Religious/Philosophical Profile Thread

[MaximiIian]

Maybe I missed some part of your conversation, but I don't particularly see what animals having or not having empathy has to do with religion.

[Arch-hereticK]

Maybe I missed some part of your conversation, but I don't particularly see what animals having or not having empathy has to do with religion.

Some theist made the arrogant claim that animals couldn't.

[MaximiIian]

Some theist made the arrogant claim that animals couldn't.

That seems quite absurd. Anyone with a pet knows from experience that animals can and do display empathy. I mean, I could see him making the argument that "true" empathy comes from morals...but who's the say animals don't have morals as well? Even coded into them as instinct, much like human social psychology?
We have no way of knowing, since they can't exactly communicate verbally.

[SigniferOne]

The part that I was quoting was you saying that morals are not projected onto a religion.

Yes, and nothing in your response attempted to demonstrate that they are.

If God doesn't exist, they are written by a human being and their subjective conclusions.

No they aren't. Even if they are written by a human, they are fixed and unchangeable for all time, like any other book, whose contents are fixed and concluded without any further additions or emendations.

Unchanging words is not necessarily good or bad and I as above I fail to see how you can honestly try to establish them as objective.

Just the fact that they're unchanging, that they're unchangeable, is what makes them objective. The definition of objective is something that is unchangeable, something that is independent of particular consciousness and subjectivity.

You also have not proceeded as to why you think the Bible has more intrinsic value? I would agree with you based both on my societal morals and those brought by my conscious revelations but I would like to hear a more detailed explanation.

What you said is basically why I say it has more intrinsic value. Taken as a moral code, it is objective, and taken in its value, it is also superlative to other moral codes written in other books.

The same justification can be used for the Qu'Ran but both require philosophical examination rather than a following without question.

It can, and the Quran is objective in just the same way. The only problem is that while it has many noble passages, on the whole it would come up much shorter in qualitative analysis.

How so?

Because objectivity is always better.

Subjective value is still value and we still measure those value through philosophical debates and other methods. My morality is based on minimizing the amount of victims caused by our actions. The more peaceful the society and the less victims, the better it is for the collective and the individual.

And yet your conclusion is still (by your own admission) purely subjective, and thus totally indifferent to somebody else who is outside of your own consciousness (that is, the rest of the world). I don't think you fully understand the power and importance of objectivity.

[SigniferOne]

That seems quite absurd. Anyone with a pet knows from experience that animals can and do display empathy.

On my account, I've never said that animals don't have empathy. The only thing I said is that they don't have empathy on the moral level, because whatever degree of empathy they have is always tempered and mixed in with their own selfishness. They would follow you or take care of you mainly insofar as it would indirectly help or take care of themselves. For example for dogs, you as a 'pack leader' are a natural target of support, but only insofar as it does not hurt the dog itself.

As you should know, there has never been a recorded instance of an animal willingly going to their own death to save another. They only protect others (and only others of their kind, never animals in general), to the extent that it does not certainly determine their own destruction. There is always selfishness mixed in with everything they do.

Mankind is the only one that is able to overcome the animal nature, and this capacity goes directly opposite to all evolutionary principles and stresses. As does conscience, morals, and much else about man that points to a dual nature in him which is simply absent in the rest of the animal kingdom.

[Tacitursa]

They only protect others (and only others of their kind, never animals in general)

Did you see the video on the previous page of a hippo trying to save another animal from a crocodile attack?

You dont know anything

[Strelok]

Yes, and nothing in your response attempted to demonstrate that they are.

So, I say morals are projected onto religion, you say no, I say yes unless you're trying to say religion created them, you say they only strengthen them. Unless a religion has created a singular moral ideal originally, it is still previous individual and collective morals that are being put into the religion. Not the religion in itself creating it.

No they aren't. Even if they are written by a human, they are fixed and unchangeable for all time, like any other book, whose contents are fixed and concluded without any further additions or emendations.

Fixed and unchanged =/= objective. They are still biased texts and we read with a biased interpretation.

Just the fact that they're unchanging, that they're unchangeable, is what makes them objective.

What gives you this impression?

The definition of objective is something that is unchangeable, something that is independent of particular consciousness and subjectivity.

They were still affected by consciousness when they were written and then they are affected by consciousness when read as we interpret them with our own biased way. They are subjective, unchanged texts.

What you said is basically why I say it has more intrinsic value. Taken as a moral code, it is objective, and taken in its value, it is also superlative to other moral codes written in other books.

It's not objective and superlative is something that should be established rather than said. I subjectively view it would be superior than X but are there any specific reasons?

It can, and the Quran is objective in just the same way. The only problem is that while it has many noble passages, on the whole it would come up much shorter in qualitative analysis

It what way(s)?

Because objectivity is always better.

