(June 13, 2013 at 2:30 am)Undeceived Wrote: What do you mean by "verified," and why should I accept its application here? Your answer will necessarily presume a worldview/philosophy. Philosophy isn't factually verified, yet it is required to answer questions about knowledge and metaphysics before humankind can even begin judging what is verified. So one's worldview is the cone, not the sprinkles. Why not lay out a wide selection of cones first, before the ice cream? Otherwise, we are educated before the reason for education comes to light.

Jesus Fuck H. Goddammit Christ!!!! English is my native tongue; however, I am fuck all incapable of deciphering this shit.

(June 13, 2013 at 2:30 am)Undeceived Wrote: What do you mean by "verified," and why should I accept its application here? Your answer will necessarily presume a worldview/philosophy. Philosophy isn't factually verified, yet it is required to answer questions about knowledge and metaphysics before humankind can even begin judging what is verified. So one's worldview is the cone, not the sprinkles. Why not lay out a wide selection of cones first, before the ice cream? Otherwise, we are educated before the reason for education comes to light.

By verified I mean demonstrable. If you can't demonstrate it to be true- or at least provide evidence that it exists- then you can't rightly call it to be factual. Since you could never hope to demonstrate that Jesus was the son of god, you have no right to expect that it be taught as fact in schools, any more than someone who worships any other god has. We simply do not give equal time for unsubstantiated ideas in the educational system, regardless of how many believe them, no matter how fervently; when you learn about World War two, equal time is not given to holocaust denial, because that's got no evidence to support it.

Why would you want to teach things that aren't demonstrated as true in the first place? Happily, nobody is stopping you from teaching your kids religious concepts outside of school, and that's the way it should be.

(June 12, 2013 at 2:58 pm)ronedee Wrote: Ok... I don't believe in "Homosexuality", as natural in human beings. Where did it come from? A bunch of old homos got together and thought it was a "good thing" to violate each others butts?

But people practice it. It's taught and encouraged in schools to my kids. I don't even have control over the laws that are "counter to nature" being instituted right now in our state, country and world!

How would you like "no choice" for your kids to learn RELIGION?

Here a novel idea for ya.....How bout we treat "Homosexuality" like we treat religion? I can live with that!

Here's a novel concept R.

How about you send your kids to CHURCH to learn about religion.

It is after all the point of church.

And school can be where they learn about maths and spelling and the like.

And you can load your kids up with aaaallll the superstitious, stone age bullshit you like. And everyone else can avoid it.

(June 10, 2013 at 11:22 pm)ronedee Wrote: [quote='Fidel_Castronaut' pid='460936' dateline='1370887554']

First off I would say that 'science' doesn't care one iota about a god or gods. No scientist I've ever spoken to (and I'm engaged to one) even thinks about god through their research.

I would also, in addition, say that the abolition of religion is not (my) goal, rather the abolition of people using their religion as a hammer to force others into thinking as they do as their sole raison d'être.

Anyway, to the premise of the initialy question (effectively; what morals [if any] will dominate society]), I would say, whatever morality has evolved socially at the point in time that the hypothetical was engaged.

As it has done throughout all of history. There has never been an objective morality that exists in history. The morality of a Christian community in a south Scottish border town 1,300 years ago would be wildly different to what it is today. Indeed, morality across the globe can be pinpointed to be vastly different dependent on the community one sought to engage with.

You may be interested (although also may not be) that states with the most entrenched secularism in Europe also tend to be the most peaceful and have the more liberally informed laws when it comes to justice and rehabilitation (for example), notably states such as Norway and Sweden. That's not to say that secularism and religion are mutually exclusive; indeed, Christianity's greatest invention in history was secularism in 1648.

However, I must insist that the idea that we claim 'there is no god' is off the mark. It's simply not true. We cannot know for sure, but until there's evidence to back up an existence of a deity, we can easily and rightly dismiss such claims as 'absurd and false until proven otherwise'.

When Christian hegemonies ran the state system in Western Europe (from the people pre-17th century) the life expectancy for your average poor parishioner was pretty dire, excluding the numerous conflicts that they were expected (forced) to fight in on behalf of the sovereign (often either endorsed through the papacy or in opposition to it). After Westphalia we had the enlightenment, and the beginnings of the liberation of the common people and eventually their supremacy over the sovereign through democratic liberalism (in all its forms).

