God? Don't be silly!

[SawTooTH]

BBC NEWS | UK | God 'will not give happy ending'

Fuck God then.

 

[Turamber]

The ruleset that defines their Christianity.

I really don't think you understand religion. No one is forced to accept it or follow it. It is a way of life with varying requirements dependent on the faith.

A football fan doesn't complain that being a fan means he has to follow his team. It is part and parcel the same thing.

 

[old.Tohtori]

To return my pre-rant point;

People don't do shitty things due to either(after thought) A: reprocussions or B: due to morals.

Moral teachings more or less go hand in hand with reprocussions.

We are taught these as kids.

Those teachings are based on religion.

Religion is based on afterlife reprocussions.

Kind of hand in hand i think.

Now, you could argue that you can have morals without religion, but that can't be proven. We can however prove that religion brought morals into modern day society. Those morals are based on an afterlife.

If you don't believe in afterlife, those morals are...(enter rest of statement here if you get my point).

Now, to return to the original point;

You try to make a good impression on people due to being alive, but if you don't believe in afterlife, you have no reason to think about what happens to people after you're dead.

If you do, you base it on morals, which are based on religion, which is based on an afterlife.

Ask if you want clarification, and this is MY opinion.

 

[Wij]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta-ethics

 

[Panda On Smack]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta-ethics

They like meta tags?

 

[old.Tohtori]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta-ethics

Ah thanks, have to look into that.

 

[Wij]

I did my dissertation on ethics and my other best subject was philosophy of religion. Not sure how much I remember though...

 

[DaGaffer]

To return my pre-rant point;

People don't do shitty things due to either(after thought) A: reprocussions or B: due to morals.

Well, I'd say a bit of both for most people.

Moral teachings more or less go hand in hand with reprocussions.

Not necessarily, or indeed, at all.

We are taught these as kids.

Those teachings are based on religion.

Once again, not necessarily.

Religion is based on afterlife reprocussions.

Kind of hand in hand i think.

I don't even think that's true for all religions.

Now, you could argue that you can have morals without religion, but that can't be proven. We can however prove that religion brought morals into modern day society. Those morals are based on an afterlife.

What do you mean "can't be proven"? I have no religion but I have a set of moral values. How is that "not proven"? In addition, you can't blithely say that religion is the basis of all moral thought; there are quite a few philosophers who helped develop our modern (e.g. western pluralistic) sense of morals in the teeth of religious opposition, Rousseau for instance.

If you don't believe in afterlife, those morals are...(enter rest of statement here if you get my point).

Now, to return to the original point;

See above. You're starting from an inaccurate premise.

You try to make a good impression on people due to being alive, but if you don't believe in afterlife, you have no reason to think about what happens to people after you're dead.

You feel this way, but it simply doesn't follow that most people feel this way. I'd suggest that for an awful lot of people their mental process is nothing like that. When my father was dying, he had absolutely no belief in an afterlife and his sole attention was ensuring his wife and family were provided for and not only that, but their happiness after he was gone was his primary concern. I don't see my father's attitude as unusual.

If you do, you base it on morals, which are based on religion, which is based on an afterlife.

Ask if you want clarification, and this is MY opinion.

See above. I don't see the cause and effect between religion/belief in afterlife and morality, and I'm actually quite insulted by it because the implication is that without religious belief one has no morality.

This is your personal view, but I don't see what it has to do with there being an actual afterlife. It may make you believe in an afterlife, but that still doesn't make it so.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Didn't say that there is an actual afterlife, said that there's no point in caring about things that happen after you're gone, if you don't believe there's an afterlife.

Like i said, NOW you can care about it and NOW it effects you, but things like the very used "what people think of me when i'm gone" just don't make sense if you don't believe there's an afterlife, as there's no point in you caring.

"What do you mean "can't be proven"? I have no religion but I have a set of moral values. How is that "not proven"? In addition, you can't blithely say that religion is the basis of all moral thought; there are quite a few philosophers who helped develop our modern (e.g. western pluralistic) sense of morals in the teeth of religious opposition, Rousseau for instance."

