Religion and Logics

[Prodromos]

Just because you can't comprehend something, Chris, doesn't mean it is incomprehensible. It's perfectly comprehensible for 96% of the population. I see no reason why 1-4% of the population should hold everyone else hostage. Religion is as widespread in humanity as language is. It's probably genetic too ya know.

When an individual can't understand language, we do not say language is an unnecessary, stupid human construct. We say that that individual has a malfunction of sort. So it is with the spiritual. Why are you unable to understand that life and people have worth and a purpose? Everyone else gets it. It's obvious, mate.

[Sar1n]

Just because you can't comprehend something, Chris, doesn't mean it is incomprehensible. It's perfectly comprehensible for 96% of the population. I see no reason why 1-4% of the population should hold everyone else hostage. Religion is as widespread in humanity as language is. It's probably genetic too ya know.

When an individual can't understand language, we do not say language is an unnecessary, stupid human construct. We say that that individual has a malfunction of sort. So it is with the spiritual. Why are you unable to understand that life and people have worth and a purpose? Everyone else gets it. It's obvious, mate.

If there was a price for highest concentration of fallacies in one post, you'd get it. False analogy, argument ad populum, false dilemma, jumping to conclusion...and you fit it all in few lines. Congratulations!

[chriscase]

Just because you can't comprehend something, Chris, doesn't mean it is incomprehensible. It's perfectly comprehensible for 96% of the population. I see no reason why 1-4% of the population should hold everyone else hostage. Religion is as widespread in humanity as language is. It's probably genetic too ya know.

When an individual can't understand language, we do not say language is an unnecessary, stupid human construct. We say that that individual has a malfunction of sort. So it is with the spiritual. Why are you unable to understand that life and people have worth and a purpose? Everyone else gets it. It's obvious, mate.

What makes you think that I don't value life? Or that I fail to comprehend "the spiritual"?

[basics]

chriscase,

I guess the only answer to all the doubters is that the proof of the pudding is in the eating. For anyone to say there is no God because one cannot see Him is just as silly as saying because we cannot see pain it doesn't exist.

[Prodromos]

If there was a price for highest concentration of fallacies in one post, you'd get it. False analogy, argument ad populum, false dilemma, jumping to conclusion...and you fit it all in few lines. Congratulations!

Just saying "fallacy" over and over again isn't an argument, dude. A fallacy is an error in reasoning/argumentation, but I wasn't even making any arguments, just stating my opinion. Only an argument can be fallacious. A simple statement can't be fallacious.

What makes you think that I don't value life? Or that I fail to comprehend "the spiritual"?

Oh I know you do, Chris. Everyone is religious. "Atheists" make the mistake of thinking that because they don't follow any organized or popular religion, that it means they aren't religious at all. But everyone has some personal religious beliefs. They just might not be consciously aware of it. (If I had a dollar for every time an irreligious person said "religion is immoral", I'd have a billion dollars.) Nobody is really atheist.

[chriscase]

Oh I know you do, Chris. Everyone is religious. "Atheists" make the mistake of thinking that because they don't follow any organized or popular religion, that it means they aren't religious at all. But everyone has some personal religious beliefs. They just might not be consciously aware of it. (If I had a dollar for every time an irreligious person said "religion is immoral", I'd have a billion dollars.) Nobody is really atheist.

You assert the equivalence between a code of morality and the unfounded assertion of supernatural claims as if they were one and the same. These two things have no necessary relationship, though you are no doubt going to proclaim their marriage as an accomplished fact. In reality it's more like organized religion has abducted human decency and holds it captive, then points to its subjugation as if it were evidence of the "natural order of things".

[basics]

You assert the equivalence between a code of morality and the unfounded assertion of supernatural claims as if they were one and the same. These two things have no necessary relationship, though you are no doubt going to proclaim their marriage as an accomplished fact. In reality it's more like organized religion has abducted human decency and holds it captive, then points to its subjugation as if it were evidence of the "natural order of things".

chriscase,

The natural order of things is under the power of sin and religion helps bolster that power. That has been obvious ever since religion stepped foot on this planet, but what God had in mind was the opposite to religion by coming to this planet as Jesus Christ the Saviour. We can read of that opposition that He had for religion and how He fought against it thus causing the crucifixion.

