[Prometheus The Supremo]

I suppose an serial rapist, murderer, thief and other criminal types share a similar thinking to break free of morality, if there are no consequences (assuming the cops don't catch you) one could do anything.

so is the only thing stopping you from doing those things is fear of punishment? also, religion doesn't seem to stop people from doing those things. sometimes, religion actually condones that type of behaviour, stealing, killing, raping, etc.

p.s, if there is god given purpose to one's life, that kinda screws up the whole free will thing. of course that might depend on what one means by purpose.

as far as we know, there is no higher purpose, value, etc. that doesn't stop us however from creating value and purpose. i wouldn't look to the bible for value and purpose. you'll be very shocked to see just what kind of value and purpose is attached to different types of people.

to me, nothing devalues life more than the believing that the real show starts after death, that life is just a temporary phase, like a 6 week probation period when you get hired on a new job.

 

[wonderboy416]

You have mixed up a few actual events with ones that are without any basis. You do so in order to try to equate actual events with the conspiracy theories you believe in. This is merely a low-grade propaganda technique, and not much more.

What are the events that are without any basis?
What about the ones that are "with basis"? Are they suddenly discredited even though they're well documented?
I provided legitimate examples and you're trying to discredit them...

What does your silly reference to spaghetti have to do with anything?

I took your statement about god and replaced the word god with flying spaghetti monster. While the existance of the flying spaghetti monster is no more or less likely than the existence of the judeo-Christian god (or any other man made form of god), it certainly makes your statement look quite silly.

You also have it stuck in your mind that your philosophical approach is the only approach and you argue it to no end and choose to attack attack and belittle me. I am well aware that science, religion and philosophy have a long, intertwined history together. Modern science couldn't be any more detached to religion, so what does that tell you? You're not proving anything to me. Your certainty about uncertainness is a profoundly flawed idea. As I said earlier, I'm going to stay out of such pointless conversation with you. Your pompous attitude speaks volumes for your character. Smug arrogance gets you little more than dirty looks, I sure hope you've figured that out by now.

 

[nfitz]

to me, nothing devalues life more than the believing that the real show starts after death, that life is just a temporary phase, like a 6 week probation period when you get hired on a new job.

Bingo!

This belief that some groups push that there is some kind of life after death is dangerous. I wonder if so many would kill themselves, or if there would be suicide bombers, if people weren't trying to rush to some kind of mythical afterlife?

 

[wonderboy416]

Bingo!

This belief that some groups push that there is some kind of life after death is dangerous. I wonder if so many would kill themselves, or if there would be suicide bombers, if people weren't trying to rush to some kind of mythical afterlife?

But it sure makes it easier to go on with life when you're a slave doesn't it? After all you'd be going to heaven and your masters would be going to hell.
What a brilliant concept! If Jesus did exist (and there's only vague references at best in the historical record), he sure was a great salesman!

 

[nfitz]

But it sure makes it easier to go on with life when you're a slave doesn't it?

I can't say that anyone I know who has killed themselves were slaves. All middle-class ... and Christian.

 

[Hipster Duck]

Your certainty about uncertainness is a profoundly flawed idea.

Can you demonstrate why this is flawed? I remember asking you to demonstrate certainty in the world, and you chickened out with some line about how it was not necessary to prove me (or gristle) wrong, because we just were.

 

[wonderboy416]

Can you demonstrate why this is flawed? I remember asking you to demonstrate certainty in the world, and you chickened out with some line about how it was not necessary to prove me (or gristle) wrong, because we just were.

Perhaps you should go back and re-read, I did provide examples.

How can one claim that there can be no absolute certainty?
That statement in itself is absolute.

 

[gristle]

You also have it stuck in your mind that your philosophical approach is the only approach and you argue it to no end and choose to attack attack and belittle me. I am well aware that science, religion and philosophy have a long, intertwined history together. Modern science couldn't be any more detached to religion, so what does that tell you? You're not proving anything to me. Your certainty about uncertainness is a profoundly flawed idea. As I said earlier, I'm going to stay out of such pointless conversation with you. Your pompous attitude speaks volumes for your character. Smug arrogance gets you little more than dirty looks, I sure hope you've figured that out by now.

Your dogged belief in various 9/11 conspiracy theories is well established. You have made unfounded accusations, but provided no evidence. You have gone so far to state a belief - even in the face of evidence that undermines your position.