You can't prove what the world would be like, or the morals fo the world would be like, without religion. It has influenced people for ages and as such, even the teachings you got as a kid(without religion) are based on religion.

"I don't see the cause and effect between religion/belief in afterlife and morality, and I'm actually quite insulted by it because the implication is that without religious belief one has no morality."

Religion is based on an afterlife, it's the biggest goal there. Talking generic "default what people think about religion"(as shown by many on this thread), not all religion. Also, i'm not saying "without religion there's no morals", i'm saying "without religion, morals wouldn't be necessarily as they are".

Modern morals come from religious effect, that's a fact.

Those morals are based on "getting to heaven"(etc).

Ergo, morals are based on an afterlife.

 

[Wij]

Some people's morals are based on an afterlife. Mine aren't, never have been. Indeed I would go so far as to say that morals based on reward/punishment in an afterlife are not moral at all but simply self-interest.

Seriously, read up on meta-ethics. You are simply wrong.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Are you trying to say that religion doesn't teach "do this and get to good place"?

I'm not claiming ALL current morals are ALONE by religion, but claiming that religion and as such afterlife reward isn't part of it is equally wrong.

And yes, your morals(if at all basic morals the modern society has) are based on religious effect too.

Hell, good example; "thou shalt not f*ck thine neighbours wife" only came to play after religion, it's natural to f*ck around.

 

[nath]

This whole thing seems to cling to the idea that an atheist cares what people think of him/her when they die. This implies that the only reason to do decent things is to make others think highly of us, but this simply isn't necessarily the case at all. We care *now* about other peoples futures, whether we're a part of it or not.

You seem to be suggesting that without a belief in an afterlife there's no point in caring for others when you're not around to reap the rewards. If that was the case, atheists would never create a will as what would be the point? The fact is, since people care NOW about others, they do what they can NOW to ensure that things will be good for them in the future.

As for the morals based on religion - no one could argue that it's had an effect, but to suggest that morals stem from there is a little silly. Have you not considered that religion actually stems from our innate desire to be decent to one another, given that we're a social animal. Religion may have just put words to existing emotions.

 

[old.Tohtori]

This whole thing seems to cling to the idea that an atheist cares what people think of him/her when they die. This implies that the only reason to do decent things is to make others think highly of us, but this simply isn't necessarily the case at all. We care *now* about other peoples futures, whether we're a part of it or not.

You seem to be suggesting that without a belief in an afterlife there's no point in caring for others when you're not around to reap the rewards. If that was the case, atheists would never create a will as what would be the point? The fact is, since people care NOW about others, they do what they can NOW to ensure that things will be good for them in the future.

As for the morals based on religion - no one could argue that it's had an effect, but to suggest that morals stem from there is a little silly. Have you not considered that religion actually stems from our innate desire to be decent to one another, given that we're a social animal. Religion may have just put words to existing emotions.

Then i don't know why anyone would cling to that as A: don't mean atheists alone and B: it's not meant to be implied as such.

Maybe take a step back from the defensive stance.

I've pointed it out several times that NOW is fine and dandy to think about how others feel about your actions. Otherwise, it's silly.

Just like it would be silly to think about how people think of you that you will never ever see again.

I'm suggesting, as you put it, that after death worries are pointless.

About morals and religion;

It's not all morals, but something like "not f*cking your neighbour", when all beings on the planet f*ck around like it's last day of f*ckaran, is something that certainly came from religion.

Turn the other cheek another good one.

And yes, people actually argue it with "my morals have nothing to do with religion".

 

[Krazeh]

Hell, good example; "thou shalt not f*ck thine neighbours wife" only came to play after religion, it's natural to f*ck around.

It's not all morals, but something like "not f*cking your neighbour", when all beings on the planet f*ck around like it's last day of f*ckaran, is something that certainly came from religion.

There's plenty of examples in nature of animals that form and maintain monogamous relationships. Unless you're claiming they've also found God then there's a flaw in your claims that monogamy has only come about from religion.

