religion ~ looking for a way out?

[Amorphos]

religion ~ looking for a way out?

.divine and noble births?
.all religions essentially the same?

i was watching a program the other day comparing Christ to Krishna, buddha, mithras and osiris. in the end i got the impression that the story of christ was not only very old and well before his birth, but that all religons are essentially the same - in a very wide sense.

they all teach a similar kind of ‘right way’ and have a role model of divine birth! most of us would question this of course, but i would put it to those who believe in either divine or noble birth; what if we consider all births as equal? does this make there teachings lesser or greater?

noble births
now to a degree i can understand the idea of noble birth, as in hinduism for example, we can see that one rises through each incarnation, hence there would naturally be a top or end of line to rise to. this would give those of noble birth some right to being placed higher than others[?].
ordinarily a noble birth is simply the result of being born to the right family, however if we lived in a society of equals then neither of the above would be true.

in short then, is it necessary to have something to rise/aspire to in religion?
why were all these idols needed - it seams that there was a universal need and/or cause for such people. moreover it appears that there was a need for a certain type of jesus-like figure!

what was so wrong before these people started popping up? was there e.g. more conflict? one may think that the people in power in any era would wish to substantiate their position, yet the general populous also seam to want a massiah. we are all looking for a way out, for more than there is, to be better than our reality ~ hence religion!

[Tankbuster]

Read the book "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins.
It answers all the questions you posed.

[removeduser_426582376423734]

Well said.

[Amorphos]

does it? - ok. its a long book just to find out what i already know and from the atheist perspective. whereas i think there is something behind all religion that people connect to. then the question is somewhat different.

what is driving us or why do we think there is even a right way. i think religion had its purpose as part of mans evolution, perhaps without it we would be little more than animals. or that it is a result of us evolving - more probably.

[Tankbuster]

Of course, religion from the darwinist point of view. Group selection, by-product and all that.

As I said, in "The God Delusion", Richard Dawkins spends 40 pages on the darwinistic advantages of religion.

In a nutshell, he claims (as one of his points) that religion is a bad "extra" result of our otherwise excellent instincts. Religion abuses the love that darwinistic model has for listening to your parents, believing previous generations... These were all excellent instincts, but sadly, this also makes religion possible.
He compares it to the fact that flies are so attracted the light. This attraction to light, however, is a bad "extra" result of their excellent "natural compass" skills.

You should really read it. I'm an atheist as well, but now that I'm reading his book, there are some extra things that come up...

[Amorphos]

i suppose i shall have to read that book, but i know it will take me ages as i will question everything e.g.

In a nutshell, he claims (as one of his points) that religion is a bad “extra” result of our otherwise excellent instincts.

firstly it is neither good nor bad just a feature of change. it is where our instincts become our intuitions, i suppose animals have that to some degree too, that is how they ‘know’ some things but i wont go into that. i think we gained the extraneous perspective that animals don’t seam to have so much. we can look outside ourselves and se a big picture. thence to define that we must come up with universals, archetypes and the like.

in our early days humanity had to make much of this all up, so god/s are of course anthropomorphized and a blend of the animal and the human.

perhaps now we can use science as a basis to form more advanced achetypes, however i would still argue that the universals are there to begin with! it is merely our interpretations that are changing.

hmm i need a drink

[Maverick]

Of course, religion from the darwinist point of view. Group selection, by-product and all that.

As I said, in "The God Delusion", Richard Dawkins spends 40 pages on the darwinistic advantages of religion.

In a nutshell, he claims (as one of his points) that religion is a bad "extra" result of our otherwise excellent instincts. Religion abuses the love that darwinistic model has for listening to your parents, believing previous generations... These were all excellent instincts, but sadly, this also makes religion possible.
He compares it to the fact that flies are so attracted the light. This attraction to light, however, is a bad "extra" result of their excellent "natural compass" skills.

You should really read it. I'm an atheist as well, but now that I'm reading his book, there are some extra things that come up...

I find it interesting that the words "good" and "bad" are in the vocabulary of an atheist, unless he means it in the context of advantageous and disadvantageous. If your world view doesn't include a divine or a special position for humanity good and bad are objectively meaningless. If he means to say that religion is disadvantageous, I also disagree with that. Without god there is no moral imperative and wretched creatures that we are we must not be allowed to act according to rules we set for ourselves without fear of real punishment for certain acts and now more than ever (i.e. a man rapes his 4 year old daughter in my country, gets only 4 years: http://www.crimelibrary.com/news/ap/...sex_abuse.html)
we need to reinforce the idea of divine punishment for evil, whether we believe in it or not it is advantageous to society.

In my opinion evangelizing Atheism, like Dawkins is possibly destructive to society without benefiting it one iota. I can't stand his pseudo-intellectual snobbery and it's sad with so many great books out there that you haven't read you choose to read his egoistic self-serving crap.

what is driving us or why do we think there is even a right way. i think religion had its purpose as part of mans evolution, perhaps without it we would be little more than animals. or that it is a result of us evolving - more probably.

