Faith Freedom International :: View topic

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

Attention: Year 2009 is here Wishing a very Happy New Year to all members of FFI. Our new and improved site is ready. To visit main site, click at faithfreedom.org and to visit our new forum, click at forum09.faithfreedom.org and register again. Do not worry about your old forum posts and PM, everything is saved here till 31st December, 2008 for future references.

Athiest Intolerance
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next

This forum is locked: you cannot post, reply to, or edit topics.

This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.

Faith Freedom International Forum Index -> God

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

kereng

Joined: 14 Jun 2007
Posts: 292

Posted: Sun Dec 28, 2008 12:41 pm Post subject:

Agnostic Indian wrote:

Atheism is an individualistic belief(or 'lack of belief' as many here say[though i disagree]).

Do you also think that silence is a noise and health is a disease?

Agnostic Indian

Joined: 30 Jul 2008
Posts: 208

Posted: Sun Dec 28, 2008 12:55 pm Post subject:

kereng wrote:

Agnostic Indian wrote:

Atheism is an individualistic belief(or 'lack of belief' as many here say[though i disagree]).

Do you also think that silence is a noise and health is a disease?

Silence is noise : when the police man knocks your door and says nothing when you know a dear one has not returned home and its already late
Health is a disease: if it's bestowed on a terrorist who is about to blow your neighboring apartments and feels fit enough to blow yours too

Long and short of it ..depends on the experience [which later forms your belief] ;-)

THHuxley_redux

Joined: 15 Jun 2008
Posts: 1248
Location: Denver, CO

Posted: Sun Dec 28, 2008 3:45 pm Post subject:

Agnostic Indian wrote:

all these are reqests/notions ..These aint the way the animal world behaves sans a hinge of morality !

Interesting.

1. Are you actually unaware of altruism in animals? I suggest you do more research. Start with the Wikipedia entry:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altruism_in_animals

2. If we were to grant, arguendo, that there was no morality among animals, why exactly would that have any implication to human morality?

AI wrote:

Religion uses God as a hinge to instill these individual benefits to society at large

Can you defend that with any serious correlation between the religiousity of a society and its morality? How do you align the great religiousity of nations like, oh, the United States and Iran with their morality?
_________________
Nullius In Verba

charleslemartel

Joined: 29 Nov 2007
Posts: 1071

Posted: Sun Dec 28, 2008 4:37 pm Post subject:

Agnostic Indian wrote:

charleslemartel wrote:

Agnostic Indian wrote:

Atheism has one big odd against Humanity:
It cannot give one a single reason as to why should one be good to others!

1. Because I wish that others be good to me too?
2. It feels good?
3. It makes me feel accepted and likable to others and provides me with plenty of positive strokes in turn?

all these are reqests/notions ..These aint the way the animal world behaves sans a hinge of morality !
Religion uses God as a hinge to instill these individual benefits to society at large

ChabadMizrachi wrote:

Without belief in a G-d who intervenes in human affairs and punishes and rewards accordingly in an afterlife, the concept of ethics and morality goes out the window.

You must have heard of Buddhism and Jainism. Both of these religions have no concept of God, and still they are greatly moralistic. They swear by non violence and doing good to others. Take time to read about them and compare them with other religions.
_________________
Happy New Year to Everyone

Fear is the most powerful emotional tool, it can turn off the areas of the brain responsible for rational thought.
Is that why Muslims can't be rational?

Agnostic Indian

Joined: 30 Jul 2008
Posts: 208

Posted: Sun Dec 28, 2008 5:05 pm Post subject:

THHuxley_redux wrote:

Agnostic Indian wrote:

all these are reqests/notions ..These aint the way the animal world behaves sans a hinge of morality !

Interesting.

1. Are you actually unaware of altruism in animals? I suggest you do more research. Start with the Wikipedia entry:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altruism_in_animals

The entry explains:
altruism refers to behavior by an INDIVIDUAL that increases the fitness of another individual while decreasing the fitness of the actor.Furthermore Altruism in animals is more of an exception than the rule.
Chimps killing monkeys,
monkey and lion kings killing all the male offsprings of the marauded tribe(as Islamic as it gets) and lifting their right hand possessions are but a good reminder of their normal behavior.

THHuxley_redux wrote:

2. If we were to grant, arguendo, that there was no morality among animals, why exactly would that have any implication to human morality?

why wouldn't it ? yours truly would like to know the distinguishing element of human morality that differentiates itself from animal morality.