This becomes relative. In order to truly care about objective value you have to be either: A. objective yourself, B. or viewing it better with your own subjective interpretation. In other relative circumstances, certain individuals see no added value in objective value and are fine with their subject moral codes. The statement that "objective is always better" is something that is dependent on the individual to decide for themselves.

And yet your conclusion is still (by your own admission) purely subjective, and thus totally indifferent to somebody else who is outside of your own consciousness (that is, the rest of the world). I don't think you fully understand the power and importance of objectivity.

Your conclusion is equally as subjective and I fail to see how my conclusion is indifferent. It is completely focused onto others who are not me.

[Zawisza]

On my account, I've never said that animals don't have empathy. The only thing I said is that they don't have empathy on the moral level, because whatever degree of empathy they have is always tempered and mixed in with their own selfishness.

Humans mostly only help each other out of expectation of a reward, as well, sometimes even at considerable risk. A lot of them would stake their lives because they expect to go to achieve some sort of eternal existence. That does not strike me as purely selfless. This is not to say that humans won't do so purely for of another's benefit. Just that it's not confined to our species.

In fact, I would say that interspecies altruism exists purely because, on a basic instinctive level, it might entice members of other species to do the same for them - including humans. There is no need for a complex system of abstract notions to explain or justify this, although in humans, it may be necessary in order to foster and enforce them, inspiring other humans to do the same. That's the best aspect of certain religions (beside their flaws). Nevertheless, it stands to reason that moral systems evolved from this basic instinct.

They would follow you or take care of you mainly insofar as it would indirectly help or take care of themselves. For example for dogs, you as a 'pack leader' are a natural target of support, but only insofar as it does not hurt the dog itself. As you should know, there has never been a recorded instance of an animal willingly going to their own death to save another. They only protect others (and only others of their kind, never animals in general), to the extent that it does not certainly determine their own destruction. There is always selfishness mixed in with everything they do.

It was once thought so. Including Wivaz's example, there are actually several instances of animals rescuing and assisting one another - without any apparent expectation of reward, whether it be material... or heavenly. Empathy, compassion and altruism are not learned in Sunday school, they are instincts, and built into whatever personality may exist in the individual.

Mankind is the only one that is able to overcome the animal nature, and this capacity goes directly opposite to all evolutionary principles and stresses.

And elephants are the only living animals with a nose that acts as a tactile appendage. What's the similarity? Trunks, hands, brains, empathy and altruism are all tools for the survival of the individual and the species... and sometimes other species... We're not all that special, and frankly, anybody who thinks so should get over themselves.

Just because we're the only species to have some sort of trait, doesn't mean there is some sort of "chain of being". There are many more species that have existed longer than us, that are faster, hardier, stronger, breedier, more survivable than us. We're just the brainiest out of the lot. That's it.

Humans are never free of their instincts. In fact, our motivation to live, to work, to love and to help others, is mostly driven by instinct. Anything else is merely a means to achieve this end.

As does conscience, morals, and much else about man that points to a dual nature in him which is simply absent in the rest of the animal kingdom.

All the scientific and evolutionary evidence points away from such a conclusion. Our culture, moral standards, scientific and spiritual beliefs have developed from earlier cultures and species over the course of hundreds of thousands of years, as is evidenced by previous species of the Homo genus. In fact, in terms of extant species, many mammals share similar types of behaviours and societal structures, but none more so than chimpanzees.

[Achilles Return]

I'm an agnostic atheist. I do not know if a deity exists, but I do not believe in any of the ones that have been suggested to me. I don't really have a philosophy other than simple pragmatism.

[Tacitursa]

Just the fact that they're unchanging, that they're unchangeable, is what makes them objective.

Quote me if im wrong but havent the moral lessons from the bible been changed or re-interpretated several times?

For instance at one point in time it was a perfectly fine for a christian to make someone there and keep them as a slave. Is that still one of your unchanging , unchangeable objective morals?

Let's be honest here your interpretations are alot different to peoples 800+ years ago and im pretty confident they will be different again in another 800 years or so when society completely strips the evil shite out of the book and all that remains is common sense which we had in the first place.

[Their Law]

I'm an agnostic atheist, though i was raised and baptised a Methodist (though i can never really admit to really 'believing' as a child), i have strong humanist leanings when it comes to philosophy though somewhat paradoxically i can be a of a nihilist when it comes to certain topics.

[SigniferOne]

Ithough somewhat paradoxically i can be a of a nihilist when it comes to certain topics.

This is usually unavoidable as an agnostic atheist.

[MaximiIian]

This is usually unavoidable as an agnostic atheist.

Oh, stop being so ing pretentious. Agnosticism and atheism are no better or worse than theism. Neither lead to nihilism any more than the other. Your arrogance is overwhelming.

