7.5 Million Americans Lost Their Religion in the Past Two Years

[AmyintheBibleBelt]

I don't deny the reality of the "social contract" aspect of morality. But I think there is more to it than that. I know that there are a lot of crimes that I could get away with with little of no risk to my safety or freedom. Despite what you may have been told statistics show very clearly that crime does pay. But I don't steal because it does lead to suffering from those I steal from. The anarchy and chaos you refer to are a big part of the reason, but even if that anarchy did not directly effect me it would effect others. And that does matter to me, "God" or not, cops or not.

 

[fantome profane]

Have I rendered you speechless?

 

[AmyintheBibleBelt]

I am waiting on your reply to my next post.

Have I rendered you speechless?

No. Did you read my last post? I was waiting on you to tell me how archaic ideologies were abandoned due to religious epiphany and not social pressure. Slavery, women's suffrage, sacrifice, witch burning, etc...

 

[Salvador]

That is something you need to figure out. I am aware of how recent and how sudden your conversion (de-conversion?) was, but you need to figure this out.

Let me just give a hint to start you off. Ask yourself this question. Does the Golden Rule require "God"? Does the principle of "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" change if there is no "God"?

You're right! I still always try to follow the Golden Rule, although I now believe that neither God nor my soul probably exists. I enjoy helping other people whether it benefits me or not. I can't stand to see human suffering. I could never steal nor go out of my way to hurt anybody, even if I could get away with it. I'd now like to become a humanist. If there is no purpose for me to serve God, then I want to at least serve my fellow man.

 

[fantome profane]

I am waiting on your reply to my next post.

No. Did you read my last post? I was waiting on you to tell me how archaic ideologies were abandoned due to religious epiphany and not social pressure. Slavery, women's suffrage, sacrifice, witch burning, etc...

Are you referring to this?

And you understand that it is wrong because society has said it is wrong and unacceptable. The religious have converted by the sword, sacrificed animals and humas, held slaves, burned witches, repressed science, subjugated women. The religious abandoned these practices when society no longer accepted them. Not because they had some moral epiphany.

I don't actually see a question here, and certainly not one that has anything to do with what I have been saying. But if you want a response to this I can oblige.

Long before society deemed any of these things wrong there were individuals who considered them wrong. And they were wrong, and are wrong, regardless of what any society said or says. There were people who opposed these things even when society said these things were right. Your argument that people don't do these only because they are afraid of what society does falls apart here. People were arrested, jailed and even killed for doing the right thing, for fighting against slavery, for fighting against subjugation. So obviously there must be a morality that transcends even the social contract.

 

[AmyintheBibleBelt]

Are you referring to this?

I don't actually see a question here, and certainly not one that has anything to do with what I have been saying. But if you want a response to this I can oblige.

Long before society deemed any of these things wrong there were individuals who considered them wrong. And they were wrong, and are wrong, regardless of what any society said or says. There were people who opposed these things even when society said these things were right. Your argument that people don't do these only because they are afraid of what society does falls apart here. People were arrested, jailed and even killed for doing the right thing, for fighting against slavery, for fighting against subjugation. So obviously there must be a morality that transcends even the social contract.[/QUOTE

No religious ideal prevails against social resistance. The morality of any faith is a constant evolutionary animal that lives or dies by social acceptance or rejection.

 

[fantome profane]

No religious ideal prevails against social resistance. The morality of any faith is a constant evolutionary animal that lives or dies by social acceptance or rejection.

Agreed.

If you are under the impression that I am promoting some religious ideal of morality you have misunderstood.

 

[AmyintheBibleBelt]

Agreed.

If you are under the impression that I am promoting some religious ideal of morality you have misunderstood.

Morality is a social construct. Look at how diverse our ideas of morality are all over the world. Perhaps I misunderstood you, where do you believe morality comes from and from what source is morality defined?

 

[fantome profane]

Morality is a social construct. Look at how diverse our ideas of morality are all over the world. Perhaps I misunderstood you, where do you believe morality comes from and from what source is morality defined?

Morality comes from our human experience and our human empathy. It must be based on both reason and on compassion. Morality is codified in the social construct, but it is more than that. You say look at the differences, but look also at the amazing uniformity, look at the principles that have been held in common throughout history, throughout diverse societies.