THHuxley_redux wrote:

AI wrote:

Religion uses God as a hinge to instill these individual benefits to society at large

Despite the fact that US is in as bad a shape as Iran in terms of morality and also that Iran follows a Cult and not a religion, i did admit that Religion has failed to sell itself to the current times.
Abrahaminic religions created a personal God as a universal observer of every individuals deeds and created a reward/punishment mechanism (which worked in earlier times).
Other religions also came with some kind of a motivational/intriguing theme that could goad people to self-regulate.
The bishnoi community in India understands that its their religious duty to protect the( endangered) black buck.Its life is more sacrosanct then their own.
I don't know if they would have behaved the same way had they just known that it is an endangered species.[The status of elephants,tigers and whale sharks is known to all despite heavy awareness campaigns and lobbying ]
Religion in its current form has ensured morality : No
Religion in some form can ensure morality:Yes, till the end goal of self-regulation is not blurred by the mores and rituals

THHuxley_redux

Joined: 15 Jun 2008
Posts: 1248
Location: Denver, CO

Posted: Sun Dec 28, 2008 5:34 pm Post subject:

Agnostic Indian wrote:

Yes... it does.

So.... your earlier assertion that "the animal world behaves sans a hinge of morality" is shown to be false on its face.

AI wrote:

Hux wrote:

2. If we were to grant, arguendo, that there was no morality among animals, why exactly would that have any implication to human morality?

why wouldn't it ? yours truly would like to know the distinguishing element of human morality that differentiates itself from animal morality.

Okay.... I must assume by the fact that you dodged the question that you have no answer to it. Fair enough. Perhaps if you actually gave it some thought, you could come up with something.

I will set a very different example and actually answer your question.

The example of nature and reality tells is "what is." It is completely silent on the issue of "what ought." And this is what ethics and morality are about.... "what ought." Therefore even though the natural world provides examples of biological origin of ethics and morality, it tells us nothing about the particular human capacity for defining such standards for human communities.

AI wrote:

Just "current times?" When in history has religiousity ever correlated with morality?

AI wrote:

Abrahaminic religions created a personal God as a universal observer of every individuals deeds and created a reward/punishment mechanism (which worked in earlier times).

When did it "work?" The Abrahamic faiths are responsible for some of the most barbarous human behavior on record. We are actually currently in a "good" period as far as they are concerned.

AI wrote:

The bishnoi community in India understands that its their religious duty to protect the( endangered) black buck.Its life is more sacrosanct then their own.

Fabulous.... is it fear of a cosmic spanking that engenders that behavior? Or is it the typical process of human communities defining their own morals and ethics based on a combination of empathy and utility?

AI wrote:

I don't know if they would have behaved the same way had they just known that it is an endangered species.[The status of elephants,tigers and whale sharks is known to all despite heavy awareness campaigns and lobbying ]

That's right. You don't.

So what DO you know?

Can you draw the correlation you imply or can't you?
_________________
Nullius In Verba

Agnostic Indian

Joined: 30 Jul 2008
Posts: 208

Posted: Sun Dec 28, 2008 5:46 pm Post subject:

charleslemartel wrote:

Agnostic Indian wrote:

charleslemartel wrote:

Agnostic Indian wrote:

Atheism has one big odd against Humanity:
It cannot give one a single reason as to why should one be good to others!

1. Because I wish that others be good to me too?
2. It feels good?
3. It makes me feel accepted and likable to others and provides me with plenty of positive strokes in turn?

all these are reqests/notions ..These aint the way the animal world behaves sans a hinge of morality !
Religion uses God as a hinge to instill these individual benefits to society at large

ChabadMizrachi wrote:

Without belief in a G-d who intervenes in human affairs and punishes and rewards accordingly in an afterlife, the concept of ethics and morality goes out the window.

You are saying the same thing
Buddhism and Jainism indeed have a concept of God.Its only that it's directed within and not without.One can become God or attain Nirvana.

Agnostic Indian

Joined: 30 Jul 2008
Posts: 208

Posted: Sun Dec 28, 2008 6:13 pm Post subject:

thh wrote:

So.... your earlier assertion that "the animal world behaves sans a hinge of morality" is shown to be false on its face.

you missed the following i guess:
Chimps killing monkeys,
monkey and lion kings killing all the male offsprings of the marauded tribe(as Islamic as it gets) and lifting their right hand possessions are but a good reminder of their normal behavior.
Altruism is an exceptional 'INDIVIDUAL' act, morality has a 'group' context, hence your example was a misfit.
The assumption stays.

THH wrote:

The example of nature and reality tells is "what is." It is completely silent on the issue of "what ought." And this is what ethics and morality are about.... "what ought."

All the more reason to find a mechanism to address "what ought".