 

[nath]

I'm not being defensive, not sure why you assume I am.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say about the now vs future thing. I think we're in agreement that from an atheist perspective, we don't believe we exist after death and as such won't *then* be worried about well.. anything as we won't exist. As I've said, this doesn't stop us being concerned *now* with things that happen *then*.

Are you honestly suggesting that if religion had never come about, people all over the world would be fucking each others neighbours with no appreciation for the consequences? Sorry but that just seems a little naive. Once again I think religion pulled an Alexander Graham Bell and patented something that it didn't invent*.








*Hurrah for QI.

 

[old.Tohtori]

There's plenty of examples in nature of animals that form and maintain monogamous relationships. Unless you're claiming they've also found God then there's a flaw in your claims that monogamy has only come about from religion.

Let's cling to that shall we. It's an example, examples aren't supposed to be taken as discussion topics.

Do i really need to post every chritian teaching(another example) and compare how it was before christianity and how christianity effected ways of life before people can agree to ONE OUNCE of things?

 

[DaGaffer]

Are you trying to say that religion doesn't teach "do this and get to good place"?

Yes it does, and that's wrong.

I'm not claiming ALL current morals are ALONE by religion, but claiming that religion and as such afterlife reward isn't part of it is equally wrong.

But it isn't. It can be, but it doesn't have to be. It doesn't actually matter that religion was the basis of morality up until say, 2-300 years ago; religion at the time controlled most intellectual activity (harks back to the religious scientist argument earlier), it doesn't have to be that way now because we're smart enough to see that you can take the God/afterlife part out of the equation and it doesn't detract from the moral message. Your view is that is does (e.g. why would people care if there's no afterlife?), but since there are people here who can flat out tell you that (lack of) belief in an afterlife doesn't have an impact on their morality, I don't really understand where your argument goes; other than it being your personal moral framework.

 

[old.Tohtori]

I'm not being defensive, not sure why you assume I am.

As much as you said i'm being defensive. You assumed i meant atheist and based argument on that. That whole thing is defensive. You're disagreeing because you live differently. You take it personally.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say about the now vs future thing. I think we're in agreement that from an atheist perspective, we don't believe we exist after death and as such won't *then* be worried about well.. anything as we won't exist. As I've said, this doesn't stop us being concerned *now* with things that happen *then*.

I'm not saying you can't be concerned 'now', but explain an atheist saying "i'm worried what people will think of me", or doing things that make people think more of you even if you never have to interact with those people again?

Doesn't make sense.

Are you honestly suggesting that if religion had never come about, people all over the world would be fucking each others neighbours with no appreciation for the consequences? Sorry but that just seems a little naive. Once again I think religion pulled an Alexander Graham Bell and patented something that it didn't invent

I'm suggesting you can't prove(look at that) that we WOULDN'T be doing that, but you can prove that we're not now and you can prove religions effect on that.

But it isn't. It can be, but it doesn't have to be. It doesn't actually matter that religion was the basis of morality up until say, 2-300 years ago; religion at the time controlled most intellectual activity (harks back to the religious scientist argument earlier), it doesn't have to be that way now because we're smart enough to see that you can take the God/afterlife part out of the equation and it doesn't detract from the moral message. Your view is that is does (e.g. why would people care if there's no afterlife?), but since there are people here who can flat out tell you that (lack of) belief in an afterlife doesn't have an impact on their morality, I don't really understand where your argument goes; other than it being your personal moral framework.

Now i'm throwing the atheist way of looking at things back at you, flat out, even knowing it's not "fair";

Prove that we would have same morals now without religion.

Or even say your own moral teachings, that are not some morals that stem from religious effect.

 

[Krazeh]

Let's cling to that shall we. It's an example, examples aren't supposed to be taken as discussion topics.

Do i really need to post every chritian teaching(another example) and compare how it was before christianity and how christianity effected ways of life before people can agree to ONE OUNCE of things?

You stated that morals have come from religion, and that a good example for the proof of that was that people form and maintain monogamous relationships. How is that not to be taken as a discussion topic??