Q: If you could be any animal, which would you be?

A: You're already a homo sapien.

This is the darwinist/atheist answer. As I said earlier, from this perspective I'm not sure how Dawkins intelligently defends his view that we should reject religion (he probably doesn't). Without god there is no right or wrong, only self-proclaimed know-it-alls like Dawkins who say it's right to be an atheist. For example, we don't say it's wrong or evil for a cat to eat her deformed baby because the cat is an animal and eating her deformed baby is natural for a cat. Now, we shouldn't say it's wrong or evil for a human to believe in god because the human is an animal and mysticism is natural for a human.

Dethroning humanity from it's percieved position above the other animals is not wise. I like to say that it is evil for humans to rape and that that law ought to be universal. As an Atheist, you can't say anything of the sort. It is natural for humans to rape, I have a natural response to a beautiful, fertile woman and so I can use my strength to subdue and rape her, what could be more natural than that? What recourse does an Antheist have to condemn my actions? Social contract theory? All that would be is an argument that it is disadvantageous to me to rape women which could be right or wrong, depending on how powerful/vulnerable I am but you can't possibly say it's evil or wrong.

Atheism is completely useless to me, it's useful to Dawkins as a vehicle to sell books but I can't imagine how Atheism enhances anyone else's life or is of any practical utility to society. Maybe I should write a book about how we shouldn't write poetry or make artwork because it's not an accurate representation of reality... it would be about as useful as anything Dawkins has to say.

[Tankbuster]

An excellent post Thutmose. Truly, excellent post.
You have very briefly summarized all arguments fór relgion, from the theist/deist point of view. In fact, I wouldn't know how to reject your post, had it not been that I've read another 50 pages in "The God Delusion" this morning. Dawkins stops at all your points.
Allow me to quote him, using your post. He uses almost your exact words.

It is a very big misunderstanding that religion is the same as values.

I find it interesting that the words "good" and "bad" are in the vocabulary of an atheist, unless he means it in the context of advantageous and disadvantageous. If your world view doesn't include a divine or a special position for humanity good and bad are objectively meaningless. If he means to say that religion is disadvantageous, I also disagree with that. Without god there is no moral imperative and wretched creatures that we are we must not be allowed to act according to rules we set for ourselves without fear of real punishment for certain acts and now more than ever (i.e. a man rapes his 4 year old daughter in my country, gets only 4 years: http://www.crimelibrary.com/news/ap/...sex_abuse.html)
we need to reinforce the idea of divine punishment for evil, whether we believe in it or not it is advantageous to society.

"Religious people often claim: "If you don't belive in God, then you don't believe that there are absolute moral standards. You can try to have values, but how do you know what right and wrong is? In the end, only religion can give absolute criteria for what is right and wrong. Without religion, you have to make it all up."" That's a bit what you said.
The point you are making is that ethics is a direct consequence of religion. We can 'feel' something is wrong, because of religion. But that's not true. Our evolution has given us a brain with an ethical scale: some things are good, some wrong. Things that were bad for our evolution (being egoistic, not protecting your family) are now seen as "bad" by our brain, while things that are good for our evolution (altruism, helping others to survive, guarding your family) have received a "good" label. And these values are the same all over the world. Ethics are inherent to the homo sapiens sapiens, not inherent to religion.

In my opinion evangelizing Atheism, like Dawkins is possibly destructive to society without benefiting it one iota. I can't stand his pseudo-intellectual snobbery and it's sad with so many great books out there that you haven't read you choose to read his egoistic self-serving crap.

Come on. Why would he be more snobbery because he defends atheism?

Q: If you could be any animal, which would you be?

A: You're already a homo sapien.

This is the darwinist/atheist answer. As I said earlier, from this perspective I'm not sure how Dawkins intelligently defends his view that we should reject religion (he probably doesn't). Without god there is no right or wrong, only self-proclaimed know-it-alls like Dawkins who say it's right to be an atheist. For example, we don't say it's wrong or evil for a cat to eat her deformed baby because the cat is an animal and eating her deformed baby is natural for a cat. Now, we shouldn't say it's wrong or evil for a human to believe in god because the human is an animal and mysticism is natural for a human.

Now you're just saying: "I don't want to be called an animal because that draws a comparison between me and those less evolved animals, and I don't want that, so I'll just say I'm superior because a God made me superior. That makes me feel happy."
You're underestimating humanity. We are just animals, BUT with a really good brain. That's the truth, and if we learn people to accept the truth rather than start spraying bullcrap about superiority all around, the world would be a better place.

Dethroning humanity from it's percieved position above the other animals is not wise. I like to say that it is evil for humans to rape and that that law ought to be universal. As an Atheist, you can't say anything of the sort. It is natural for humans to rape, I have a natural response to a beautiful, fertile woman and so I can use my strength to subdue and rape her, what could be more natural than that? What recourse does an Antheist have to condemn my actions? Social contract theory? All that would be is an argument that it is disadvantageous to me to rape women which could be right or wrong, depending on how powerful/vulnerable I am but you can't possibly say it's evil or wrong.