THH wrote:

Therefore even though the natural world provides examples of biological origin of ethics and morality, it tells us nothing about the particular human capacity for defining such standards for human communities.

You mean to say the capacity to define such standards has not evolved?

THH wrote:

what do you think religions are formed of ?? Aliens???
Religions are also communities which were formed to define and sustain morality.Some have gone wrong owing to various reasons.
Religion was a framework .If it has failed who is ensuring another??thats the question.

THH wrote:

AI wrote:

That's right. You don't.
So what DO you know?
Can you draw the correlation you imply or can't you?

Took the liberty of your comprehending self.Here's what i DO know.
The bishnois are protecting the black buck with their lives ..in the name of their religious belief...the purpose of saving endangered species is being served.
The world is still mad about ivory products,tiger bones/skin and japanese wont give up on eating whales despite moral communities like PETA etc. campaigning heavily against the purchase of such products.
The call for self-regulation has gone unheard.The tigers,elephants and whale sharks remain endangered.
Can you comprehend the correlation or can't you?

charleslemartel

Joined: 29 Nov 2007
Posts: 1071

Posted: Sun Dec 28, 2008 6:26 pm Post subject:

Agnostic Indian wrote:

charleslemartel wrote:

You are saying the same thing
Buddhism and Jainism indeed have a concept of God.Its only that it's directed within and not without.One can become God or attain Nirvana.

It wouldn't really take too much of an effort to find out if Buddhism and Jainism believe in God or not. Would you make the little effort it requires?

Attaining Nirvana is not becoming God. Please try to find out what it is. I can give you the links if you wish to know; googling these terms wouldn't be that difficult for you though.
_________________
Happy New Year to Everyone

Fear is the most powerful emotional tool, it can turn off the areas of the brain responsible for rational thought.
Is that why Muslims can't be rational?

Agnostic Indian

Joined: 30 Jul 2008
Posts: 208

Posted: Sun Dec 28, 2008 6:39 pm Post subject:

charleslemartel wrote:

Agnostic Indian wrote:

charleslemartel wrote:

You are saying the same thing
Buddhism and Jainism indeed have a concept of God.Its only that it's directed within and not without.One can become God or attain Nirvana.

Buddhism is nothing but an extension of the principles of Xth Chapter of RigVeda which asserts that there is no such thing as a God.the soul takes takes birth with the individual and dies after his/her death.Nirvana means the process of taking oneslef to the state so that the rebirth does not happen (Ceases:Nirvana).
Again thats not the point..
Both you an i agree that a good religion can have a positive impact on human morality.
In Abrhaminic religions, the hinge is a personal God and in another it may be the ceasing of the cycle of rebirth
You are a theist if you believe in the cycle of rebirth

THHuxley_redux

Joined: 15 Jun 2008
Posts: 1248
Location: Denver, CO

Posted: Sun Dec 28, 2008 7:01 pm Post subject:

Agnostic Indian wrote:

I did not miss that at all. These are also behaviors found among religious human communities, as you yourself just observed.

You statement is still false on its face.

AI wrote:

Altruism is an exceptional 'INDIVIDUAL' act, morality has a 'group' context, hence your example was a misfit.

A group is anything more than one individual. Altruism requires two or more individuals to exist at all. How do you imagine an individual can display altruism in any context other than a group?

THH wrote:

All the more reason to find a mechanism to address "what ought".

No one has argued otherwise. I am still waiting for you to make your first attempt at justifying the mechanism you have proposed.

THH wrote:

You mean to say the capacity to define such standards has not evolved?

Not at all. The examples of animal altruism show that it has done just that. So... now that humans have this capacity in a fairly evolved state, why do you think it has any necessary connection with religion?

THH wrote:

Religions are also communities which were formed to define and sustain morality.Some have gone wrong owing to various reasons.

Maybe, maybe not. I think a case of equal or greater strength can be made that religions are communities which were formed to define and sustain existing power structures, justify social inequality, and secure the position of an existing elite.

I am still waiting for you to actually draw the correlation between religion and morality.

THH wrote:

Religion was a framework .If it has failed who is ensuring another??thats the question.

Reason, of course.

It is the unreason, magical thinking and coercive utility of religions that render them uniquely incompetent at delivering ethical/moral systems that are actually either ethical or moral.

THH wrote:

Here's what i DO know.

The bishnois are protecting the black buck with their lives ..in the name of their religious belief...the purpose of saving endangered species is being served.

How swell for the black buck. Now how do you distinguish the origin of this interesting if anomalous religious tradition from... say... female circumcision or the execution of apostates? Do you feel that the religiously motivated bloodshed that has characterized human history is justified by the protection of the black buck by the Bishnoi?

