A natural explanation for morality

Rationalist

Hail Voltaire
I've long been a fan of the "Why do people laugh at creationists" series on YouTube. Religious fanatics argue that apart from religion, there is no morality. This video essentially puts that tired ol' bullshit argument to rest.

 
I cannot even begin to describe the sense of overwhelming joy that I experienced when I realized that there is no god. It's probably very similar to the emotion experienced by a newly born-again Christian who's just accepted Jesus as his savior, except much more satisfying, because rather than subjecting myself to an imaginary spirit being, I realized that for all intents and purposes, I am my own god. I determine my own destiny; I am responsible for my own success and failure. With possible exception to love, the emotion that follows the realization that there is no god is truly the most joyous and satisfying that a human being can possibly experience. No longer do I live with the fear that there's a man in the sky out to get me personally if I piss him off.
 
I like. Haven't heard of Sam Harris before, but after reading the Wiki about him, he seems pretty legit.

sam harris is known as one of the "four horsemen" of new atheism. along with richard dawkins, some other guy, and christopher hitchens. (rip).

hitchens is my favorite, so of course he just died. Just like all my favorite people.
 
I cannot even begin to describe the sense of overwhelming joy that I experienced when I realized that there is no god. It's probably very similar to the emotion experienced by a newly born-again Christian who's just accepted Jesus as his savior, except much more satisfying, because rather than subjecting myself to an imaginary spirit being, I realized that for all intents and purposes, I am my own god. I determine my own destiny; I am responsible for my own success and failure. With possible exception to love, the emotion that follows the realization that there is no god is truly the most joyous and satisfying that a human being can possibly experience. No longer do I live with the fear that there's a man in the sky out to get me personally if I piss him off.

im happy for ya bro :)
 
sam harris is known as one of the "four horsemen" of new atheism. along with richard dawkins, some other guy, and christopher hitchens. (rip).

hitchens is my favorite, so of course he just died. Just like all my favorite people.

Too Zune Grind?
 
Too Zune Grind?

I have respect for all four particularly the late C Hitchens, but they do tend to treat their atheism with a certain religious zeal.
Something will happen. In time the idea of a deity with variously moving powers will be forgotten as will attitudes to gay marriage and womens rights.
The more we push, for whatever 'just' cause we are pursuing at the moment, the more we are likely to alienate those who won't be pushed into an idea.
Democracy will come to China, but pushing and rioting and demonstrating simply strengthens the resolve of those who do not agree.
I would ban the word 'atheist' (no, I dont have a replacement yet) and I would ban the word 'gay'.
Ones identity is held sufficiently well in one's name without attaching stupid labels.
viz:
Mr. Aloysius Dunkley-Prum (47) a citizen of British West Hartlepool and of African descent and an atheist was cautioned by police officer Paddy Malarkey (35) an unmarried, Scottish Jew who was returning from a gay jew meeting at his local synagogue, for driving his second hand 1998 Honda Civic, known as a poor man's car, at 35mph in a 30mph area.
 
I have respect for all four particularly the late C Hitchens, but they do tend to treat their atheism with a certain religious zeal.
Something will happen. In time the idea of a deity with variously moving powers will be forgotten as will attitudes to gay marriage and womens rights.
The more we push, for whatever 'just' cause we are pursuing at the moment, the more we are likely to alienate those who won't be pushed into an idea.
Democracy will come to China, but pushing and rioting and demonstrating simply strengthens the resolve of those who do not agree.
I would ban the word 'atheist' (no, I dont have a replacement yet) and I would ban the word 'gay'.
Ones identity is held sufficiently well in one's name without attaching stupid labels.
viz:
Mr. Aloysius Dunkley-Prum (47) a citizen of British West Hartlepool and of African descent and an atheist was cautioned by police officer Paddy Malarkey (35) an unmarried, Scottish Jew who was returning from a gay jew meeting at his local synagogue, for driving his second hand 1998 Honda Civic, known as a poor man's car, at 35mph in a 30mph area.

Woosh.
 
The more we push, for whatever 'just' cause we are pursuing at the moment, the more we are likely to alienate those who won't be pushed into an idea.
Democracy will come to China, but pushing and rioting and demonstrating simply strengthens the resolve of those who do not agree.

You could say the same thing for political opinions, but the whole of society participates in that exchange.