The simple fact is there are social and evolutionary pressures which can lead to monogamy being a better option than polygamy for the survival of offspring. This has got nothing to do with religion, which is demonstrated by the fact that it's not only humans that engage in monogamous relationships.

The only impact religion is likely to have had is to have codifyed existing social tradition.

 

[old.Tohtori]

You stated that morals have come from religion, and that a good example for the proof of that was that people form and maintain monogamous relationships. How is that not to be taken as a discussion topic??

The simple fact is there are social and evolutionary pressures which can lead to monogamy being a better option than polygamy for the survival of offspring. This has got nothing to do with religion, which is demonstrated by the fact that it's not only humans that engage in monogamous relationships.

The only impact religion is likely to have had is to have codifyed existing social tradition.

Like i said, it's one example. Do you need all examples to admit religious effect on modern day morals?

 

[Krazeh]

Like i said, it's one example. Do you need all examples to admit religious effect on modern day morals?

You're kinda missing the point. You came out with a grand statement that religion is the basis of modern Human morals. You then backed up this statement with examples intended to prove your point, and in 2 separate posts put quite a lot of emphasis on the fact that we engage in monogamous relationships as proof of religion's impact on morality.

This however is clearly not true as mongamy can be evidenced in the animal kingdom and can be easily demonstrated to have nothing to do with God or religious morality.

To now claim "it was only one example" and that the fact you were wrong has zero impact on your the validity of your claims is the argumental equivalent of putting your fingers in your ears and going "lalalalala" very loudly.

 

[nath]

As much as you said i'm being defensive. You assumed i meant atheist and based argument on that. That whole thing is defensive. You're disagreeing because you live differently. You take it personally.

This is an incorrect assumption, I'm not taking anything personally and I'm not getting defensive.

I'm not saying you can't be concerned 'now', but explain an atheist saying "i'm worried what people will think of me", or doing things that make people think more of you even if you never have to interact with those people again?

Doesn't make sense.

I've not heard anyone saying "I'm worried what people will think of me" specifically from an atheist beyond what you're saying here. If someone were to say that and claim to believe in an atheist then there is a point that it doesn't matter. However, doing things that make people think more of you - these things are not necessarily done IN ORDER to make people think more of you but because they're the right thing to do. The fact that others think more of you because of it may simply an unintended consequence.

I'm suggesting you can't prove(look at that) that we WOULDN'T be doing that, but you can prove that we're not now and you can prove religions effect on that.

And you can't prove that religion didn't just hijack normal human compassionate social interactions and claim them as its own.

 

[Ch3tan]

Morals do not stem from religion alone. If we had no religion we would still have morals, rules and a sense of right and wrong. These things come from our instinct for survivial and the continuation of the human race and from community.

 

[DaGaffer]

I'm not saying you can't be concerned 'now', but explain an atheist saying "i'm worried what people will think of me", or doing things that make people think more of you even if you never have to interact with those people again?

Doesn't make sense.

You keep saying it doesn't make sense, but it only doesn't make sense to you. This is absolutely fundamental; you feel the need for an afterlife to give a reason for being nice to people. We don't. I don't see what's so hard to understand.

Now i'm throwing the atheist way of looking at things back at you, flat out, even knowing it's not "fair";

Prove that we would have same morals now without religion.

Or even say your own moral teachings, that are not some morals that stem from religious effect.

You can't prove it. Unless we can discover an alternate universe devoid of religion. But so what? No one's trying to say religion has had no bearing on moral thought. Religion was a useful way for people who didn't understand it to organise their view of the world. However, it was also an extremely useful way to get people to do what you wanted them to do, from stuff that was in their own interests (don't eat pork or shellfish in hot countries because it'll kill you. What do you mean "but, bacon is so tasty"? Well God says pack it in. "Oh all right then") all the way up to threats of eternal punishment ("if you're not scared of your King, how about God? Ooh, scared now aintcha? God's a right bastard.").

But even as far back as Plato, people have seen through this religious basis of morality and have argued that religion could just as easily be a symptom of morality as the other way around. I think its always been questioned, but for large parts of history access to information was controlled by religious elites, so morality became associated with religion because it was in their interest.