Your direct comparison of science to religion clearly indicates your misunderstanding of the attributes of each philosophy. And wonderboy, nowhere have you acknowledged any direct historical relationship between religion and science until I brought it up. The reason for this is simply because you want to grandstand about your particular hate for religions (and those who practice religion) on the back of science rather than to simply stand up for yourself - by yourself - and make your own claims for yourself. You do nothing more than to use science as a shield to support your own particular bigotry.

So you think I'm arrogant? If that is so, then you are far more guilty with your own arrogant stance of superiority with respect to your particular beliefs regarding what science is about (or what you think its about). You portray science as an attack on religion, promulgate a view that there is absolute certain scientific knowledge - without ever once clarifying exactly what you mean with respect to the concept (not merely the word wonderboy - because it is just a word for which you assume meaning), you fail to distinguish between any subtle or overt differences in scientific practice, you don't understand at all what the word "theory" means in the scientific context, and you do all this on the basis of your high school-level science expertise. And to add to all of this, there is your stubborn avoidance in trying to actually understand something a little more substantive about religions, all of which perpetuates an impression of your closed-mindedness. It's just so much easier for you to mischaracterize and despise other people and their practices than it is to understand them.

And you think I'm arrogant?

Wow.

 

[Admiral Beez]

I suppose an serial rapist, murderer, thief and other criminal types share a similar thinking to break free of morality, if there are no consequences (assuming the cops don't catch you) one could do anything.

Not to suggest though that religious or supposedly religious people are not capable of or less likely to commit heinous acts of violence and illegality, and I certainly found myself wondering what those pedophile-priests were reconciling their belief in the consequences of mortal sin and their behaviour, concluding that they simply must not care. So, what I'm thinking in the above quote is not that religious folk act more morally, since they do not, but that atheistic criminals benefit from the freedom of a lack of any consequences beyond the justice system.

 

[Fresh Start]

I suppose an serial rapist, murderer, thief and other criminal types share a similar thinking to break free of morality, if there are no consequences (assuming the cops don't catch you) one could do anything.

Where are you getting these [il]logical leaps from? One doesn't need to turn to religion to find a sense of morality, it is instinctual. Creatures have preferences and social norms; there is no further "morality." I'd go as far as saying that animals are just as moral as humans are capable of being, we are just another animal who happens to be very biologically successful, subject to instincts rather than being reasoned deciders. Such reasoning chips away at people’s justifications for feeling superior though, which they are highly motivated to preserve. But seeing as we don’t exactly know what morality is, we’re going to set out to define it in a way that necessitates that it must be exclusively human. This line of thinking taps into the baggage of religion (you mean to tell me that we weren’t created specially by god in his image and given dominion over the earth?).

It takes far more than threat of punishment or physical harm to deter criminality, it takes innate sense of decency and fairness from within, negative politeness if you will. It's not something exclusively taught to people, it originates from one's own sense of wanting to be treated fairly that deters them from acting unjustly against the community. Plato spoke of this. Leaving individuals to lead their own lives without interference. These concepts are not new, they've existed all throughout human history and are exhibited in a number of other species as well.

 

[Prometheus The Supremo]

atheistic criminals benefit from the freedom of a lack of any consequences beyond the justice system.

not true. unless an atheist is a psychopath/ has a mental illness, there are still factors which keep you decent, regardless that those factors have an evolutionary explanation. you can't shut off empathy and other emotions which encourage social behaviour, reciprocity, etc. just like you can't shut off the pleasure you would get from having sex just because you know that pleasure is hardwired to ensure procreation. also, i won't go to jail for killing sparrows and nobody would really punish me for doing so but that is not reason to do anything so cruel.

do i really need to explain how psychopaths can and have and are using religion and religious devotees for harmful purposes? and how one's religion can force someone to do something so horrible that they wouldn't normally do had they not been brainwashed since childhood?

i know people do bad things without religion but justifying a bad doctrine because of that reason is like trying to tell cops you shouldn't get a speeding ticket because there's people who go through red lights or telling them they shouldn't hassle you for cocaine because there's people doing heroin.

having goodness hard wired is better than having goodness as a idea that is enforced through fear of punishment. at least if it's hard wired, it is physically part of you and not just some idea that someone put in your head. also, i don't think that every single living thing on this planet that treats anything else neutral or does anything good for anything else does those things because they've heard the gospel.

 

[ganjavih]

Your certainty about uncertainness is a profoundly flawed idea.

Uh, no. Uncertainty is an important concept in science and statistics. Are you familiar with how hypotheses are accepted or rejected in science? Alpha values? The 5% rule? p-values? Type I and Type II errors?

 

[Fresh Start]

+1 Prometheus.