[Prodromos]

You assert the equivalence between a code of morality and the unfounded assertion of supernatural claims as if they were one and the same. These two things have no necessary relationship, though you are no doubt going to proclaim their marriage as an accomplished fact. In reality it's more like organized religion has abducted human decency and holds it captive, then points to its subjugation as if it were evidence of the "natural order of things".

Morality and "decency" are religious concepts. From an atheist perspective, we're all merely matter floating in space. From an atheist perspective, humans, animals, plants, and even inanimate objects are all in the same category of things: matter. The only difference is that we are arranged in different ways. From an atheist perspective, the difference between humans and dirt, is precisely identical to the difference between chairs and tables; it's all just matter arranged in a different way. From an atheist perspective, a human eating a small boy, is exactly the same as a lion doing the same to a deer, or an asteroid falling on Earth and hitting an animal. It's all just matter bumping into matter. No free will. No grand plan behind life and the universe. There is no morality to it. There is only "is", no "should."

If you disagree with any of that, then you are religious. It may not be a famous organized religion, but it is your personal little religion, most likely a combination of Christianity and your personal preferences.

An irreligious person is a religious person who doesn't realize that he is religious, dear Chris!

[fkizz]

If you disagree with any of that, then you are religious. It may not be a famous organized religion, but it is your personal little religion, most likely a combination of Christianity and your personal preferences.
An irreligious person is a religious person who doesn't realize that he is religious

This is fairly true, see with attention most proud sceptics logic, and you will find a plethora of beliefs without evidence, despite their pride in having no beliefs without evidence.

[Cyclops]

Morality and "decency" are religious concepts.

Utter nonsense. The study of ethics and mores can take place in the absence of worship. "Religio" is a Latin term for respectful awe of the supernatural, and implies cult practices such as sacrifice, and in practice often incorporates primitive notions such as "angry sky daddy hates you unless you pay me" and futile bargains like "if I say this prayer correctly I will never die". Religions sometimes adopt ethical systems but in practice religions are flawed human creations full of immorality and poor ethics.

From an atheist perspective, we're all merely matter floating in space. From an atheist perspective, humans, animals, plants, and even inanimate objects are all in the same category of things: matter. The only difference is that we are arranged in different ways. From an atheist perspective, the difference between humans and dirt, is precisely identical to the difference between chairs and tables; it's all just matter arranged in a different way. From an atheist perspective, a human eating a small boy, is exactly the same as a lion doing the same to a deer, or an asteroid falling on Earth and hitting an animal. It's all just matter bumping into matter. No free will. No grand plan behind life and the universe. There is no morality to it. There is only "is", no "should."

More nonsense. Atheism can allow for free will, just like Christianity can: in fact church authorities are extremely confused on the issue of free will and many Christians believe in predeterminism (which through astounding cognitive dissonance they combine with a belief in original sin).

If you disagree with any of that, then you are religious. It may not be a famous organized religion, but it is your personal little religion, most likely a combination of Christianity and your personal preferences.

Nonsense, you confuse morality and ethics with religion.

An irreligious person is a religious person who doesn't realize that he is religious, dear Chris!

Or is a religious person a smug ignoramus that doesn't know that he is a smug ignoramus? You have failed to establish a single point here, as well as posting some silly insults toward atheists.

[fkizz]

As been pointed out endless times on EMM, Good and Evil are religious concepts that later get blended in society consciusness.
The fact that a purely materialistic atheistic holds on to an immaterial impossible to prove value such as morality, means they are still following echos of religion and spirituality.
Because at the end of the day, morality and ethics are beliefs without proof, and have as a source a belief system that can neither be proven or disproven.

Ethics and morality are Immaterial concepts that cannot be demonstrated or proven. From a purely sceptic and logical point of view, pure sceptics should just discard them. (some honest atheists philosophers like Stirner point out that the logical conclusion is to discard them, since they do not play in the interest of your ego)

But yes, people are not fully rational creatures and emotions will force even atheists to hold proof-less beliefs in such immaterial concepts as ethics and morality, we know that.