Democratic liberalism is the result of the abolition of the church's involvement in state affairs and the adoption of cuius regio, eius religio. If we're going to talk about morality in the state without religion, we should look at the way in which the people took control of their own religion from the central papacy and adopted their own rules based on their own state contexts. It hasn't worked out too bad, IMHO.

Hi Rondee,

Sorry for the late reply, work and everything.

Anyway, thanks Good discussion is central to the learning process IMHO.

The central question you post (where do morals come from) is a central question that I don't think has a right or wrong answer. I am (naturally) an advocate of the evolved sense of 'self' and 'worth'. I'm sure you've heard it before, but as a quick recap, the benificial aspects of keeping your tribe alive and to ensure they are all happy and prosperous (Maslow coined this in contemporary terminologies as the heriarchy of needs) is equally benefcial to you and, of course, your genes (should you wish to pass them along).

The so called 'golden rule' of doing unto others would be a basis of this, especially as we began to learn what empathy was. Ultiamtely it comes down, for me, to brain chemistry and how it is formed by the context that surrounds you. I can't cite definitional evidence of this (I'm no biologist), but I can cite where the system becomes defunct, such as in psychopaths and sociopaths (specifically violent and unctrolled ones ones). It would appear that the context that one is brought up in can inform one's morality and behaviour in the long term (people with a psychopathic mindset can be completely 'normal' and exist as a normal member of society. When their upbringing is not formed around a cohesive set up, specifically regarding rules of behaviour, then there is evidence to suggest their mindset can cause the type of violent crimes that serial killers are often most famous for committing).

Now to your 'belief in morals' concept. I must disagree, I don't think there is such a thing as a 'belief' in morality. I think morality is a very subjective and very spurious term to use. Just as an example, one could ask members of different religions the same question about morality, including the golden rule, and still get different responses. Often it might be a variant of "do unto others...", but with a caveat, informed by the contextual arrangement of their specific religion. For a Bhuddist in Burma, it might be "do unto others...except for those Muslims", or in South America it might be the same but for an exclusion of homosexuals (homosexuality is still heavily persecuted in most Catholic South American states unfortunately). And so on and so on.

I don't think that there ever was a conversion en masse to 'believe' in morality, I think there was a general conditioning of behaviour for survival, especially when 'man' was an evolving simpleton that was massively outnumbered and outgunned by both other species and other tribes. Again, what it comes down to is preservation of the self, and the context that allows the self to exist. When the titanic sank, whislt there were many who probably went down with the ship with honour and dignity, there were most likely many more who asked what the honour was in dying. I think the romantic element of the string quartet playing Nearer My God to Thee ofter overshadows the (probable) fact that people were probably stepping over each other to see if they could survive. So, again, morality here is contextual and subjective both to the wider context that the people were born and raised in, and in addition to the situation they were presented with at that current point in time.

Regarding the attraction of Atheism issue you raise, I (again) must disagree. I don't think there is a specific demographic that attracts 'atheists'. Again, I think it's the context that one exists in that may give rise to the possiblity of 'remaining' an atheist (as I am a proponent that you are born with no concept of god. I have never once beleived in on since I can remember forming thoughts). Very few of the people I know are religious, and indeed, using the latest census and British social attitudes survey (circa 2010 I think was the last one), around 20 to 50% of the population (depending on the census) are nominal atheists. Not all of those can be liberal socialists (as I tend to see the stereotype of an atheist is), so I think that alone makes the case for the idea that atheists can be anyone who lacks a belief in a deitiy.

And finally, I think we need to be careful when talking about secular and atheist. I could be wrong (so please ignore me if I am), but secularism and atheism are mutually exclusive. In fact, when I joined the National Secular Society here in Britain, by virtue of the demographics of my local area, there were more Christian Secularists than atheist ones!

I didn't know homosexuality was something you could believe or not believe.

(June 13, 2013 at 7:21 am)Zen Badger Wrote: And you can load your kids up with aaaallll the superstitious, stone age bullshit you like. And everyone else can avoid it.

You people crack me up! You can have any ideas that you want; any [concept or theory] you dig-up and cut and paste is gospel; any hair-brained writer that supports your views ...

