wave of low grade evil spread by politicians in the name of religion. You give examples of people doing things like inciting wars for profit. Want to deny that those same people often believe in God and do it anyway?
  I feel that at worst we'll have traded religious immorality for atheistic immorality. And again that's a step in the right direction cause at least I don't have to listen to fairy stories about why someone wants to do something immoral.

Getting rid of God won't stop people doing ****ty things. I'm not claiming it would but religion doesn't hold back the floodgates half as much as you seem to believe it does.

So, people with religion do ****ty things, and people without it do ****ty things. So why bother at all? Let those who need religion have it, and those who don't won´t. And believe me, there will always be those who need it. At least in the scope of the next millennia or so.

[/quote]
But it doesn't work. What it did was allow a framework of laws and morals to be thrown up. We have those. The scaffolding can come down now. [/quote]

Which brings me back to the point I've stated several times. I don't we can yet. I mean, humanity has finally reached a point, where we are no longer holding religious wars, or at least not on the scale of 1000 years ago. But most people aren't ready yet for a world without religion. I feel it would release the floodgates you consider non-existant. But I guess we'll never know, since there ain't a chance of God going away any time soon.

[Havock]

bunch of atheïsts, someday the destroyers will come for all of you!!~1!@!~

erm, I err....