[chriscase]

Placing ethics and morality in the same bucket as empirical fact is a category error, plain and simple. This takes nothing away from the importance of codes of conduct in human behavior, particularly given how fundamentally social we are. However, given the relatively recent advent of organized religion (in association with state-level cultures), it's rather unlikely that organized religion such as what comes with state-level culture preceded it. Human beings managed to live for a long time in hunter-gatherer societies which no doubt enforced codes of conduct without the dubious blessings of organized religion and the dogmas of theocracy.

[Emperor Arcturus Mengsk]

Why is morality a belief?... Morality is not a concrete thing based on a book. Every person has a different standard of what is moral and what is not.

Examples : Two muslims, one of them thinks it's moral and expected of him to treat his wife like cattle, the other one doesn't.

Two christians, one of them thinks killing in self defence is moral, one of them thinks that you should never kill even if your life is in danger.

Not all religious people share the same morals, so it's not fair to say that without religion the world would be an immoral hellpit of doom.

Morality is part of human empathy. And it's like almost everything else, based on ego. What "I" think is right.

[fkizz]

Placing ethics and morality in the same bucket as empirical fact is a category error, plain and simple. This takes nothing away from the importance of codes of conduct in human behavior, particularly given how fundamentally social we are.

It's a code of conduct without empirical proof that it is, in fact correct.
Then you are basically admiting that at worst, morality codes pave way for people to adapt and accept to living life ruled by belief systems that cannot be proven!

Human beings managed to live for a long time in hunter-gatherer societies which no doubt enforced codes of conduct without the dubious blessings of organized religion and the dogmas of theocracy.

Hunter gatherer societies practiced Shamanism. Which plenty of people know now, they sought to communicate with spirits for guidance, often said communications done by a more sensible member (shaman was a sort of proto-cleric or embrionary cleric) that often induced in mind altering rituals, either running until point of fainting, or ingesting combinations of herbs that induced hallucinogenic effects, or livid dreaming, or incessant ritualistic practice until mind would be on borderline between "this world" and "the beyond world". Other members would get Shamanic status due to being recognized as having an abnormal ability to connect and understand the "beyond" even without said practices.

Well documented even for "cave people", Shamanism was always a thing, in every single tribe around the world, even hunter gather tribes today practice shamanism, their primitive form of religion.

Of course you can't expect for primitive tribes to build a St. Peter Basilica as "proof for being religious", they have no resources for that.

Why is morality a belief?... Morality is not a concrete thing based on a book. Every person has a different standard of what is moral and what is not.
Examples : Two muslims, one of them thinks it's moral and expected of him to treat his wife like cattle, the other one doesn't.
Two christians, one of them thinks killing in self defence is moral, one of them thinks that you should never kill even if your life is in danger.

Neither of them violate the morality code for their religion. It allows their personal choices, it's all within boundaries. There is no Dogma or doctrinal contradiction in their disagreement.

Morality is part of human empathy. And it's like almost everything else, based on ego. What "I" think is right.

Yep you're agreeing that atheism holds morality due to emotional attachment of past movements/ideas rather than logical proof.

[Emperor Arcturus Mengsk]

Neither of them violate the morality code for their religion. It allows their personal choices, it's all within boundaries. There is no Dogma or doctrinal contradiction in their disagreement.



Yep you're agreeing that atheism holds morality due to emotional attachment of past movements/ideas rather than logical proof.

Why do you confuse atheism with a person acting like a programmed robot fkizz? lol

People who call themselves atheists aren't void of emotions, are emotions a creation of religion too? Before mankind organised their beliefs as religions people didn't love one another? They were just doing everything like they were programmed?

Wake up, pee, hunt, eat, have sex, sleep, repeat. Nothing in between? They didn't feel what we feel today? Like a caveman might fancy a cavelady that another caveman has hit on the head with his club and dragged into his cave, and he might feel jealousy, and how to get that sexy hairy cavelady to come into his cave, but he can't because the other caveman is double his size. But maybe the cavelady prefers the company of the smaller caveman because the large caveman is full of testosterone and is very aggressive.