You need to be very careful here. If you think that morality is nothing more than a social contract, then on what basis can you ever claim that the values of one society are better or worse than another society? Does morality really change when you step over the boarder into another country with a different set of laws and beliefs? Are you a moral relativist?

Morality does not change, societies change. Societies can be more or less moral. A society to permits slavery is less moral than one than one that forbids it. A society that oppresses women is less moral than one that promotes equality.

 

[AmyintheBibleBelt]

Morality comes from our human experience and our human empathy. It must be based on both reason and on compassion. Morality is codified in the social construct, but it is more than that. You say look at the differences, but look also at the amazing uniformity, look at the principles that have been held in common throughout history, throughout diverse societies.

You need to be very careful here. If you think that morality is nothing more than a social contract, then on what basis can you ever claim that the values of one society are better or worse than another society? Does morality really change when you step over the boarder into another country with a different set of laws and beliefs? Are you a moral relativist?

Morality does not change, societies change. Societies can be more or less moral. A society to permits slavery is less moral than one than one that forbids it. A society that oppresses women is less moral than one that promotes equality.

Education and freedom enlighten societies, hence they in turn tend to act in ways I would describe as more moral. In Amsterdam drugs and prostitution are legal, they are beheading and stoning people in the middle east. Canada has socialized healthcare. The Romans used to make sport of killing men. The US used to have public hangings. Where is this consistency?? Ultimately things got changed or will changed when the public denands it.

 

[fantome profane]

Education and freedom enlighten societies, hence they in turn tend to act in ways I would describe as more moral. In Amsterdam drugs and prostitution are legal, they are beheading and stoning people in the middle east. Canada has socialized healthcare. The Romans used to make sport of killing men. The US used to have public hangings. Where is this consistency?? Ultimately things got changed or will changed when the public denands it.

Did you just list socialized healthcare as a bad thing along with beheading people?

(p.s. I am a proud Canadian).

 

[AmyintheBibleBelt]

Did you just list socialized healthcare as a bad thing along with beheading people?

(p.s. I am a proud Canadian).

I listed it as a moral belief. Some believe providing education and healthcare natijally is moral. Some believe beheading infidels is moral. It was meant to contrast global ideas of morality. Which I see you missed after your assertion that morality is somewhat consistent globally.

 

[fantome profane]

I listed it as a moral belief. Some believe providing education and healthcare natijally is moral. Some believe beheading infidels is moral. It was meant to contrast global ideas of morality. Which I see you missed after your assertion that morality is somewhat consistent globally.

Ok, just checking.

But you see my point. Helping people who are sick is moral because it is based on reason and compassion. Cutting innocent people is immoral because it is unreasonable an cruel.

And I don't deny there are societies in the world that are less compassionate, less reasonable. But when human beings employ reason and compassion they will reach remarkably similar conclusions. The moral conclusions reached by the Confucius in China, the Buddhist in India, the Natives in north America, the Jews in the middle east etc have been remarkable similar. And there is a reason for this.

It is not religion that these have in common. And it is not society either. It is humanity.

We evolved to feel compassion and empathy. We evolved the capacity for reason. And despite the barbarism and horror that you point out, both compassion and reason can be found everywhere in the world.

 

[AmyintheBibleBelt]

Ok, just checking.

But you see my point. Helping people who are sick is moral because it is based on reason and compassion. Cutting innocent people is immoral because it is unreasonable an cruel.

And I don't deny there are societies in the world that are less compassionate, less reasonable. But when human beings employ reason and compassion they will reach remarkably similar conclusions. The moral conclusions reached by the Confucius in China, the Buddhist in India, the Natives in north America, the Jews in the middle east etc have been remarkable similar. And there is a reason for this.

It is not religion that these have in common. And it is not society either. It is humanity.

We evolved to feel compassion and empathy. We evolved the capacity for reason. And despite the barbarism and horror that you point out, both compassion and reason can be found everywhere in the world.

They behead people because society condones it. Education and global exposure is repressed. Differing thoughts or ideologies are repressed. And while I am sure there are a few good ones, it will take the majority saying they reject this practice to bring change. Morality is not some religious thing or intrinsic value. Peoples with the most education and exposure to other ideas are better people. Enlightened people. People who have made rational decisions about how society functions optimally.