EXACTLY. It is disadvantageous to rape women, and that is why, during evolution, raping has received a label "wrong". That is why nobody thinks 'raping' is right, not in christianity, islam, hinduism, indians, indonesian religion, maori religion... NOT IN ATHEISM. There is also nowhere in the Bible that we shouldn't rape women, and if it is, it's definitely not followed by a lot of the believers.
Oh and by the way, what you're suggesting is that only atheists rape people, which is of course based on a feeling, because the facts contradict this.

Atheism is completely useless to me, it's useful to Dawkins as a vehicle to sell books but I can't imagine how Atheism enhances anyone else's life or is of any practical utility to society. Maybe I should write a book about how we shouldn't write poetry or make artwork because it's not an accurate representation of reality... it would be about as useful as anything Dawkins has to say.

Again, you think it's religion that justifies poetry or artwork. It's not. Atheists also enjoy artwork or poetry. It's humanity itself, our big brain volume that allows us to respect these things.

Thutmose, if you think that humanity needs religion to have ethics, artwork, poetry, values... then you are severely underestimating humanity (which is a paradox because you claim that humanity is superior to animals).

[eventhorizen]

Deleted for space

Your post misses the entire concept of empathy and assumes that all non-religious humanity is endowed with the INTP personality type of absolute objectivity and complete rational deconstruction of input information.

In other words your post is rediculous.

There is this thing called guilt, which you seem to be unfamiliar with. Guilt, from my perspective, is a state of mind whereby your memory of your actions conflicts with deep seated psychological negative responses to your actions most probably subtly programmed by your upbringing and surrounding that forces you to analyse the consequences and meaning of your actions in order to try to reintegrate your image of yourself with your desire for social acceptance.

You see, well you actually don't, that the world whether internal and subjective or external and subjective-objective is not black and white and is most certainly not clear cut and obvious and easily rationalised. In a world lacking biology, genetics, survival instincts, desire, sociology, psychology and human life your post would begin to show an iota of relevance.

The complexity of our world and of our brains endows us both with understanding and with realistic concerns and problems. From this not only has our history emerged, and within it our current sociological cultures, but our own placement and influences have emerged. It is within this exceptionally complex matrix of influence that our psyches and our individuality begin to take shape and take form, and from this our individual actions develop.

The average atheist, like the average religious individual, is bound by societal and parental influences, moulded by upbringing, and tempered by individual perspective. Very few have the time, space, intelligence, or desire to understand these things for what they are, therefore cannot be bound by the kind of simplistic perspective you posit in your post.

Quite simply your post is either one of emotional reaction or intellectual ignorance, for it is not one of understanding and rational deconstruction of reality. Mine is the same, for I remain an imperfect human being. None the less I remain an athiest, for I see no God at the heart of an understanding of all things, but I see the space for truth and I see my own ignorance. More than this though I see my own Will to Know, and I see the potential it offers.

[Maverick]

The point you are making is that ethics is a direct consequence of religion.

Not at all. I'm aware of the nature vs nurture argument. All I said was that religion endows its moral code with real consequences. For an Atheist you may or may not be punished for your actions, for a Deist punishment is inevitable.

But that's not true. Our evolution has given us a brain with an ethical scale: some things are good, some wrong. Things that were bad for our evolution (being egoistic, not protecting your family) are now seen as "bad" by our brain, while things that are good for our evolution (altruism, helping others to survive, guarding your family) have received a "good" label. And these values are the same all over the world. Ethics are inherent to the homo sapiens sapiens, not inherent to religion.

So basically you are saying that we live in an ethical world because of some biological imperative? First, murder, rape, incest all occur in the real world, it's not an ethical world. Second, values are definitely not the same all over the world, the Aztecs didn't see ritual child prostitution as "bad" or were struck with guilt after. Third, ethics are not inherent to the homo sapiens, how do you explain murder, rape and incest? Do you consider serial killers to be ethical by nature?

Now you're just saying: "I don't want to be called an animal because that draws a comparison between me and those less evolved animals, and I don't want that, so I'll just say I'm superior because a God made me superior. That makes me feel happy."
You're underestimating humanity. We are just animals, BUT with a really good brain. That's the truth, and if we learn people to accept the truth rather than start spraying bullcrap about superiority all around, the world would be a better place.

Again, you missed my point completely. If we can't hold ourselves in higher esteem than the other animals, how can we hold ourselves to a higher moral standard than any other animal? Because we have a better brain? Does that mean we should have certain moral obligations based on how intelligent we are? Should we release all the violent criminals from prison who aren't intelligent because they have inferior brains?

Are you a vegetarian? If humans and other animals are equals how can you justify your crimes?