Her insticts tell her that the large caveman will protect her better against the dinosaurs (the bible assumes that mankind coexisted with dinosaurs since god created earth a few thousand years ago). Maybe if they find a safer place to live in a large community the large caveman won't be so useful and dominant anymore and she will have the choice to ignore her instinct and choose based on her preference.

[fkizz]

Why do you confuse atheism with a person acting like a programmed robot fkizz? lol

Because I'm showing you "atheism logical system" endgame as what it is, as opposed to describing the average atheistic person raised in a country with a religious background in their subconscious.

People who call themselves atheists aren't void of emotions

Good. Then there's room to say that atheistic ethics and morality come out of emotional attachment to morality and ethical codes that come from non-atheistic systems of thought.

Wake up, pee, hunt, eat, have sex, sleep, repeat. Nothing in between? They didn't feel what we feel today? Like a caveman might fancy a cavelady that another caveman has hit on the head with his club and dragged into his cave, and he might feel jealousy, and how to get that sexy hairy cavelady to come into his cave, but he can't because the other caveman is double his size. But maybe the cavelady prefers the company of the smaller caveman because the large caveman is full of testosterone and is very aggressive.

Don't take me wrong. Some of the most influential Saints were former Atheists.

What I do is describe and de-mistify the endgame of an impersonal atheistic conclusion, what is there to be found is more nihilistic than progressive.

[Cyclops]

Because I'm showing you "atheism logical system" endgame as what it is, as opposed to describing the average atheistic person raised in a country with a religious background in their subconscious....

You fail to demonstrate ethics, morality and religion are synonymous.

Neither of them violate the morality code for their religion. It allows their personal choices, it's all within boundaries. There is no Dogma or doctrinal contradiction in their disagreement...

I don't think you understand what dogma means. The treatment of women is a matter of dogma in Islam, and the use of violence is a matter of dogma in Christian thought. Both have changed over time and for historical and political reasons.

Emperor Arcturus Mengsk has demolished your point: the fact that these religions are internally inconsistent proves there's no correlation between religion and ethics or morals, the association is opportunistic at best and exploitative at worst.

[Iskar]

There is ample basis for solid, non arbitrary ethics in epistemology alone. Recognising individual fallibility enforces the necessity of social interaction to reassure the correctness of assertions made and as such requires minimum standards of respecting those that you hope to gain epistemological reassurance from, resulting in basic ethics of human dignity. No religion required for that, and that is a good thing: Religion is a matter of choice, basic ethics shouldn't be, so the two cannot be exclusively linked. The history of religion mingling with other social structures is no argument against this, as that would be historical contingence, not transcendental necessity (transcendental, not transcendent - Kant, not God, although both seem to go by the name of Immanuel...)

[Muizer]

As been pointed out endless times on EMM, Good and Evil are religious concepts that later get blended in society consciusness.

Human nature is the source of our conscience. That's why every human society has either adopted or invented ethical codes. If ethics were just a concept of thought without underlying urges, then they wouldn't be as universal as they evidently are.

Religious ethical codes, btw, stress some aspects but override others. Take murder. Murder would feel unnatural to any normal human being and for the most part religions stress that. On the other hand, they also can override such hesitations, for instance where it concerns 'heathens' or other 'enemies of God', or for that matter, to impress the necessity of human sacrifice. In those particular cases, you are right. Such ethical codes should be lost in atheists, though history teaches us it is possible to substitute political ideologies for religion in that respect. That has to do with the inclination of man to seek comfort in hierarchical societies. It takes an effort of will not to be lead by vicarious pride in the achievements of your idols and not seek their approval.

[basics]

Supposing there actually wasn't a God would man have any ethics or morality? The nature of man is his ambition to be top dog in whatever sphere he works and lives and the more aggressive that ambition is, is where the problem lies. History has shown us from the very beginning that violence is part and parcel of human life in both male and female resulting in whatever the society we belong to comes about at the hands of a domineering strongman who has never been afraid to use violence to reach his or her end. Laws were and always will be in operation no matter the society because one makes a law in the knowledge that most will break them because of the nature man has. Laws, rules and regulations are the glue that holds any society together and it doesn't matter whether it's religion or atheism man has to be under some sort of control to create some sort of level playing field we can all make compromises to live in.