(June 19, 2013 at 10:57 am)DeistPaladin Wrote:

(June 19, 2013 at 10:39 am)John V Wrote: You said two things are in the nature of religion – gaining more followers, and gaining increased obedience among existing followers. I clearly gave the Amish as a counterexample to the first, not the second. You’re applying them to the second, for which I gave a different counterexample. Are you being purposely misleading, or are you just too lazy to look back and follow the arguments?

Hmmm, let's go to the tape, shall we? And please read the whole thing this time.

Quote:1. (Perhaps most important) Theistic morality confuses the issues of what morality is and what is moral.

By its nature, religion will be concerned with gaining more followers and gaining increased obedience with its established followers. This is why when you read through the Bible or Koran, often what is described as "evil" are such victimless crimes as idolatry, blasphemy and apostasy. Other moral issues and labeled "abominations" have to do with failure to adhere to rituals and traditions, like not working on the Sabbath or not eating certain kinds of food.

Read the 10 commandments if you don't have time to read the whole Bible. You'll notice that the first four, the one's that Yahweh thought of first and foremost, have to do with religious adherence and not real moral issues. A few deal with how we treat others (don't murder, don't steal, etc) but the majority prohibit victimless crimes. This muddying of the waters is not helpful to our understand of what is moral or what morality is.

By contrast, secular morality focuses on the issue with laser-like precision.

This obsession you have with finding small insular religions that are suspicious of outsiders

One example is not an obsession.

Quote:(the exception and not the norm, based on total population of religions people and each religion's share of it) has caused you to focus on a part of my post which really isn't the point I was making.

If you didn't mean it, you should have omitted it or retracted it. It's poor form to call me obsessed for addressing your lead point.

Quote:The point, if you read my entire post quoted above, is that religion focuses on the "evils" of victimless crimes like idolatry, blasphemy and apostasy or exalting useless "virtues" like prayer, rituals or church attendance and that these distractions are not only not helpful but confusing to the topic of morality, as outlined in the bolded section title.

If you're retracting the first line, then my response is that you haven't supported your assertion that "Morality is a function of how we treat our fellow sentient beings."

Quote:Tell you what, if we just delete that first sentence, will that help you zero in on the point and not get side-tracked by issues beside the point?

Depends on how many points you're going to claim as side issues.

(June 19, 2013 at 2:42 am)fr0d0 Wrote:

(June 18, 2013 at 6:22 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: For now: You worship a monster.

Yet you present no evidence to support that statement. Nothing to suggest that you know that these actions were unjust.

So, if Yahweh communicated to you that you should be part of an army that should, "kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves." for worshiping a different god, would you partake?

Would you even evaluate the above action morally? Or would you just carry it out because the order came from 'god'?

If another army came to your home town and claimed that their god ordered them to do the same to your town because you worshiped the wrong god, would you think that it was a just action?

(June 19, 2013 at 11:42 am)John V Wrote: If you're retracting the first line, then my response is that you haven't supported your assertion that "Morality is a function of how we treat our fellow sentient beings."

That's my take on morality from a secular point of view. We have no moral obligation towards rocks or amoebas. Our obligations are to one another as thinking, feeling, self-aware beings. Our actions impact the happiness and well being of others. You can't make rocks or amoebas happy nor to they feel pain. If we fail to act with integrity or violate the rights of other sentient beings, we cause them pain. What we call "morality" from a secular perspective relates to our obligations toward each other as fellow sentient beings.

If you wish to go into greater detail, we can utilize the academic philosophies on morality using a variety of approaches, some of which I have listed in previous posts on this thread to Frodo (Bentham's Utliltarian Principles, Rawls' Veil of Ignorance, etc.). But the bottom line is the ones I'm familiar with all speak of issues of social justice, the relief of one another's pain and the promotion of our happiness in this life.

This is the body of point #1, that secular morality focuses on what's really important. Religious-based morality gets side-tracked on victimless "sins" or useless "virtues" and even promotes their importance over what really matters in our discussions on morality.