EXACTLY. It is disadvantageous to rape women, and that is why, during evolution, raping has received a label "wrong". That is why nobody thinks 'raping' is right

If I rape a woman and get away with it, how is it disadvantageous to me if I don't ever face judgement for it? Nobody thinks raping is right? Do you never watch the news or read the paper? Ever hear of a serial rapist? Are they not humans acting on their own free will?

Oh and by the way, what you're suggesting is that only atheists rape people,

I'm suggesting people that rape more than likely don't believe they will face divine punishment for it. I'm sure many don't even believe they will ever face earthly "justice" either.

you think it's religion that justifies poetry or artwork. It's not.

Don't arbitrarily put words in my mouth. Where exactly did I say this, I'm curious.

we shouldn't rape women, and if it is, it's definitely not followed by a lot of the believers.

Given, but anyone who truly believes they will face an eternity of torment or any other divine punishment etc. will more likely not do something for fear of punishment than someone else for love of being a good Atheist, hence religion.

Thutmose, if you think that humanity needs religion to have ethics, artwork, poetry, values... then you are severely underestimating humanity (which is a paradox because you claim that humanity is superior to animals).

Again, I have no idea how you came to that conclusion based on my words. Humanity needs religion because wretched creatures that we are, we don't naturally act ethical. Ethics for most people conflicts with self-interest but we make a social contract with each other so that we can live together, I'll do unto you as I would have you do unto me. Most people observe this to varying degrees but how many people do the right thing by other people all the time? Again, someone who believes they will be judged will more likely do unto others out of fear of punishment than love of being a good atheist. As for art and poetry I have no idea where you got that from. I also never claimed humanity was superior to animals, just that it is beneficial to think we are and hold ourselves to a higher standard than other animals.

We are just animals, BUT with a really good brain. That's the truth, and if we learn people to accept the truth rather than start spraying bullcrap about superiority all around, the world would be a better place.

we shouldn't say it's wrong or evil for a human to believe in god because the human is an animal and mysticism is natural for a human.

Since my main argument which you seemed to have missed was that Atheism is not beneficial to society can you elaborate on how Atheism would make the world a better place specifically?

Your post misses the entire concept of empathy and assumes that all non-religious humanity is endowed with the INTP personality type of absolute objectivity and complete rational deconstruction of input information.

All humans feel empathy? I wasn't aware.

There is this thing called guilt, which you seem to be unfamiliar with. Guilt, from my perspective, is a state of mind whereby your memory of your actions conflicts with deep seated psychological negative responses to your actions most probably subtly programmed by your upbringing and surrounding that forces you to analyse the consequences and meaning of your actions in order to try to reintegrate your image of yourself with your desire for social acceptance.

All humans feel guilt? I wasn't aware.

Nice little sentence you wrote there, it's been a while since I've been lectured by someone like you (to put it nicely).

The average atheist, like the average religious individual, is bound by societal and parental influences, moulded by upbringing, and tempered by individual perspective. Very few have the time, space, intelligence, or desire to understand these things for what they are, therefore cannot be bound by the kind of simplistic perspective you posit in your post.

So you are saying that, because they don't have the time, space (?), intelligence, or desire to understand complex social/ethical systems, they cannot understand the more simple thou shalts of religious imperatives? That doesn't make one bit of sense.

Quite simply your post is either one of emotional reaction or intellectual ignorance, for it is not one of understanding and rational deconstruction of reality. Mine is the same, for I remain an imperfect human being. None the less I remain an athiest, for I see no God at the heart of an understanding of all things, but I see the space for truth and I see my own ignorance. More than this though I see my own Will to Know, and I see the potential it offers.

The rest of your post has nothing to do with the topic of discussion. Although you clearly disagree with my opinion the only reason you made this post was to talk about yourself, clearly.

[Dayman]

put down the blunt, quezt

you don't need that drink either

[Amorphos]

you don’t need that drink either

too late i am half way through a nice bottle of chateauneuf-du-pape :tacticalw

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

So basically you are saying that we live in an ethical world because of some biological imperative? First, murder, rape, incest all occur in the real world, it's not an ethical world. Second, values are definitely not the same all over the world, the Aztecs didn't see ritual child prostitution as "bad" or were struck with guilt after. Third, ethics are not inherent to the homo sapiens, how do you explain murder, rape and incest? Do you consider serial killers to be ethical by nature?

Do you consider ethic inherent to Religion, Thutmose? No, the facts, cold facts contradict you; was reality like your post above, then we would watch the complete collapse of all Western institutions, mainly because Religious faith is still unpopular except in North America, and look, North America has a really good image over the world, isn't it ?

I did not need Religious belief to be taught about ethics, about empathy, about altruism, about respect, and morality. I, as an imperfect being, not always follow them in entirety, but I do make sure that I'm doing my best, just like any moral human. Morality is independent from personal fantasy in the sense that lack of belief in God doesn't mean lack of belief in the common good and collective harmony, or empathy. These are distinct things, and altruism is by no means limited to us, humans; on the contrary, we can see altruism in animal species that don't seem to follow any mythical guideline like the modern Christian. And most modern Christians don't take anything seriously worthy from their anachronic, obscurantist and cruel beliefs, as they truly are.