I hear this a lot, from all sides. And I always find it amusing when taking into account the veracity and polarization of political debate that happens in public. The only reason why I think people ask for atheism/religious discussion to be put on the back burner is because it's seen as less of an "immediate concern" as compared to politics ("the next election is the biggest one in the last 100 years"), so people feel as though it's easier to ignore, even though at it's core, it's the same action, an exchange of ideas that ends up pissing a lot of people off.

I don't talk about atheism and religious stuff IRL, but then again, I don't discuss politics with people either. It's just not my style usually, and I'm prone to changing my mind and don't like a prior opinion from me to be used to categorize me permanently.

Online is different though, because you are usually with an audience that is specifically present for the exchange of ideas.

The other thing I notice is euros will often take the line that you've taken. I think most euros kneejerk reaction to hearing an atheism discussion is "yeah... religion is stupid, but what's the big deal?"

...

They say this of course, from their much more secular and non-religiously influenced society. They don't live in the bible belt, where churches are THE social institution, and if you don't belong to one, you are a social pariah. It's a different world in a lot of parts of america that I think a lot of europeans tend to forget sometimes. Yeah, if everyone around me was basically non-religious I also be more likely to not give a shit either way. You don't have your schools trying to ACTUALLY TEACH creationism (or "intelligent design") in a science class, or have your graduation ceromony preceded by a group prayer in a publically funded school. I could go on.
 
You could say the same thing for political opinions, but the whole of society participates in that exchange.

I hear this a lot, from all sides. And I always find it amusing when taking into account the veracity and polarization of political debate that happens in public. The only reason why I think people ask for atheism/religious discussion to be put on the back burner is because it's seen as less of an "immediate concern" as compared to politics ("the next election is the biggest one in the last 100 years"), so people feel as though it's easier to ignore, even though at it's core, it's the same action, an exchange of ideas that ends up pissing a lot of people off.

I don't talk about atheism and religious stuff IRL, but then again, I don't discuss politics with people either. It's just not my style usually, and I'm prone to changing my mind and don't like a prior opinion from me to be used to categorize me permanently.

Online is different though, because you are usually with an audience that is specifically present for the exchange of ideas.

The other thing I notice is euros will often take the line that you've taken. I think most euros kneejerk reaction to hearing an atheism discussion is "yeah... religion is stupid, but what's the big deal?"

...

They say this of course, from their much more secular and non-religiously influenced society. They don't live in the bible belt, where churches are THE social institution, and if you don't belong to one, you are a social pariah. It's a different world in a lot of parts of america that I think a lot of europeans tend to forget sometimes. Yeah, if everyone around me was basically non-religious I also be more likely to not give a shit either way. You don't have your schools trying to ACTUALLY TEACH creationism (or "intelligent design") in a science class, or have your graduation ceromony preceded by a group prayer in a publically funded school. I could go on.

I think your final paras are a little inaccurate. Europe, at least the romance nations, is still quite religious. It may not be the way that people that you know practice their faith but nevertheless they do practice it. The UK similarly has a reasonable number of church going people and more who 'would if they could'!
It is not that we 'forget' your bible belt, it is that we cannot really understand why otherwise intelligent people will demonstrate their faith in such a peculiar fashion. But each to his own. We call them the 'Happy Clappies' (you probably do too.)
The danger, or a possible danger for America and parts of Europe, is that when people decide against formal organised religion the extremists rush to fill the gap. So your bible belt, the Hallelujah Heathens, will grow in number, power and influence, and the Islamists in Europe will do likewise. Both groups totally unacceptable to the civilised progress of man and possibly his future downfall.
To protest will make them stronger, to sit back will help them spread.
My view is, and I do practice what I preach, that no religion has a monopoly on 'good' and so I try to show that man has this enormous capacity for being a good samaritan. It doesn't take any effort.

I was in discussion at a party a few weeks ago with someone who was what they call a 'born again christian'. I pointed out some of the people at the party. 'She used to be a prostitute', I said, 'and he spent his teen years in borstal. That guy was a lawyer and was struck off and the girl he is with was a bar girl. The guy wih the bald head used to be a teacher but was sacked for using corporal punishment.' My Born again friend simply said, 'I cannot accept that. I do not want to meet them. I think I will finish my drink and go home.'
I said, 'Your faith teaches tolerance and generosity of spirit, doesnt it? I don't have a problem with these people. Each one is a character and is entertaining in his own right.'
My friend went home. I was cool with that. We had lunch a week later and I sat back and respected his need to say his grace before eating.
Bit rambling. sometimes it is difficult to stop pounding the keyboard.
 