[Tacitursa]

Agnosticism and atheism are no better or worse than theism

Id have to argue the former two are healthier for the mind.

[MaximiIian]

Id have to argue the former two are healthier for the mind.

Which is just as pretentious as Sig's evangelistic theism. What's right for you isn't necessarily right for everyone else.

[Tacitursa]

Which is just as pretentious as Sig's evangelistic theism. What's right for you isn't necessarily right for everyone else

I disagree faith based beleifs cause unhealthy cognition. Once you convince your brain of something with zero evidence it will have no trouble doing so again which can lead to very unhealthy thinking and decision making.

The brain is very easily programed with thought patterns and telling your brain it doesnt need any evidence is just unhealthy and your brain will remember and stick to that pattern of thinking. It's the foundation that leads to suicide bombers and creationists.

On the lower end of the scale people will never eat pork again or have sexual relationships because a book told them not to, im sorry but its just ing nuts.

The question isnt whats right because thats self evident. The problem is "What feels right" beleifs are self reinforcing so it will always feel right and when people say stuff like "I know god is real i feel his presense" it's just your convinced brain keeping you convinced and your stuck like that. Thats why even when presented with very good arguements and evidence fingers go in the ears and the La lalalala song begins which is mostly evident with creationists.

The same can happen to the non-religious and im not saying all religious people are nuts but religion promotes and encourages such thinking to billions of people on earth.

[MaximiIian]

I disagree faith based beleifs cause unhealthy cognition. Once you convince your brain of something with zero evidence it will have no trouble doing so again which can lead to very unhealthy thinking and decision making.

See, here is where we run into a problem. What constitutes "evidence" of an idea for one person isn't going to be the same thing for another. We all draw our conclusions based on what we see and perceive, and our perceptions are based on our experience and existing worldview. What you see as "zero evidence", another person might see as evidence of something, and another person for something else.
Essentially, in failing to recognise this, and by vastly overstating the negatives of holding personal opinions, you are being intolerant of others' beliefs and arrogantly consider your own to be the only valid kind. It's just as pretentious as Signifier's standpoint.

[Tacitursa]

What constitutes "evidence" of an idea for one person isn't going to be the same thing for another

I explained why that is it and just because someone thinks there evidence is good doesnt make it true or healthy.

I think we as human beings have a very good idea on what is considered healthy , logical and rational evidence.

We all draw our conclusions based on what we see and perceive

This falls into the self reinforcing beleifs. I.e a religious person looks at a cloud and see what looks like to them a picture of jesus or god. Again to them it might seem like great evidence your right but it's simply not.

Religion doesnt have any healthy evidence it has reinforcing feelings and faith. God or gods might well exist and thats fine if you beleive it. But not a single human being on earth has good enough evidence to support the lifestyles of religion and what it asks of you and how it expects you to treat other humans being and doing so with the evidence we currently have requires unhealthy thinking.

[Their Law]

See, here is where we run into a problem. What constitutes "evidence" of an idea for one person isn't going to be the same thing for another. We all draw our conclusions based on what we see and perceive, and our perceptions are based on our experience and existing worldview. What you see as "zero evidence", another person might see as evidence of something, and another person for something else.
Essentially, in failing to recognise this, and by vastly overstating the negatives of holding personal opinions, you are being intolerant of others' beliefs and arrogantly consider your own to be the only valid kind. It's just as pretentious as Signifier's standpoint.

Can't disagree with that. The problem is that there seems to be vocal individuals on the religious side that see it as their life goal to ensure that everyone thinks just like them. An even further problem is that some people are willing to kill (or at least justify the act of killing) for these view points. That said these people are usually crazy, and would justify killing people over a sandwich given the opportunity, but there given passive support from the moderates and a film of legitimacy due to the status of the 'earthly' institution which embodies whatever guy(s)/girl(s) in the sky they believe in.

So I guess my issue isn't with religion but with organised religion.

[MaximiIian]

just because someone thinks there evidence is good doesnt make it true or healthy.

Yeah, and it doesn't make it wrong or unhealthy either.

second paragraph

People who are religious are perfectly capable of thinking and acting in a logical, rational manner. To say otherwise is arrogant and self-righteous.
Just because they have a different set of opinions than you doesn't mean they're wrong or evil, as you seem to think. And that's all religious beliefs are: personal opinions. If you're saying that the process leading to religious beliefs is inherently wrong, then you are saying the same about mental processes that lead to any other personal opinion or belief.

The problem is that there seems to be vocal individuals on the religious side that see it as their life goal to ensure that everyone thinks just like them.

Most of that comes from the few religions that have an exclusivist stance. Which mostly is seen the Abrahamic religions and almost nowhere else.

So I guess my issue isn't with religion but with organised religion.

Well, as I indicated above, even organised religion isn't always like that.