There are no atheistic criminals, just criminals. If someone kills because of what they've been indoctrinated to believe that's entirely different from one's acceptance that there's no higher purpose or explanation for our existences.

 

[gristle]

It takes far more than threat of punishment or physical harm to deter criminality, it takes innate sense of decency and fairness from within, negative politeness if you will.

But for some individuals, punishment can act as a deterrent. The threat of punishment is part and parcel of the justice system. There is no avoiding that fact.

Lets not forget that we all have to learn moral codes first before we can operate by them - or even question them. As the philosopher Richard Peters pointed out, the palace of reason is arrived at through the courtyard of habit. Our adult understanding of morality is learned. It has already been codified, and the task is to learn the rules and why they exist.

What is fair in one culture can be different than that of another culture. Aspects of morality can vary from one society to the next, and vary over time. Regardless, every day, people train children to behave according to codes of conduct, and children learn that there can be consequences for deviating from that code. They have to do this because moral codes of behaviour are not innate.

I would like to see evidence for the supposed innateness of decency and fairness, but I doubt there is any. However, that is not to say that there is no biological origin for the actions that can be defined as the basis for what is broadly termed as morality. One of the terms used in evolutionary psychology is reciprocal altruism - literally "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours." The basis for such actions is likely linked to maximizing survival of both individuals and groups.

 

[wonderboy416]

Gristle, YOU have been the one insisting on making personal attacks. Not only that, but you’re being incredibly misleading all for the sake of discrediting my own OPINION. Not only does it add nothing to the thread, it’s completely unwarranted and demonstrates what kind of individual you truly must be. I’m only making this post to defend myself from the idiocy of your claims.

Your dogged belief in various 9/11 conspiracy theories is well established.

Yet I said… (several times mind you) that I don’t subscribe to the 9/11 conspiracy theories, or have been convinced by the official story, I have an open mind towards the matter. The only “crazy conspiracy theories” I mentioned I subscribe to have been well established in the historical record including declassified government documents.

I was trying to make this point (which you obviously skipped over) as unlike you, I try to relate my posts to the actual topic:

This is a silly comparison, but I can at least see where the 9/11 conspiracy theorists draw their suspicions from. In my humble opinion, they're not as crazy as someone who believes in talking snakes and people living inside of whales...

Then you make this completely damming statement:

you don't understand at all what the word "theory" means in the scientific context

I said:

A scientific theory is one that is based on observation, experiment and reasoning that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle to explain and predict natural phenomena.

and…

In science, evolution is a FACT, it's also a theory supported by over 250,000 peer reviewed published, factual studies.

and...

A working theory is the ultimate goal of scientific discovery, evolution is just that, a working theory.

and...

Still a theory? As opposed to what? Has anything in science ever emerged from being a theory?
There are no competing theories with evolution, there is also no denying that it happened. It's a matter of explaining the process which there is clearly still much to learn. Evolution itself happened, it's a fact, and I'll repeat my previous offer, if you can find a scientist from a non-religious background (should be easy since 94% aren't religious) who will state that evolution is not a fact, I will eat my own hand.

Is my understanding of the scientific use of the word theory not “understood at all”??? Please find and post 1 credible source that discredits my own understanding of the word… Remember you said I don’t understand at all, that’s a pretty big charge to make for someone who never claimed to completely understand it in the first place. This is a good example of how personal and utterly baseless your attacks have become.

Whoops, there’s more to your idiotic quote:

, and you do all this on the basis of your high school-level science expertise.

So I never studied science outside of high school. I also acknowledged that I have read the works of many great scientists who are all extremely well accomplished and have all defined and explained the scientific process in their works. I guess since it didn’t happen in a classroom I can’t say I know anything at all about what I’m talking about, as I clearly misunderstood what I read about scientific theory as demonstrated by utterly horrible and wrong understanding of it which I quoted earlier in this post… Just because you don’t see eye to eye with someone like Richard Dawkins or even a journalist like Christopher Hitchens doesn’t mean they don’t know how to effectively communicate the meaning of scientific theory (which they both do in their respective works).

You have demonstrated a belligerent approach to your responses, you’re literally putting words in my mouth which I never said in an effort to make your assault against my character to discredit me. I have not resorted to such lowly tactics.

It's just so much easier for you to mischaracterize and despise other people and their practices than it is to understand them.

And you think I'm arrogant?

Wow.

Ironic that you were the one saying that isn’t it?
I wish that you refrain from such nonsense posts in the future, I’ve never once made a post solely to attack you and your character. I think the above speaks for itself, bullshit really does baffle brains.