A natural explanation for morality

I find it curious you did't phrase this: Natural PROOF for morality

You chose the words, not me... so you can only speak for why you did that, but I think it's interesting. You would like to make the case that spiritual beliefs which support morality have somehow been proven meaningless by science or nature. They haven't been. You offer an "EXPLANATION" not proof. Yours is one explanation among many, it hasn't been proven to be the only true logical or accurate explanation, or you would have phrased your thread title differently. In fact... you wouldn't have even have been compelled to post a thread. The point of the thread, is to ARGUE. Now... if you had definitive proof of your point, there would be no need for argument. The fact of the matter is, you don't have definitive proof of anything, you have your "explanation" which is based on your "opinion." and that's really ALL you have.

Oh... and then, there is this:

I cannot even begin to describe the sense of overwhelming joy that I experienced when I realized that there is no god. It's probably very similar to the emotion experienced by a newly born-again Christian who's just accepted Jesus as his savior, except much more satisfying, because rather than subjecting myself to an imaginary spirit being, I realized that for all intents and purposes, I am my own god. I determine my own destiny; I am responsible for my own success and failure. With possible exception to love, the emotion that follows the realization that there is no god is truly the most joyous and satisfying that a human being can possibly experience. No longer do I live with the fear that there's a man in the sky out to get me personally if I piss him off.

Excuse me, but I don't believe a word you are saying. I don't believe you are the least bit content or comfortable in your personal beliefs, because you seek to argue your point of view with others. If you were content and comfortable with what you believed, you wouldn't feel the need to do that. You could just accept that you were smarter than everyone else, and it didn't matter what they believed. You don't have that... you are not positive yet... you need to argue in order to satisfy your nagging conscience, because you are uncomfortable with what you have chosen to believe. It would make you feel better, to convince other people to join you in your belief, therefore... you posted this thread. It would help you to reaffirm that you weren't wrong, if you could find others to agree with you... that is what compels you to incessantly wish to argue this here.

When you and Bill Mahr can shut your pie holes about religious people and God, then I will believe you are comfortable and content with what you believe. Until then, you keep on posting these sort of threads, and keep seeking the affirmation of other like-minded idiots to reassure yourself. Me and others, fully understand why you have to do that. Being detached from your spiritual connection can be a very insecure and threatening place, you can't help but be discontent. That's natural.
 
A natural explanation for morality

I find it curious you did't phrase this: Natural PROOF for morality

Why would/should I attempt to offer proof? I (or rather, the videos posted by Grind and I) simply offer explanations for how morality could arise as a product of nature. Sure, if a god does exist, morality could have originated with that god. But it could also be a product of natural selection. Do you agree?

You chose the words, not me... so you can only speak for why you did that, but I think it's interesting. You would like to make the case that spiritual beliefs which support morality have somehow been proven meaningless by science or nature. They haven't been. You offer an "EXPLANATION" not proof. Yours is one explanation among many, it hasn't been proven to be the only true logical or accurate explanation, or you would have phrased your thread title differently. In fact... you wouldn't have even have been compelled to post a thread. The point of the thread, is to ARGUE. Now... if you had definitive proof of your point, there would be no need for argument. The fact of the matter is, you don't have definitive proof of anything, you have your "explanation" which is based on your "opinion." and that's really ALL you have.

Uh, I never claimed to have "proof," which is irrelevant given the context. And why do you expect science to "prove" everything? "Proof" is generally not a term used in science, as nothing can be proven 100%.

Excuse me, but I don't believe a word you are saying. I don't believe you are the least bit content or comfortable in your personal beliefs, because you seek to argue your point of view with others.

1. I don't give two shits what you believe.
2. By your logic, you aren't comfortable with your beliefs, either, since you, too, seek to argue your point of view with others.

If you were content and comfortable with what you believed, you wouldn't feel the need to do that. You could just accept that you were smarter than everyone else, and it didn't matter what they believed. You don't have that... you are not positive yet... you need to argue in order to satisfy your nagging conscience, because you are uncomfortable with what you have chosen to believe. It would make you feel better, to convince other people to join you in your belief, therefore... you posted this thread. It would help you to reaffirm that you weren't wrong, if you could find others to agree with you... that is what compels you to incessantly wish to argue this here.

When you and Bill Mahr can shut your pie holes about religious people and God, then I will believe you are comfortable and content with what you believe. Until then, you keep on posting these sort of threads, and keep seeking the affirmation of other like-minded idiots to reassure yourself. Me and others, fully understand why you have to do that. Being detached from your spiritual connection can be a very insecure and threatening place, you can't help but be discontent. That's natural.