[Maverick]

I did not need Religious belief to be taught about ethics, about empathy, about altruism, about respect, and morality. I, as an imperfect being, not always follow them in entirety, but I do make sure that I'm doing my best, just like any moral human.

Your personal experience doesn't necessarily reflect the entire species.

"Like any moral human", what is a moral human? You said you don't follow them in entirety but you do your best, what prevents you from being moral sometimes? How often do you have to be moral to be considered moral? If you are not taught about ethics, empathy etc. how do you learn them, or are they innate? If you learn them, does that mean ethics is subjective and varies from individual to individual? If they are innate, how do you explain evil people?

These are distinct things, and altruism is by no means limited to us, humans; on the contrary, we can see altruism in animal species

Wow, it would be difficult enough to argue that altruism exists for any human beings, let alone other animals but if you want to try, go ahead.

Those who follow a religious dogma that is not a construction of their own psyche do so out of fear and for gain.

My point exactly.

It is my view that it is the reverse of the points within this thread that is true; adherance to religion for moral and ethical direction points to an individual incapable of or afraid to construct or arrive at such principles from their own conscience and understanding.

Also known as the average human.

The morality and ethics of an atheist can only ever be morality and ethics born of experience within life, understanding of life, and empathy towards others.
All else being equal, morality based on reason can only ever be superior to morality based upon fear.

Tankbuster already made this point. I'll ask you what I asked him, how does this "superior" ethics contribute to a better functioning society?

Indeed I remain in doubt as to whether you have brought up anything of intellectual interest and engagement at all thus far.

Damn, now I can't sleep tonight.

Ofcourse it doesn't make any sense.

I accept your apology.

Individuals whom for whatever reasons lack the mental effort to fully persue these issues to their cores will accept whatever makes most sense to them in the context of limited faculty for considered inquery. Snap decisions, educated guesses, bet hedging, there are very few who live otherwise.

Again, this is not an argument against, but for simple religious imperatives. That's twice so far that you have made a point for me, thank you.

The depth and breadth of your own words show that underneath your posturing you have little to say and nothing to discuss.

What exactly do you have to say or discuss that is relevant here?

You have an all too narrow and simplistic a position that is frequently seen on these forums

Political realism? I guess you could say Hobbes and Machiavelli were narrow and simplistic too.

You want to discuss historical religious influences on society, social grooming, adolescent rebellion and intellectual maturity, 9/11 fundamentalism and the victim complex, fear of death, definition and implication of the meaning of ethics, the ethical implication of being, and a whole host of other closely linked topics that form the crux of the entire issue at its heart? No you don't, but I have thought on these issues, so why not lecture you?

You're right, I don't. If you didn't have your head in the clouds (to put it nicely) you would have seen that my main question was whether or not Atheism is beneficial to society. You haven't touched that question, or gone anywhere near it. You haven't contributed anything relevant to the discussion yet. Don't be surprised if nobody quotes you in this thread "event said something interesting here:" since that would be nearly impossible to do.

I have thought on these issues, so why not lecture you?

Nobody likes to be lectured in a condescending way. I can put up with it for someone who actually has something to say, not someone like you who just has to say something.

If religious people are moral, just because they fear they might be punished later on, that's like a guy in a store who is afraid to steal, JUST because he will be caught by the security cameras. That's not very moral.

Really? So if Deists give to charity because they will be rewarded in the next life and Atheists give to charity because they want to feel good about themselves, does the needy recipient of the charity care which reason was behind the good deed?

Atheists, on the other hand, don't believe they will be punished for their deeds, so then it is much more moral to restrain yourself from doing wrong. It's like someone in a store who KNOWS he can get away with stealing, but doesn't do it because he is against taking what does not belong to him.

Same idea. Does the proprietor of the store care what reason a person has not to steal his property?

I think you'll agree that being moral because you want to be moral, is superior to being moral because you're afraid you could be punished.

Superior? Maybe, whatever that means.

Again, my main argument is will Atheism benefit society? Society needs law and order, not people who consider themselves morally superior to others. And, as I have said at least 3 times already in this thread, wretched creatures that we are, fear of punishment is almost always more effective than love of virtue and nobody with any knowledge of human pyschology is going to disagree with me on that point.

Indeed, I can't really prove that values are inherent to homo sapiens. But let's follow your thought stream: if our values are not from our biological nature, where did we get them? The only thing I can come up with is religion.
But our values are NOT inherent to religion. Psychologists have often proved that most of our values are in fact the same, for example: nobody thinks using a human as a tool is a good thing.
And most of these values are the same, in spite of different religions.
It is true, however, that the Aztecs didn't see RITUAL child prostitution as bad. Ritual! Religion has a tendency to make values less omnipresent: killing is justified in the name of your faith, ritual raping is justified,...
In other words, it HAS to be inherent to homo sapiens sapiens... I don't see any other way.

Make up your mind, which one is it?

We should not release criminals from prison who are less intelligent, simply because the difference in intelligence is insignificant.

So, by your reasoning we should hold Koko the monkey (IQ 70-95: http://www.csicop.org/articles/koko/) to a similar moral standard as the average human. To make my point more clear, the difference between Koko and the average human (IQ 100) is much less than the average human and Plato, Newton and Einstein (IQ 200).

Intelligent people are considered to have more ethics.

Serial killers Arthur Gary Bishop, Edmund Kemper and John Norman Collins all had IQ's approaching the genius level (IQ 150), just to name a few. Again, the difference between these men and the average person is greater than the difference between the average person and Koko the monkey.

I can justify my 'crime' from darwinistic perspective: I am 'built' for the kill

You say we are ethical by nature and yet we are built for the kill? Some people find slaughtering and eating the flesh of innocent creatures unethical, does that mean they are not as evolved as you are?

Yeah, that's what we would think. But the facts show different results.
In America, the most religious states are also the states with most crimes.
In prisons, the most asked books are religious books (Qu'ran, Bible,...)
So while they are doing crimes, they are religious at the same time.
I don't know why they would or would not think that they will face divine
punishment... Perhaps they're thinking in double standards? I'm no expert on this, I honestly don't know.

Since you said you weren't an expert I can excuse this, but seriously, there's a difference between real faith and belief and some scumbag trying to look reformed for his next parole hearing.

But religious people who do crimes, don't want to believe they will receive divine punishment! "I killed for God, for my faith. God will forgive me" "I raped and then killed that woman, but she was an infidel. God will forgive me" "I'm going to take this aircraft and fly it into a sky-scraper, but God will forgive me because I'm doing it for him!"

Socio/psychopaths don't need any excuse to kill. I don't know much about Islam, but if a sane rational person comes to the conclusion that he should rape, kill or fly a plane into a sky-scraper and kill innocent people after reading the Qu'ran than we should not allow people to read that book or practice that faith.

And I think that our brain volume has come to such a level that we have come to higher levels of ethics, like "Don't do unto others, ...". I could be wrong, but what I'm sure of, is that it's not religion that gives us this higher standard of ethics.

First, I think my earlier arguments that we don't practice "higher levels of ethics", regardless of our intelligence are sufficient. Second, I never said religion gives us higher standards directly, but by holding ourselves as superior to other animals with immortal souls religion indirectly forces us to have higher standards, lest we face divine punishment for our sins in the after life.

That's easy.
No religious extremism
no religious wars in North Ireland, Iran, Iraq, Croatia,...
no suicide bombers, no terrorist attacks
religion will no longer try to put a halt to science, people will be more likely to believe science rather than dogma's...

All these make sense on a very superficial level. Behind the rhetoric of holy wars though, you can be sure that wars are fought for money, land and power, religious conviction is the justification for the ignorant masses who won't share in the money, land or power of conquest.

About religion putting a halt to science, this is a decent point and I will admit like any institution, organized religions have corruption. The Catholic justification for not using birth control or having abortions is scripture, the real reason is simply because they want more Catholics in the world (power).

I see, my apologies.
But if you're starting to do that, "hold yourself to a higher standard", while you know that humanity is NOT superior, just to feel better... then where do you draw the line? Believe in the fairies in our backyard because it makes it feel special? Believe in geocentrism because it makes us feel special?
Or worse still, drink beer and take drugs because it makes us feel good?

Like Plato, I believe any public misconception is good if it leads to a better, more harmonious and ethical society.

[eventhorizen]

"Like any moral human", what is a moral human? You said you don't follow them in entirety but you do your best, what prevents you from being moral sometimes? How often do you have to be moral to be considered moral? If you are not taught about ethics, empathy etc. how do you learn them, or are they innate? If you learn them, does that mean ethics is subjective and varies from individual to individual? If they are innate, how do you explain evil people?

If you had actually learned and understood even a fraction of what you imply that you know, you would understand that these questions and their answers depend upon the subject. You would understand that common ethics and morality is a matter of perspective, and that highest ethics and morality involves the dissolution of the ego and non-involvement.

You would understand that in the real world ethics and morality does not exist, is replaced and made apparent manifest by conditioning, history and psychology; that in philosophy can only ever emerge as the realisation of non-involvement or the minimisation of personal negative influence.

You do not seek to inform, to discuss, but only to goad. You speak of ethics and morality as if they exist, as if they are real, a defined path of right and wrong or a measure of virtue and this is your first and gravest error.

Ethics and morality are questions if they exist at all. They are concepts that introduce our ideas of how we ought to live with each other into our real every day lives. There can never be an ethical answer, only an ethical problem, because when a human being arrives at an answer it cannot be devoid of subjective interpretation, and can never be anything other than subjective ethics which defies the premise of ethics and morality by its very nature.