 

[old.Tohtori]

You're kinda missing the point. You came out with a grand statement that religion is the basis of modern Human morals. You then backed up this statement with examples intended to prove your point, and in 2 separate posts put quite a lot of emphasis on the fact that we engage in monogamous relationships as proof of religion's impact on morality.

This however is clearly not true as mongamy can be evidenced in the animal kingdom and can be easily demonstrated to have nothing to do with God or religious morality.

To now claim "it was only one example" and that the fact you were wrong has zero impact on your the validity of your claims is the argumental equivalent of putting your fingers in your ears and going "lalalalala" very loudly.

It's actually YOU who's missing the point, not that you'll ever admit it.

You keep on babbling about that animals can be monogonous when it was simply an example of one thing religion changed in human behaviour. Stop trying to argue the example.

Monkeys f*ck around, we're closest to monkeys, ergo, if we were evolved without moral codes or the strict religious hand to do so, we'd be f*cking around too.

This is an incorrect assumption, I'm not taking anything personally and I'm not getting defensive.

I've not heard anyone saying "I'm worried what people will think of me" specifically from an atheist beyond what you're saying here. If someone were to say that and claim to believe in an atheist then there is a point that it doesn't matter. However, doing things that make people think more of you - these things are not necessarily done IN ORDER to make people think more of you but because they're the right thing to do. The fact that others think more of you because of it may simply an unintended consequence.

And you can't prove that religion didn't just hijack normal human compassionate social interactions and claim them as its own.

Ok, you're not, let's leave it at that then. Stop talking about atheists alone then.

Not necessarily? Doing things to make people think more of you don't necessarily mean they are done to make people think more of you? Come on. I didn't say "all things people do are to make people think more of you".

Third, not the point. It's a FACT(you toot about facts as the mantra it is) that religion has affected our morals. How it did this, doesn't matter. It has, simple fact. If you don't accept that, then there's no point in discussing since you can't accept universal facts even because it would mean accepting someone else is right about anything.

This is the personal note i gave you earlier; you don't actually consider "all points" as you claimed.

Morals do not stem from religion alone. If we had no religion we would still have morals, rules and a sense of right and wrong. These things come from our instinct for survivial and the continuation of the human race and from community.

No one said alone, even if my words are put out as such.

You keep saying it doesn't make sense, but it only doesn't make sense to you. This is absolutely fundamental; you feel the need for an afterlife to give a reason for being nice to people. We don't. I don't see what's so hard to understand.

Don't claim how i feel. You're assuming again and also taking words as they're not meant. It's been explained many times now.

You can't prove it. Unless we can discover an alternate universe devoid of religion. But so what? No one's trying to say religion has had no bearing on moral thought. Religion was a useful way for people who didn't understand it to organise their view of the world. However, it was also an extremely useful way to get people to do what you wanted them to do, from stuff that was in their own interests (don't eat pork or shellfish in hot countries because it'll kill you. What do you mean "but, bacon is so tasty"? Well God says pack it in. "Oh all right then") all the way up to threats of eternal punishment ("if you're not scared of your King, how about God? Ooh, scared now aintcha? God's a right bastard.").

But even as far back as Plato, people have seen through this religious basis of morality and have argued that religion could just as easily be a symptom of morality as the other way around. I think its always been questioned, but for large parts of history access to information was controlled by religious elites, so morality became associated with religion because it was in their interest.

But people ARE claiming that religion has no effect on morals, which as said, is horsecrock.

I thought the atheist way was to accept things that are fact? Yet here people are saying things like "we MIGHT have morals like these" simply 'cause it now fits your agument. That i find hypocritical.

Like i said, sincere problem with people accepting anything that might be even remotely linked to atheist being at all religious. Complete paranoia.

 

[Krazeh]

It's actually YOU who's missing the point, not that you'll ever admit it.

You keep on babbling about that animals can be monogonous when it was simply an example of one thing religion changed in human behaviour. Stop trying to argue the example.

Monkeys f*ck around, we're closest to monkeys, ergo, if we were evolved without moral codes or the strict religious hand to do so, we'd be f*cking around too.