The reason I argue my point of view is partly rooted in my concern for the well being of my country, where 46% of the population thinks everything was created 6,000 years ago. In order to understand why that idea is bullshit, one must possess a rudimentary understanding of geology, astronomy, and biology. Most in the US, including you, do not. Lack of basic education is the root of many problems in the US.

I do personally believe the US should get over religion, as Europe has done. Religion did a great deal of harm in my life. It made me an outcast, a lunatic. It deprived me of what could have been one of the most enjoyable periods of my life. Thus, I feel compelled to share my experience with others.

Something tells me that if I were a born-again Christian spreading the good news of Jesus, though, you wouldn't raise any objections.
 
I do personally believe the US should get over religion, as Europe has done. Religion did a great deal of harm in my life. It made me an outcast, a lunatic. It deprived me of what could have been one of the most enjoyable periods of my life. Thus, I feel compelled to share my experience with others.

I find this interesting and am not pushing for details; but was it religion that made you an "outcast", or was it the behavior of individuals that made you the outcast?
When those who don't believe as others do, sometimes they make the decision to make the lives of those they don't understand miserable.
 
Religion did a great deal of harm in my life. It made me an outcast, a lunatic. It deprived me of what could have been one of the most enjoyable periods of my life. Thus, I feel compelled to share my experience with others.

Now we get to the bottom of this. I am glad you were candid enough to share this, because it explains your vitriol toward your own spirituality. That is important to define, from a point of introspection, and very revealing of where your problem lies. It would be interesting to note what depravity you feel religion deprived you from, in your youthful formative years? Getting to party? Have sex? Do drugs? What was it? Have you experienced those things yet? Did they fulfill you or satisfy your discontent? Obviously not, you are here posting a thread about how God isn't real, aren't you?

How did this make you an outcast and lunatic? Did you have no choice in the matter? Of your own personal spiritual convictions? Or of the societal pressures around you to conform in order to be accepted? It could be, that you have a need to be loved, that has not been fulfilled. You sought love through acceptance by being a lunatic and outcast, and you blame this on religion instead of yourself, and your weakness to embrace your own individual spirituality.

For the record, I am not a big fan of "organized religion" per say. I see the benefits, I accept that we will always have it.. but my spiritual beliefs are far too personal to be confined by some monolithic dogma. I have to do as my spiritual force guides me, and this doesn't have a thing to do with religious doctrine, for the most part. It's more about the positive flow of energy and aura around me at a given time. I am respectful of those who believe in Religion, and I basically consider what they call their "God" to be the same energy force of spiritual awareness I know. You see, I have come to realize, this 'entity', if we can call it that, is something too completely out of our realm of understanding, that we really have no way of defining or understanding it, particularly with man-made physical sciences. It's just too much for us as mortals to comprehend. So we 'invented' religion, as a means to 'kinda-sorta' get the gist of the idea. Being that we're PEOPLE and not perfect... we created religions that believe and do all sorts of things, because of their devoted conviction... that's not always bad and not always good.
 
By your logic, you aren't comfortable with your beliefs, either, since you, too, seek to argue your point of view with others.

I didn't start a thread or post videos, did I?

I was merely making an observation of fundamental fact.

I am very comfortable in what I believe and know to be the truth. I get a kick out of pointing out the psychological flaws in the things Atheistic people do and say, because it seems to really bug the piss out of them, for some reason. When the science brains start spouting their "Proof" of things that science itself, admits it can't prove... I can't help but point out the irony of their hypocrisy. When you argue from the point of view that science has somehow concluded there isn't a God and it's not scientifically possible for God to exist, I have to laugh. How many things in the universe could there possibly be, that science doesn't know exists? Any idea?? Since when does the Scientific Method say you can assume and draw conclusions? I mean... It's FINE to say that physical human-created science, doesn't explain a supernatural entity... I have no problem with that fact. But does that PROVE anything? Other than, it's kind of absurd to think physical science is supposed to apply to the supernatural.... doesn't prove very much.
 
the general problem with this type of thread is that it demonstrates ignorance about what morality actually means.......everyone "has" morality, because it merely means the self understood limits on what people will choose to do or choose not to do.......granted there are those that are considered "amoral", who never stop to consider their actions, but they are rare.....

the argument isn't that non religious people don't have morality, it's that they have to create their own standards for morality.......religions don't create morality, they provide a common standard for morality.......
 
Back
Top