The conclusion of point #1 is that since a secular understand of morality is focused and a religious based understanding of morality is distracted, secular morality is superior.

Do you disagree? If so, how do you define morality? Let's talk about it and see which definition makes more sense.

(June 19, 2013 at 12:06 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: That's my take on morality from a secular point of view. We have no moral obligation towards rocks or amoebas. Our obligations are to one another as thinking, feeling, self-aware beings. Our actions impact the happiness and well being of others. You can't make rocks or amoebas happy nor to they feel pain. If we fail to act with integrity or violate the rights of other sentient beings, we cause them pain. What we call "morality" from a secular perspective relates to our obligations toward each other as fellow sentient beings.

If you wish to go into greater detail, we can utilize the academic philosophies on morality using a variety of approaches, some of which I have listed in previous posts on this thread to Frodo (Bentham's Utliltarian Principles, Rawls' Veil of Ignorance, etc.). But the bottom line is the ones I'm familiar with all speak of issues of social justice, the relief of one another's pain and the promotion of our happiness in this life.

This is the body of point #1, that secular morality focuses on what's really important. Religious-based morality gets side-tracked on victimless "sins" or useless "virtues" and even promotes their importance over what really matters in our discussions on morality.

The conclusion of point #1 is that since a secular understand of morality is focused and a religious based understanding of morality is distracted, secular morality is superior.

Do you disagree?

I disagree that secular morality focuses on what's really important. You have yet to say what's really important, let alone support such an assertion. In this post you jump from one criterion to another. I don't see laser-like focus. What's important? Is it thinking, or feeling, or self-awareness, or avoidance of pain, or promoting happiness? Is there a line somewhere between amoebas and men?

As yet you haven't shown focus at all.

(June 19, 2013 at 11:42 am)John V Wrote: If you're retracting the first line, then my response is that you haven't supported your assertion that "Morality is a function of how we treat our fellow sentient beings."

He's not making an assertion, he is describing a workable definition of morality, the can be evaluated using reason and logic, in attempt to assure that the maximum number of humans have the best shot of a good life as possible. It is a system that can constantly improve.

Please note the US no longer has slavery, which was ended based on secular morality. When did Yahweh ever send an update to the Bible informing his followers that it is no longer moral to own another human as property?

(June 19, 2013 at 1:05 pm)John V Wrote: What's important? Is it thinking, or feeling, or self-awareness, or avoidance of pain, or promoting happiness?

They're all inter-related. Relieving pain does promote happiness. Happiness is a feeling. Self-awareness is how we experience feeling. Self-awareness is also how we think. Do I really need to explain all this to you?

Try again?

Quote:Is there a line somewhere between amoebas and men?

Sentience.

(June 19, 2013 at 1:21 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: They're all inter-related. Relieving pain does promote happiness. Happiness is a feeling. Self-awareness is how we experience feeling. Self-awareness is also how we think. Do I really need to explain all this to you?

Try again?

Sentience.

Yes, you need to explain the cutoff. Sentience does not necessarily imply feelings or self-awareness. Focus like a laser, man!

(June 19, 2013 at 1:35 pm)John V Wrote: Yes, you need to explain the cutoff. Sentience does not necessarily imply feelings or self-awareness. Focus like a laser, man!

Really?

Dictionary.com: Sentience

Quote:noun
sentient condition or character; capacity for sensation or feeling.

— n
1. the state or quality of being sentient; awareness
2. sense perception not involving intelligence or mental perception; feeling

Merriam Webster: Sentient

Quote:1 : responsive to or conscious of sense impressions <sentient beings>
2: aware
3: finely sensitive in perception or feeling

You lose. Try again?

(June 19, 2013 at 3:25 am)Ryantology Wrote: Under what conditions are the mass murder of innocent people just?

Absolutely no conditions. Ever. Not in any circumstance.

---

(June 19, 2013 at 8:27 am)DeistPaladin Wrote:

(June 19, 2013 at 2:42 am)fr0d0 Wrote: So we can confidently dismiss your case here.