 

[fantome profane]

They behead people because society condones it. Education and global exposure is repressed. Differing thoughts or ideologies are repressed. And while I am sure there are a few good ones, it will take the majority saying they reject this practice to bring change. Morality is not some religious thing or intrinsic value. Peoples with the most education and exposure to other ideas are better people. Enlightened people. People who have made rational decisions about how society functions optimally.

I think now we are pretty much in agreement, and arguing semantics.

That society may condone beheading, but that doesn't make beheading moral. And logically if a society condoning beheading cannot make beheading moral, then a society condemning beheading is not what makes beheading immoral. So what does make beheading immoral? You want to say rationality and enlightenment, I use the terms reason and compassion, but I think we agree.

I agree with you that beheading is immoral because it is irrational and "unenlightened".

 

[AmyintheBibleBelt]

I think now we are pretty much in agreement, and arguing semantics.

That society may condone beheading, but that doesn't make beheading moral. And logically if a society condoning beheading cannot make beheading moral, then a society condemning beheading is not what makes beheading immoral. So what does make beheading immoral? You want to say rationality and enlightenment, I use the terms reason and compassion, but I think we agree.

I agree with you that beheading is immoral because it is irrational and "unenlightened".

And beheading is perfectly moral and acceptable in their societies.
Where do reason and compassion come from?

 

[fantome profane]

And beheading is perfectly moral and acceptable in their societies.
Where do reason and compassion come from?

Have you ever heard of "mirror neurons"? look it up. These are neurons in our brain that fire when we observe an action (or even think about it) that literally mirror the neurons we have in our brain that fire when we preform that action or have it preformed on us. What this means is that when you see someone hurt your actually have a very similar neurological reaction to what you would have if you yourself were hurt. We have biologically, neurologically, evolved to feel compassion for other people. That is were it comes from.

The mystery isn't where does rationality and compassion come from, the mystery is where does irrationality and cruelty come from. And that is a much more complicated question.

 

[AmyintheBibleBelt]

Have you ever heard of "mirror neurons"? look it up. These are neurons in our brain that fire when we observe an action (or even think about it) that literally mirror the neurons we have in our brain that fire when we preform that action or have it preformed on us. What this means is that when you see someone hurt your actually have a very similar neurological reaction to what you would have if you yourself were hurt. We have biologically, neurologically, evolved to feel compassion for other people. That is were it comes from.

The mystery isn't where does rationality and compassion come from, the mystery is where does irrationality and cruelty come from. And that is a much more complicated question.

Have you ever heard of "mirror neurons"? look it up. These are neurons in our brain that fire when we observe an action (or even think about it) that literally mirror the neurons we have in our brain that fire when we preform that action or have it preformed on us. What this means is that when you see someone hurt your actually have a very similar neurological reaction to what you would have if you yourself were hurt. We have biologically, neurologically, evolved to feel compassion for other people. That is were it comes from.

The mystery isn't where does rationality and compassion come from, the mystery is where does irrationality and cruelty come from. And that is a much more complicated question.

 

[AmyintheBibleBelt]

So for all those years of human and animal sacrifice, why weren't these biological predispositions to morality not working? Why do they continue not to work primarily in uneducated and poor parts of the world? People are self seeking. We behave the way we do because it benefits us. Good or bad. And good and bad are objective terms anyway.

 

[fantome profane]

So for all those years of human and animal sacrifice, why weren't these biological predispositions to morality not working? Why do they continue not to work primarily in uneducated and poor parts of the world? People are self seeking. We behave the way we do because it benefits us. Good or bad. And good and bad are objective terms anyway.

You are looking at one half of the equation. For all those years there were people who felt compassion and who were reasonable. There are compassionate people in poor and uneducated parts of the world. When you say that we behave the way we do because it benefits us you are ignoring the countless people throughout history and throughout the world that have sacrificed their lives to do the right thing. How do you rationalize that in your system if people are only self seeking?

I argue that compassion is natural to us. And to be cruel requires some kind of force to get people to act against their nature. For people to ignore their impulse to empathy there must be some kind or coercion, fear, hunger, intense indoctrination.