AI wrote:

Can you comprehend the correlation or can't you?

No.... your argument continues to escape me completely.
_________________
Nullius In Verba

THHuxley_redux

Joined: 15 Jun 2008
Posts: 1248
Location: Denver, CO

Posted: Sun Dec 28, 2008 7:03 pm Post subject:

Agnostic Indian wrote:

You are a theist if you believe in the cycle of rebirth

That is just goofy.

It makes no more sense than saying that you are a vacuum tube if you believe in the color green.
_________________
Nullius In Verba

Agnostic Indian

Joined: 30 Jul 2008
Posts: 208

Posted: Sun Dec 28, 2008 7:14 pm Post subject:

THHuxley_redux wrote:

Agnostic Indian wrote:

You are a theist if you believe in the cycle of rebirth

That is just goofy.

It makes no more sense than saying that you are a vacuum tube if you believe in the color green.

good to know this was for the sake of the fight than for the cause.
A thinking mind could have otherwise invested less effort and agreed

Agnostic Indian

Joined: 30 Jul 2008
Posts: 208

Posted: Sun Dec 28, 2008 7:42 pm Post subject:

THH wrote:

I did not miss that at all. These are also behaviors found among religious human communities, as you yourself just observed.

I didn't know your were counting all these under Altruism.How altruistic of you.

THH wrote:

A group is anything more than one individual. Altruism requires two or more individuals to exist at all. How do you imagine an individual can display altruism in any context other than a group?

actor and the action is the focus, not environmental prerequisites.It's as goofy as saying that a school kid on a killing spree is a case of organized group terrorism because the killer can kill if only there are others to be killed!

THH wrote:

No one has argued otherwise. I am still waiting for you to make your first attempt at justifying the mechanism you have proposed.

I haven't proposed any mechanism as yet.
I have indicated that religion could have provided such a mechanism/framework.

THH wrote:

I think a case of equal or greater strength can be made that religions are communities which were formed to define and sustain existing power structures, justify social inequality, and secure the position of an existing elite.

It's as silly as saying that since murders happen despite there being a law, lets scrap the law.
A misuse is not a justification to scrap the system , it only points towards scope of improvement/modification so that checks/measures are in place to avoid future misuse.

THH wrote:

Now how do you distinguish the origin of this interesting if anomalous religious tradition from... say... female circumcision or the execution of apostates? Do you feel that the religiously motivated bloodshed that has characterized human history is justified by the protection of the black buck by the Bishnoi?

It's the same argument, to which i have responded above.
The problem with religions has been that they have remained static whereas morality and ethics keep changing with times.If religions keep focused on the end goal of "continuously ensuring morality & ethics through self-regulation in a facilitating environment/framework" then such ill can't creep in.

THHuxley_redux

Joined: 15 Jun 2008
Posts: 1248
Location: Denver, CO

Posted: Sun Dec 28, 2008 7:52 pm Post subject:

Agnostic Indian wrote:

I didn't know your were counting all these under Altruism.How altrustic of you.

I wasn't... nice dodge.

Your statement is still false on its face.

AI wrote:

actor and the action is the focus not the necessary the environmental prerequisites.It's as goofy as saying that a school kid on a killing spree is a case of organized group terrorism because the killer can kill if only there are others to be killed!

You are making no sense whatsoever. If two people are involved, it is a community by definition. And yes, a killer on a killing spree also takes place in the context of a community.

AI wrote:

I haven't proposed any mechanism as yet.
I have indicated that religion could have provided such a mechanism/framework.

So... are you proposing religion as the mechanism for ethics and morality or not? Just come out with it and stop dissembling.

AI wrote:

It's as silly as saying that since murders happen despite there being a law, lets scrap the law.

Nonsense. It is not even close.

It is saying that if there is a law that encourages the commission of murder, lets scrap that law.

AI wrote:

A misuse is not a justification to scrap the system , it only points towards scope of improvement/modification so that checks/measures are in place to avoid future misuse.

Who said it is a misuse? I said it was the actual purpose. It is being used exactly as it was intended.

AI wrote:

The problem with religions has been that they have remained static whereas morality and ethics keep changing with times.If religions keep focused on the end goal of "continuously ensuring morality & ethics through self-regulation in a facilitating environment/framework" then such ill can't creep in.

What makes you suspect that religion ever actually had such goals in the first place?
_________________
Nullius In Verba

Display posts from previous:

	Faith Freedom International Forum Index -> God	All times are GMT Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next
Page 4 of 5

Jump to:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum