Morality is irrelevant to atheism

[WAB]

I'd like to reiterate that morality does not come from religion. It comes from us (as does religion, and the two don't always overlap).

I agree. Religions are a result of our thoughts about morality; morality is never the result of religion.

 

[WAB]

The simple answer to this simple minded question is, "Apparently, you have."

I don't agree with that. Though I do agree that anyone restrained from raping someone by fear of reprisal alone is certainly a potential rapist, whether that reprisal comes from civil justice or God.

There's one thing (among many) about religion that seems to have worked, at least for certain people, and why I feel it's a mistake to try and make it go away: The fear of endless torment. Hell is a revolting concept - in fact the most evil concept ever hatched in the mind - but I'm sure the fear of it saved a lot of innocent people from harm over the centuries.

So why do I think Hell is an evil concept but we need to keep it around: it seems like a contradiction but it really isn't. If it helps to keep some assholes from harming or raping others, then it has a positive function in the social structure.

 

[Kharakov]

Ya, morality is about as relevant to atheism as proper basting is to canasta. It means that you don't think any gods exist and that's it.

Look, I don't know if I can trust someone who doesn't know how to play canasta properly. Either you're wrong about basting, or you're wrong about atheism. It's time to fess up.

 

[WAB]

Atheists have stated that their "only" claim is that they do not believe in God because there is no
"proof" that God exists.

If evolution explains the origin of humans, then morality is irrelevant. Only survival and procreation
count.

Moreover, Charles Darwin propounded an extraordinarily racist prediction, viz. that blacks would soon
become extinct by virtue of their inferiority, being close to the apes, as Darwin described them.

Arguably one of the most successful groups of humans, in Darwinian terms, would have to be
Muslim terrorists. You atheists can't judge them! No they're just following their successful evolutionary
prerogative.

Please don't direct any of your comments to me. They're overwhelmingly disingenuous and giggly.
Besides, it is patently unfair for dozens of people to overwhelm one person with challenges, questions,
and.... giggly one-liners.

If there are any Christian conservatives here, they should add their comments. I doubt that there are more than
a token few.

I'm a Christian - sometimes, in my manic phases - but I'm a fallen conservative. I'm far more liberal now. My views are dynamic and open to change, depending on what I learn and how I think about new information.

Starman, you can't just start a thread and then ask everyone to abstain from shooting answers at you. I have defended you because I can't help defending anyone who stands alone against a group of people who have greatly opposing views. It's my nature and I can't help it. BUT - there's always a (_!_) :

What you're doing here is not going to make you feel any better about yourself or give you more confidence, nor will it change anybody's mind. You cannot simply cast insults and insinuations at people and then step away and watch.

WWJD?

Would Jesus do that? If you want to practice what you preach, be like Jesus, and engage with these people, and be tolerant, gentle, and above all, Love them!

***

To everyone else: I realize the Gospels are contradictory and that some of the things Jesus is supposed to have said are in direct contradiction to His ministry of Love. Believe me, I've combed through the NT many times. I'm a cherry-picker, like Spinoza. I take the Bible the way I take any other text. What I think is that there was someone Who knew how to communicate with the literate and the illiterate on their own terms, and that later on, due to man's incessant need to phuque all good things up, those contradictory words of Jesus were added in.

Or, there was no teacher named Jesus, and he was a political fabrication. But I doubt that.

 

[Angry Floof]

Pfffffth. Starman doesn't believe in God, but in ideology. Whatever the concept of "God" might reflect in reality, it is lost on Christian America and its ideologues.

 

[WAB]

Pfffffth. Starman doesn't believe in God, but in ideology. Whatever the concept of "God" might reflect in reality, it is lost on Christian America and its ideologues.

I think Starman believes in God. I think it's patently obvious.

I mostly agree with your last sentence, though I think such opinions should be phrased delicately, in general terms. There are millions of American Christians who are very fine people, a great many even finer than us, certainly finer than me.

Having to type that last bit out indicates that something is very wrong.

 

[Angry Floof]

Pfffffth. Starman doesn't believe in God, but in ideology. Whatever the concept of "God" might reflect in reality, it is lost on Christian America and its ideologues.

I think Starman believes in God. I think it's patently obvious.

I mostly agree with your last sentence, though I think such opinions should be phrased delicately, in general terms. There are millions of American Christians who are very fine people, a great many even finer than us, certainly finer than me.

Having to type that last bit out indicates that something is very wrong.

Of course they are fine people. But their ideology is crap.

 

[WAB]

"Abu'l doesn't believe in Allah, but ideology. Whatever the concept of "Allah" might reflect in reality, it is lost on the Islamic State of Palestine and its ideologues."

Let's say Starman typed that. He didn't, but let's say he did, as a thought experiment. What do you imagine would be the reaction here?

 

[Angry Floof]

"Abu'l doesn't believe in Allah, but ideology. Whatever the concept of "Allah" might reflect in reality, it is lost on the Islamic State of Palestine and its ideologues."

Let's say Starman typed that. He didn't, but let's say he did, as a thought experiment. What do you imagine would be the reaction here?

I'd say the same thing. What would you expect to be the reaction? They're both backward, absolutist ideologies, both crap, both unfit for human beings. What's your point?

Also, I said that about Starman. Did anyone else here say that? I only speak for me. Maybe it's your tendency for groupthink that makes you automatically address this whole board based on something I said?

 

[WAB]

"Abu'l doesn't believe in Allah, but ideology. Whatever the concept of "Allah" might reflect in reality, it is lost on the Islamic State of Palestine and its ideologues."

Let's say Starman typed that. He didn't, but let's say he did, as a thought experiment. What do you imagine would be the reaction here?

I'd say the same thing. What would you expect to be the reaction? They're both backward, absolutist ideologies, both crap, both unfit for human beings. What's your point?

Also, I said that about Starman. Did anyone else here say that? I only speak for me. Maybe it's your tendency for groupthink that makes you automatically address this whole board based on something I said?

I'm shocked, hylidae. Totally stunned and shocked by this response. For the first time in a long time, I'm at a loss for words.

 

[ideologyhunter]

Morality is the imposition of the rules of group living. The group can be as small as two. If you and I are marooned on the island in the New Yorker cartoon with one palm tree, you can bet we're going to have rules on how the coconuts are divided. And another rule: please stop haranguing me about your Coconut God, because he/she doesn't apply to the reality of the situation. We're stuck in a New Yorker cartoon & we've got to survive somehow.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Maybe it's your tendency for groupthink that makes you automatically address this whole board based on something I said?

Well, if 90% of the board disagrees with Loretta, he can either think maybe he's wrong, or maybe he's right but unable to get his ideas across coherently, or maybe he can just dismiss 90% of the board as 'groupthinkers' because that leaves him with no need to reevaluate his posted claims.

 

[Bronzeage]

Maybe it's your tendency for groupthink that makes you automatically address this whole board based on something I said?

Well, if 90% of the board disagrees with Loretta, he can either think maybe he's wrong, or maybe he's right but unable to get his ideas across coherently, or maybe he can just dismiss 90% of the board as 'groupthinkers' because that leaves him with no need to reevaluate his posted claims.

A short sequence of dialogue from Catch-22"

“What if everyone felt the same you did?”

“Well, then I’d be a fool to feel any differently!”

 

[WAB]

Maybe it's your tendency for groupthink that makes you automatically address this whole board based on something I said?

Well, if 90% of the board disagrees with Loretta, he can either think maybe he's wrong, or maybe he's right but unable to get his ideas across coherently, or maybe he can just dismiss 90% of the board as 'groupthinkers' because that leaves him with no need to reevaluate his posted claims.

Don't have much time to address this nonsensical post now, but will be back later. What we have at TF, and I refer only to a handful of posters, is a perfect example of groupthink. It's almost as bad a Rapture Ready, except Rapture Ready is truly loony, whereas some of the groupthinkers here have mainly political motives for parroting the party-line. You can remain in denial if you like.

Most likely I will not be posting on this board for much longer, as I can see that getting some of you to think is next to impossible.

Should be back sometime after 7:00 PM.

In the meantime, Keith, maybe you can remind us all of some of my "posted claims" and I will examine them and reevaluate them in a further post.

 

[WAB]

Well I'm finally back - had to work late. Too much to do, not enough time to do it, and working for peanuts.

Cooled off some.

Hate myself for getting defensive. For letting my emotions get in the way, and pissing off the Ghost of Spinoza. The usual.

But still interested in what claims I need to reevaluate.

...time passes...

Alright, I reviewed all of my posts in this thread and I see only one claim that I feel the need to reevaluate, and that's my accusation of certain posters engaging in groupthink.



...reevaluating...



...time passes...



Well, I guess it was a cheap shot. But it MIGHT not be terribly inaccurate. <<< note the upper case word. I am not making a claim, just voicing the fact that I'm a wee tad suspicious of certain posters at TF. Not of their intelligence, but of their motives. So (still reevaluating here, bear with me), when I use the word groupthink, it's not really that I believe that those members who engage in pile-ons against a single member are not capable of thinking independently. What I believe is that it makes them feel comfortable to make snarky comments and mean-spirited jokes, that it makes them feel more confident of their own beliefs, that it encourages less examination of those beliefs, and that it increases confirmation bias to a certain degree—all of which, if left unchecked in a social group of a certain size, can often lead to something that looks to an outsider like groupthink.

Reevaluation concluded.

Well, if 90% of the board disagrees with Loretta, he can either think maybe he's wrong, or maybe he's right but unable to get his ideas across coherently, or maybe he can just dismiss 90% of the board as 'groupthinkers' because that leaves him with no need to reevaluate his posted claims.

Where do you get the 90% ?

Even so, no. I would never dismiss 90% of the board as groupthinkers. I'm referencing only a relatively small group of individuals here, people whose names I see very frequently. I've been on board here for 11 years and my post count is comparatively low. I don't interact with anywhere near 90% of the members, so I can't possibly judge them.

 

[Bronzeage]

Well I'm finally back - had to work late. Too much to do, not enough time to do it, and working for peanuts.

Cooled off some.

Hate myself for getting defensive. For letting my emotions get in the way, and pissing off the Ghost of Spinoza. The usual.

But still interested in what claims I need to reevaluate.

...time passes...

Alright, I reviewed all of my posts in this thread and I see only one claim that I feel the need to reevaluate, and that's my accusation of certain posters engaging in groupthink.



...reevaluating...



...time passes...



Well, I guess it was a cheap shot. But it MIGHT not be terribly inaccurate. <<< note the upper case word. I am not making a claim, just voicing the fact that I'm a wee tad suspicious of certain posters at TF. Not of their intelligence, but of their motives. So (still reevaluating here, bear with me), when I use the word groupthink, it's not really that I believe that those members who engage in pile-ons against a single member are not capable of thinking independently. What I believe is that it makes them feel comfortable to make snarky comments and mean-spirited jokes, that it makes them feel more confident of their own beliefs, that it encourages less examination of those beliefs, and that it increases confirmation bias to a certain degree—all of which, if left unchecked in a social group of a certain size, can often lead to something that looks to an outsider like groupthink.

Reevaluation concluded.

Well, if 90% of the board disagrees with Loretta, he can either think maybe he's wrong, or maybe he's right but unable to get his ideas across coherently, or maybe he can just dismiss 90% of the board as 'groupthinkers' because that leaves him with no need to reevaluate his posted claims.

Where do you get the 90% ?

Even so, no. I would never dismiss 90% of the board as groupthinkers. I'm referencing only a relatively small group of individuals here, people whose names I see very frequently. I've been on board here for 11 years and my post count is comparatively low. I don't interact with anywhere near 90% of the members, so I can't possibly judge them.

The thing to realize when considering morality and moral codes of behavior is, these codes were created many thousands of years ago and dealt with very different problems of living. In addition to this, the specifics of a moral code for a culture will depend upon the environment and resources. A culture which lives in a place where food is plentiful will have little need to regulate food resources. A culture in a harsher place will have complicated rules to define food distribution, who owns the food, who is entitled to the best share, etc.
The key to understanding any culture's code of moral behavior is to understand the resources available when the code was first defined.

 

[Brian63]

Groupthink is also not a quality people have or do not have, one or the other. Instead, it is a human quality (for reasons such as Bronzeage states just above) that we have to different degrees. Nobody is entirely free of groupthink, for the entirety of their life. One major problem with religion though (hence the existence of counter-forums like this) is that it actually encourages groupthink in its members, and its members remain oblivious to it, and the bad doctrines it promotes in the process.

People go every Sunday to a building where they chant doctrines out loud and try to impose eternal carrots/sticks on extremely young children to swear allegiance to them, while they are really too young to understand them even. As much as conservatives rail against liberals for indoctrination via schools and media, it cannot compare to the harm they actually do to kids.

Brian

P.S. Oh, but I forgot that Christians donate to charity. That means it is okay for them to also indoctrinate little kids into thinking that A SNAKE TALKED.

 

[WAB]

Groupthink is also not a quality people have or do not have, one or the other. Instead, it is a human quality (for reasons such as Bronzeage states just above) that we have to different degrees. Nobody is entirely free of groupthink, for the entirety of their life. One major problem with religion though (hence the existence of counter-forums like this) is that it actually encourages groupthink in its members, and its members remain oblivious to it, and the bad doctrines it promotes in the process.

***groupthink is not anything any individual can have, as it refers to a 'group'. Groups do not exist. Only individuals exist. Hence, groupthink, when you get down to brass tacks, does not exist.

I agree that no-one is entirely free from it. This is the contradiction. We are social animals, but we are individuals. No society can exist without individuals, yet , as Bronzeage reminds us, individuals cannot exist without society (ie groups).

Brian63: when was the last time you went to a church? I went to a Roman Catholic church, and it was nothing like you are describing. I offer you a challenge: go to a church nearby and report back your experiences. Be honest. Religion and religious people are on a learning curve, and they are gradually updating their views on God and Jesus/ Allah and Muhammed/ Vishnu and the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

In C20, a certain part of the world tried to stamp out religion, with disastrous results. Are you sure that stamping out religion is the best way to go? Be careful, and be gentle. There are people who spend all day working, for nothing, and they go to bed sick and exhausted. So they dream of an afterlife where the working poor are compensated for a life spent in drudgery, only to line the pockets of the super-rich. Do you really want to strip such people of their solace and comfort? What does a blind, stumbling universe offer for such people? A lifetime of sweat and labor, only to die and go into Oblivion.

Your desire to wipe out religion is misguided and literally harmful. I suggest you rethink your position.

Peace and Undying, Unconditional Love,

Loretta.

 

[Brian63]

***groupthink is not anything any individual can have, as it refers to a 'group'. Groups do not exist. Only individuals exist. Hence, groupthink, when you get down to brass tacks, does not exist.

A group is a collection of individuals, so when someone says that a group has the trait of "groupthink" they may not mean it as the body itself has it, but rather that the individual members of the group have it. It is a pretty common shorthand expression. When someone says a particular movie was brilliant, they are not saying that the inanimate film itself has the intellectual trait of brilliance, but rather it it is referring to the group of people who created it and put together a fine film.

Brian63: when was the last time you went to a church? I went to a Roman Catholic church, and it was nothing like you are describing.

I was raised in a Roman Catholic church, and it is everything like I was describing. In my adult years, I have also gone to various Sunday services in various denominations at various churches, just to get a taste of what the different ones were like, and so I have plenty of experiences on this matter.

I offer you a challenge: go to a church nearby and report back your experiences. Be honest. Religion and religious people are on a learning curve, and they are gradually updating their views on God and Jesus/ Allah and Muhammed/ Vishnu and the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

You describe them as "updating their views" but then seem to confuse that as to mean "learning." Sometimes people change their views, and not just because they have genuinely learned new facts about them, but rather the myriad of other forces at work that influence their beliefs. Sometimes people change their beliefs because of their emotional and psychological attachments or detachments to those beliefs, along with various social and theological pressures that are added to them, such as in the typical church setting.

Are you sure that stamping out religion is the best way to go?

I do not know what you mean by "stamping out" religion. Can you be a little more explicit? I am not advocating forcing people to become atheists, or anything like that at all. Rather, I want people to learn how the world actually works, and that they do not have to subject themselves to myths and falsehoods, especially harmful ones, in order to find pleasure and purpose in life.

Be careful, and be gentle. There are people who spend all day working, for nothing, and they go to bed sick and exhausted. So they dream of an afterlife where the working poor are compensated for a life spent in drudgery, only to line the pockets of the super-rich. Do you really want to strip such people of their solace and comfort?

Not even close to what I am saying. Again,I want people to learn that the real world itself offers abundant opportunities for solace and comfort, and they do not have to find those traits in falsehoods and unhealthy ideologies.

What does a blind, stumbling universe offer for such people? A lifetime of sweat and labor, only to die and go into Oblivion.

That lifetime offers not just sweat and labor. It also has opportunities for pleasure, joy, happiness. It can also "offer" pain, misery, discomfort. We just try to maximize the former and minimize the latter during our temporary time here.


Several years ago on a different forum I wrote a bit more on this, and will just repost here:

It seems rather apparent to me that, however it is that we humans make choices, it is an entirely human project. The universe does not care what we do with ourselves. The universe does not appear to be constructed for the benefit or the detriment of the people on the planet Earth. The universe was around for a long time before we were, will be around a long time after we are gone, and we are of no consequence to it at all. The universe, and anything that may exist outside the universe, are not feeding answers to people about what they should or should not do in various situations (though many theists obviously are going to believe that they are receiving such info…I think they are in error on that point). The universe does not have any "right" and "wrong" features built into its fabric that we are trying to discover. We use the tools of science to discover numerous physical properties and features of the universe around us, but it is not the case that an interest in the affairs of humans is one of those features embedded into the universe itself. So, whatever rules we humans use to evaluate what we should or should not do in various situations will be rules that we create ourselves, as best for ourselves and our own general welfare.

From there, it gets much trickier.

I believe (though I did not come up with this myself, but was convinced of it by someone else) that each of us makes our individual ethical choices, and those are based on 2 components: our values (what things we desire, give us pleasure, etc.) and our strategies that we use to maximize the fulfillment of those values. Our values are very individual to each of us, and are determined by a wide and complex variety of factors, including our surrounding culture, our relationships with other people we make contact with throughout our lives, our media, our evolutionary history, our biology, etc., etc., etc. When we are faced with a choice, we are subconsciously and consciously giving our best shot at weighing those different values. Sometimes our values cohere with each other, and sometimes they conflict, which results in what we call "dilemmas." Then we choose whichever action we believe will, overall, maximize the fulfillment of our values.

So I do not think there is any objective, universe-generated or deity-generated "right" and "wrong" for us to try and follow. There are, however, rules that we humans (over the course of thousands and thousands and thousands of years of human history) have created for ourselves and for each other to govern our behaviors with each other. Those get ingrained into our psychology and some become strong enough that we have certain feelings when we commit some acts that we consider "good" and others that we consider "bad" (and those feelings often get misinterpreted by theists as communications from a deity). Different cultures will have different behaviors that they will want to encourage or discourage, and so different cultures have different mores, norms, and values. Some behaviors we *very* strongly want to discourage, and so we will go even further to create and enforce laws against the behavior, and punish the people who do engage in it. The "carrot and the stick" is another way to phrase this concept of people trying to encourage/discourage other behaviors in other people. We reward people for certain behaviors and punish them for others, which will play a role in their "strategy theory" when they make a choice about how to maximize fulfillment of their values.


There is plenty more on the subject, including the interesting debates about whether ethical statements are "right" or "wrong" moreso based on the consequences of the act ("deontological") or based on the intentions of the act ("teleological"). I think both are considered in how we evaluate the ethics of an act, but I give the intentions of an act much more weight than the consequences of it. If someone hits my leg with a baseball bat, I will be upset with the person. If I learn that he intended to hit someone else that was about to mug me but just missed and hit me instead, I will be appreciative of the person's intention. In both cases my leg would be injured (so the consequence is the same) but the intention in those 2 scenarios is dramatically different, and that matters tremendously.

[Note that I disagree some now with my prior view on the deontological versus teleological weight given to ethical matters (now, I weigh the intention of an act *far more* than the effects of it...I try to anyhow, it is not an easy exercise).]

Your desire to wipe out religion is misguided and literally harmful. I suggest you rethink your position.

Since to "wipe out religion" is not even my position in the first place, I suggest you try learning the actual positions of people before giving erroneous advice to them about such.

Peace and Undying, Unconditional Love,

Loretta.

Brian

 

[dystopian]

Don't have much time to address this nonsensical post now, but will be back later. What we have at TF, and I refer only to a handful of posters, is a perfect example of groupthink.

No, it really isn't. In fact, it's almost the exact opposite.

"Groupthink is a psychological phenomenon that occurs within a group of people, in which the desire for harmony or conformity in the group results in an irrational or dysfunctional decision-making outcome. Group members try to minimize conflict and reach a consensus decision without critical evaluation of alternative viewpoints, by actively suppressing dissenting viewpoints, and by isolating themselves from outside influences."

Let's look at these facets of groupthinking, shall we?

1. The desire for harmony or conformity in the group results in an irrational or dysfunctional decision-making outcome.

Lolwat? Have you actually LOOKED at the discussions that take place here? Where do you possible see a desire for harmony and conformity in the average discussion here? We regularly see people disagreeing with each other on just about any subject and thread that gets started here. This forum's users have no desire for harmony/conformity, they have a desire for the truth; and that means they will either agree with what they consider the truth to be, or vehemently disagree with what they consider to be anything but. You make the mistake of looking at those threads where the truth is so self-evident that the majority all agrees on it, and conclude that it must be an example of groupthinking when the majority pounces on the minority that dissents. When 9 out of 10 people agree that the 1 person who thinks 1+1 equals 3 is a fucking moron, that doesn't mean those 9 people are engaging in groupthinking.

2. Group members try to minimize conflict.

Pretending that the people on this forum try to minimize conflict in any meaningful manner is so absurd as to be hilarious. Have you ever been to the politics subforum?

3. reach a consensus decision without critical evaluation of alternative viewpoints,

This is a pretty bold claim to make about a forum that is primarily concerned with freethought and skepticism. And indeed, it doesn't seem to bear out based on an objective viewing of the forum's contents. This comes down to the oft repeated demand by people with superstitious beliefs that skeptics should "keep an open mind". We're 'narrow minded' for not considering other viewpoints, supposedly. Of course, the problem is that we DO consider those alternative viewpoints (or we wouldn't be on this forum to begin with, because why bother?), but we consider them with the mentioned CRITICAL evaluation. Doing so, means that alternative viewpoints that don't pass critical muster are quickly rejected. This may seem to you, as someone who holds such viewpoints dear, to narrow minded; but objectively speaking it's just the inevitable result of keeping an open but critical mind.

4. by actively suppressing dissenting viewpoints,

This one can't be applied to this forum either; because dissenting viewpoints are not actively suppressed, but rather addressed. On other forums, like the one you mentioned, posters who don't fall into the established board dogma are banned from the site outright, or have their posts censored. Here, that doesn't happen. People are free to post about their pet ideologies, ideas, and beliefs, and are free to do so frequently (even to the point of annoying the living fuck out of everyone else with their obsessiveness).

This forum doesn't suppress alternative viewpoints, it thrives on them. We tend to prefer it when someone comes around for us to argue with. Do not make the mistake of confusing argument with suppression.

5. and by isolating themselves from outside influences.

And this one has essentially the same basic response as point 4. This board clearly does not isolate itself from outside influences. We're never quite so entertained as when we have another theist to debate with.

Most likely I will not be posting on this board for much longer, as I can see that getting some of you to think is next to impossible.

It seems to me, that the reverse might be true; surely it takes only a minimal amount of thought to realize that *everyone* here is thinking on a constant basis. No, what you're frustrated with isn't the fact that we're not thinking. It's the fact that we're not thinking along the same lines as you do. While that may be frustrating to you on a personal level, we are under no obligation; intellectual or otherwise; to align our thoughts with your own.