BUT... anyone (billions!) w/o "your opinion" are: (place your insult here)!

You let many of your fellow atheists get away with some of the most outrageuos stupidity and vulgarity I've seen on the net!

All in the name of forwarding your agenda: "Hate".

But, let a Christian lose his cool around here?! Does the hypocrisy need to slap you upside your heads to know it?

Atheists are the the epitome of "...straining on a knat and swallowing a camel."

You support a "concept" that means nothing! Subtraction. You take away any good that comes from religion, and it's billions of decent, loving people who believe that only Good comes from God. You try to kill a whole nation for the crimes of one state. Yet you try to change a nation for the opinion of one state!

"There is No God", is just plain dumb! No matter how you slice it, dice it or scream it from the mountain-tops....STUPID! And your efforts to make Chrisitians look dumb are pale in comparison to that quote!

Christians are Smart. Agnostics are Intelligent. Atheists?

My analogy of an atheist is like sticking your head in the sand.....and hoping you don't get kicked in the ass.

The onus is on you for proof. We have Jesus!

And we all hope you are very happy together. The only thing is that we are very happy without him and would like to stay that way. If you left us alone....

(June 13, 2013 at 11:49 am)max-greece Wrote: And we all hope you are very happy together. The only thing is that we are very happy without him and would like to stay that way. If you left us alone....

How bout you leaving us alone? We are the majority!

(June 13, 2013 at 11:47 am)ronedee Wrote: Blah, blah, blah

Do you have anything to state that is not an overrated ego trip through crazy land?

(June 13, 2013 at 11:47 am)ronedee Wrote: You people crack me up! You can have any ideas that you want; any [concept or theory] you dig-up and cut and paste is gospel; any hair-brained writer that supports your views ...

Yes. It's called "referencing," and it's the revolutionary method by which we are made accountable for the accuracy and veracity of the things we say.

Quote:BUT... anyone (billions!) w/o "your opinion" are: (place your insult here)!

Only certain ones...

Quote:You let many of your fellow atheists get away with some of the most outrageuos stupidity and vulgarity I've seen on the net!

Vulgarity isn't what we take issue with, since most of us don't have iron rods up our asses. We do, however, take issue with idiocy and bad thinking; it's not our fault you apologists seem to have an inexhaustible supply of both.

Quote:All in the name of forwarding your agenda: "Hate".

I can see how knowledge would appear to be hate, to those used to the privilege of having their ignorance celebrated as virtue.

Quote:But, let a Christian lose his cool around here?! Does the hypocristy need to slap you upside your heads to know it?

It's more the inflammatory bigotry, the poor me act you put on at the first sign of dissent, and the deliberate dishonest representation of any counter-argument that we won't take.

Quote:You support a "concept" that means nothing! Subtraction. You take away any good that comes from religion, and it's billions of decent, loving people who believe that only Good comes from God. You try to kill a whole nation for the crimes of one state. Yet you try to change a nation for the opinion of one state!

I submit to you that those people will still be decent, and loving and good without religion. The only difference is that the charlatans and abusers will have nowhere easy to hide.

Quote:"There is No God", is just plain dumb! No matter how you slice it, dice it or scream it from the mountain-tops....STUPID! And your efforts to make Chrisitians look dumb are pale in comparison to that quote!

To the former point, it's a good thing that the majority of us here don't ascribe to the view of "there is no god," but rather, "prove it," and by the way, telling us what we believe is the height of rudeness.

As to the second, you do a fairly adequate job of making yourself look dumb without any help.

Quote:Christians are Smart. Agnostics are Intelligent. Atheists?

My analogy of an atheist is like sticking your head in the sand.....and hoping you don't get kicked in the ass.

Mockery is not a rebuttal, but that's hardly surprising; you do not have an actual rebuttal.

Quote:The onus is on you for proof. We have Jesus!

You have Jesus? Cool, because that's a positive claim, and thus one you'll be expected to prove. That's how the burden of proof works; positive claims require evidence. Simply insisting the burden is on someone else just makes you look like a toddler.

Quote:How bout you leaving us alone? We are the majority!

Appeal to popularity. Why am I surprised, that an apologist would resort to strength in numbers, when he can't rely on facts?