You ask what is superior about atheist ethics and the answer is there can be nothing superior about atheist ethics for there cannot be an answer or decision from a human being that is purely ethical. What is superior is the process of thought that leads to understanding. This is superior to all things barring existence itself.

You come on here with your book and fist, and you betray a profound ignorance, the ignorance that is the absence of hard philosophical inquery, beneath a mask of apparent intelligence and righteousness. You know much but understand little, speak often but say even less.

By what right do I have to choose to interfere with a rapist? By the same right that allows the rapist to choose to rape. By what drive and outlook will I rush across the street to help an injured man? By the same subjective drive and outlook that allowed Hitler to exterminate the Jews.

What you fail to realise is that Ethics requires choice, but that choice annhilates Ethics. You fail to realise that the only ethical choice mankind can make is to choose not to choose.

Your words and mine reveal the conflict between religion and atheism, between belief and questioning, between adherance and thought. With every action you take you praise your worthiness, and with every action I take I admit my weakness.

Now run along and actually think.

[Maverick]

You ask what is superior about atheist ethics and the answer is there can be nothing superior about atheist ethics

That's all you had to say. I accept your apology.

[Spurius]

If you had actually learned [snip] Now run along and actually think.

Maybe look up the etymology of the word 'bilious'. Could be illuminating.

[Amorphos]

eventhorizon, hi

These religious types adhere to the same code everyone else does; their own. They just have more of a mess going on between impulse and decision.

haha completely... and good points there concerning the subjectivity of mans interpretation of a god. if there were a god he would surely be cleverer than that!

Those who follow a religious dogma that is not a construction of their own psyche do so out of fear and for gain.

to a degree and in the main yes...

-----------------

. after reading all the posts, it seams clear to me that an atheist basis for morality is superior to one of religious fear.

. that is for intelligent atheists who choose to care.


. is there a further level which is better than atheism?

i would think that there are many examples of where aspects of religion can be morally beneficial as basis. e.g:

1. if you believed in or considered it true that rebirth is real, then as you want to better your life materially, you would want to ensure a better next life by improving yourself ‘spiritually’ [ethically, morally, mentally, socially]. if you failed when young you may wish to be better when older.

2. if you believed in or thought it quite possibly true, that there is some kind of higher intelligence; then one may want to aspire to it [in many ways]. this is where the belief in a god of punishment becomes detrimental! as have been shown. also i would think that a son of god or any other massiah would be detrimental unless it was something you could become like e.g. the buddha ~ we can become buddha beings and it is known that he was purely human.

[Tankbuster]

Really? So if Deists give to charity because they will be rewarded in the next life and Atheists give to charity because they want to feel good about themselves, does the needy recipient of the charity care which reason was behind the good deed?

I can see what you mean. The netto effect is the same, but you have to agree that the atheist reason for given charity is, on ethical scale, better.
Of course, for the receiver of charity, the effect is the same.
But in ethics and in judiciary items, the REASON why you did something is very important.

Same idea. Does the proprietor of the store care what reason a person has not to steal his property?

For the proprietor the effect is the same, but if the thief is punished for his deed, the reason will be very important.
Stealing for certain reasons (like hunger) can be justified, or in any case more justified than stealing just to make yourself rich.
Same thing with killing, for example.

Again, my main argument is will Atheism benefit society? Society needs law and order, not people who consider themselves morally superior to others. And, as I have said at least 3 times already in this thread, wretched creatures that we are, fear of punishment is almost always more effective than love of virtue and nobody with any knowledge of human pyschology is going to disagree with me on that point.

Indeed, fear of punishment is very effective.
But you don't need fear of the AFTER-LIFE for this. Fear to go in jail will suffice.
As you said: "Society needs law and order". But atheism has no impact on this. What society needs are judges and police! Atheism will not change this.
Maybe, maybe, there will be need for a bit more police for more fear of punishment, but then I think this is a worthy sacrifice.

Indeed, I can't really prove that values are inherent to homo sapiens.

But let's follow your thought stream: if our values are not from our biological nature, where did we get them? The only thing I can come up with is religion.
But our values are NOT inherent to religion. Psychologists have often proved that most of our values are in fact the same, for example: nobody thinks using a human as a tool is a good thing.
And most of these values are the same, in spite of different religions.
It is true, however, that the Aztecs didn't see RITUAL child prostitution as bad. Ritual! Religion has a tendency to make values less omnipresent: killing is justified in the name of your faith, ritual raping is justified,...
In other words, it HAS to be inherent to homo sapiens sapiens... I don't see any other way.

Make up your mind, which one is it?

Hey, that's not fair. I was following a thought stream.
I can see only two things our ethics can come from: homo sapiens as a species, or religion.
I couldn't really prove that it was homo sapiens, but I could DISPROVE that it is religion that brings us our values.
So it HAD to be inherent to homo sapiens sapiens.