So you're comfortable worshiping a being that orders rape, genocide and slavery?

What a fantastic imagination you have. Still.... you fail to come up with any proof. Perhaps you possess supernatural abilities which is how you can make these unsupported claims.

Still waiting.

---

(June 19, 2013 at 11:59 am)Simon Moon Wrote:

(June 19, 2013 at 2:42 am)fr0d0 Wrote: Yet you present no evidence to support that statement. Nothing to suggest that you know that these actions were unjust.

So, if Yahweh communicated to you that you should be part of an army that should, "kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves." for worshiping a different god, would you partake?

Would you even evaluate the above action morally? Or would you just carry it out because the order came from 'god'?

If another army came to your home town and claimed that their god ordered them to do the same to your town because you worshiped the wrong god, would you think that it was a just action?

Personally, I don't know how you'd tell. How would you know the precise will of God. Many of the OT stories are the people's actions judged by themselves, and attributed to God by them. Often you see the influence of their consideration of God, for example in the influence to see slaves as humans and treat them more fairly. Of it's time and that culture those we're revolutionary.
I'm not saying all stories are this. Some clearly are. The overarching point is this is supposed to be an example if a just God exacting justice. Even if we had accurate historical record, and insights into the minds of everyone involved, we still would be ill equipped to make a judgement call on the rights and wrongs of the matter. Sure genocide is extreme. Can we say that genocide is always unjustifiable? No.

(June 19, 2013 at 1:59 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote:

(June 19, 2013 at 1:35 pm)John V Wrote: Yes, you need to explain the cutoff. Sentience does not necessarily imply feelings or self-awareness. Focus like a laser, man!

Really?

Yes, really.

Quote:Dictionary.com: Sentience

Quote:noun
sentient condition or character; capacity for sensation or feeling.

No need for self-awareness, and feeling in this context is sensory, as opposed to emotional feelings such as happiness.

Quote:— n
1. the state or quality of being sentient; awareness

2. sense perception not involving intelligence or mental perception; feeling

The second one specifies that thinking and self-awareness aren't necessary.

Quote:Merriam Webster: Sentient

[quote]1 : responsive to or conscious of sense impressions <sentient beings>
2: aware
3: finely sensitive in perception or feeling

Again, the first doesn't require self awareness etc.

Quote:You lose.

Hardly. Did you even read these before you posted them?

The Stanford site defines sentience in its entry on consciousness as:

Quote:Sentience. It may be conscious in the generic sense of simply being a sentient creature, one capable of sensing and responding to its world (Armstrong 1981).

Shortly thereafter it notes that self awareness is a higher standard:

Quote:Self-consciousness. A third and yet more demanding sense might define conscious creatures as those that are not only aware but also aware that they are aware, thus treating creature consciousness as a form of self-consciousness.

Here's the wiki entry on sentience
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentience

Quote:In the philosophy of consciousness, "sentience" can refer to the ability of any entity to have subjective perceptual experiences, or as some philosophers refer to them, "qualia".[1] This is distinct from other aspects of the mind and consciousness, such as creativity, intelligence, sapience, self-awareness, and intentionality (the ability to have thoughts that mean something or are "about" something). Sentience is a minimalistic way of defining "consciousness", which is otherwise commonly used to collectively describe sentience plus other characteristics of the mind.
...
In the philosophy of animal rights, sentience implies the ability to experience pleasure and pain. Animal-rights advocates typically argue that any sentient being is entitled at a minimum to the right not to be subjected to unnecessary suffering, though they may differ on what other rights (e.g., the right to life) may be entailed by simple sentience. Sentiocentrism describes the theory that sentient individuals are the center of moral concern.

If sentience is the cutoff, your morality would be sentiocentric. The basic idea is that creatures that can suffer have rights, regardless of whether they have thoughts, happiness, or self-awareness.

Lately people commonly use sentient when they should use sapient, which does necessarily imply higher intellectual functions.