So just to recap, your point was that religion has given us what we term as modern moral values? And to back that up you gave examples such as the fact that we don't f*ck around and engage in monogamous relationships?

Am I correct upto this point?

If so I am failing to see how pointing out that monogamy exists within other animals, who have no concept of God or religion, doesn't demonstrate that your example was wrong and therefore there's potentially a major flaw in your statement that religion has given us morals.

And i'm not arguing the example, I'm arguing against your statement that religion = morals and doing so by the usual method of countering the evidence you have provided in defence of your statement.

Oh, and we're actually closest to Apes, not monkeys. Specifically the Great Apes if you want to get technical. However the fact that they engage in certain behaviours which we don't, and vice versa, does not in anyway imply that religion has been the cause of the change in behaviours. Unless you wish to claim that religion has been the basis for every behavioural change between Humans and the Great Apes?

 

[old.Tohtori]

I'm arguing against your statement that religion = morals

If you take it as such, then go ahead. I won't bother with that argument as i didn' mean it as an ultimatum.

 

[DaGaffer]

But people ARE claiming that religion has no effect on morals, which as said, is horsecrock.

I thought the atheist way was to accept things that are fact? Yet here people are saying things like "we MIGHT have morals like these" simply 'cause it now fits your agument. That i find hypocritical.

Like i said, sincere problem with people accepting anything that might be even remotely linked to atheist being at all religious. Complete paranoia.

No, they're claiming religion has no effect on their morals. Your view is that as religion used to be the moral framework for pretty much everyone, some of their morals come from religion. No-one has claimed religion has never had any bearing on moral thought, just that it has no bearing on their personal morality. The two things aren't incompatible.

 

[Calaen]

To recap, Toh left this thread for a couple of days so he could come back in a make the same statements and try and confuse us into thinking he was right again.

No, they're claiming religion has no effect on their morals. Your view is that as religion used to be the moral framework for pretty much everyone, some of their morals come from religion. No-one has claimed religion has never had any bearing on moral thought, just that it has no bearing on their personal morality. The two things aren't incompatible.

Makes more sense than mine

I await more sweeping statements, while being very defensive and irate when presented with facts.

 

[Krazeh]

If you take it as such, then go ahead. I won't bother with that argument as i didn' mean it as an ultimatum.

So you're not saying that religion is the basis for our modern human values and that without religion we would still have the same/similar moral values?

If so then maybe you could further expand on what exactly you meant when you said:

Moral teachings more or less go hand in hand with reprocussions.

We are taught these as kids.

Those teachings are based on religion.

Religion is based on afterlife reprocussions.

Kind of hand in hand i think.

Now, you could argue that you can have morals without religion, but that can't be proven. We can however prove that religion brought morals into modern day society. Those morals are based on an afterlife.

You try to make a good impression on people due to being alive, but if you don't believe in afterlife, you have no reason to think about what happens to people after you're dead.

If you do, you base it on morals, which are based on religion, which is based on an afterlife.

You can't prove what the world would be like, or the morals fo the world would be like, without religion. It has influenced people for ages and as such, even the teachings you got as a kid(without religion) are based on religion.

Religion is based on an afterlife, it's the biggest goal there. Talking generic "default what people think about religion"(as shown by many on this thread), not all religion. Also, i'm not saying "without religion there's no morals", i'm saying "without religion, morals wouldn't be necessarily as they are".

Modern morals come from religious effect, that's a fact.

Those morals are based on "getting to heaven"(etc).

Ergo, morals are based on an afterlife.

I'm not claiming ALL current morals are ALONE by religion, but claiming that religion and as such afterlife reward isn't part of it is equally wrong.

And yes, your morals(if at all basic morals the modern society has) are based on religious effect too.

Hell, good example; "thou shalt not f*ck thine neighbours wife" only came to play after religion, it's natural to f*ck around.

About morals and religion;

It's not all morals, but something like "not f*cking your neighbour", when all beings on the planet f*ck around like it's last day of f*ckaran, is something that certainly came from religion.