So, by your reasoning we should hold Koko the monkey (IQ 70-95: http://www.csicop.org/articles/koko/) to a similar moral standard as the average human. To make my point more clear, the difference between Koko and the average human (IQ 100) is much less than the average human and Plato, Newton and Einstein (IQ 200).

Lol, good article. But if I read the article, I really doubt if he has an IQ of 70-95 ("People CLAIM she has one of 70-95). I'd like to see her fare on one of those IQ tests I did.
But if you could really have an ape of a near-human IQ, then... yeah he's responsable for his deeds.

Serial killers Arthur Gary Bishop, Edmund Kemper and John Norman Collins all had IQ's approaching the genius level (IQ 150), just to name a few. Again, the difference between these men and the average person is greater than the difference between the average person and Koko the monkey.

Yeah, and because of their high IQ's we would think they would have higher levels of ethics. That's why we are more surprised when they are serial killers, then Koko the Monkey.
(It should also be noted that those serial killers are probably deranged in a way...)

You say we are ethical by nature and yet we are built for the kill? Some people find slaughtering and eating the flesh of innocent creatures unethical, does that mean they are not as evolved as you are?

We have evolved as such to eat meat, so if vegetarians refuse to eat meat, then that's not very natural.
Also, when it comes to our natural needs like food, other ethics are used than in normal life (same way as different ethics are used in war).
It's their personal choice though, as it is a choice to be socialist or kapitalist. Some ethical codes are no personal choices though, but inherent.

Since you said you weren't an expert I can excuse this, but seriously, there's a difference between real faith and belief and some scumbag trying to look reformed for his next parole hearing.

There are a lot of people who have "real faith" and still do crimes.
For example Bishop Paul Hill who shot a doctor because he was doing abortions. And I think he had quite a "real faith".

Socio/psychopaths don't need any excuse to kill. I don't know much about Islam, but if a sane rational person comes to the conclusion that he should rape, kill or fly a plane into a sky-scraper and kill innocent people after reading the Qu'ran than we should not allow people to read that book or practice that faith.

Ding ding ding, we're coming to a point here.
Point is that all terrorists actually BELIEVE that.
The same way christians who think they should a doctor who does abortions believe they'll be going to heaven. And that's after reading the Bible.
Point is, there are a lot of religious fundamentalists on this world, who have a lot of power.
And then you want to forbid them to read their sacred books or practice their faiths. Bingo, so do I. But tell me, how will you do that? How will you find these people and stop them? They are already fundamentalists, so you will probably have to use violence.
Nope, you have to take on the root: religious indoctrination from the moment they are born has to stop.

First, I think my earlier arguments that we don't practice "higher levels of ethics", regardless of our intelligence are sufficient. Second, I never said religion gives us higher standards directly, but by holding ourselves as superior to other animals with immortal souls religion indirectly forces us to have higher standards, lest we face divine punishment for our sins in the after life.

I hold myself to a higher moral standard than other animals too, but I don't need to believe I have an immortal soul. Believing that I have more intelligence, and I am more evolved to have ethics and culture... that will suffice.
A lot of biologists do not share your opinion, and yet they don't become animals
If we truly think that we need to sustain a lie in order to be moral, then we are probably underestimating our potential. Humanity has received a couple of slaps in the face, during our existence: we are not in the center of the universe, the sun doesn't turn around us, we are not God's loved creature, we are (more than likely) not the only life in the universe, we have evolved from the apes... It hasn't caused us to be less moral. I think we can sustain a few more blows

All these make sense on a very superficial level. Behind the rhetoric of holy wars though, you can be sure that wars are fought for money, land and power, religious conviction is the justification for the ignorant masses who won't share in the money, land or power of conquest.

Sure, religion is what caused people to start a crusade, although the real background was the desire for more power in the Holy Land (for Pope and European Kings).
But if there was no religion, than that wouldn't be used anymore. And religion has justified a whole lot of wars.
And of course, there HAVE been a lot of wars that were really for religion. Genocide on Servia, genocide in Darfur, even the Holocaust to an extent.

About religion putting a halt to science, this is a decent point and I will admit like any institution, organized religions have corruption. The Catholic justification for not using birth control or having abortions is scripture, the real reason is simply because they want more Catholics in the world (power).

Exactly.
And more important: religion would like us to stop some of our investigations.
"Can't explain how life on Earth originated? Stop searching fella! Just say God's the cause. We'll be more than happy, and that's one mystery less for you!"
"Can't explain how the eye works? Stop searching fella! Just say God created it. We'll be more than happy, and that's one mystery less for you!"

Like Plato, I believe any public misconception is good if it leads to a better, more harmonious and ethical society.

I respect that, but personally, I don't like that principle at all.
Plato uses a kind of Realpolitik here, while I think that idealism would be better here.
I believe that people should accept truth, even if this is not 100% beneficial to society.
Because, again, where would we draw the line?

[Spurius]

You can ofcourse wonder if religious people are really better, or just the same ********s with self-imposed restrictions here and there.

They sure ain't 'better people' in my view. They wish, indeed.