Exterminating god

[danieldemol]

Yes, as a social construct and likely from innate response mechanisms.

However, morality as a foundation of being, as something intrinsic to the reality of the Universe, no. Without a God, morality becomes relative and "everything is permitted" as long as consequences are accepted.

Our morality is intrinsic to evolution, I would argue that the more moral a species is on a co-operative level, the more likely it is to triumph against the evolutionary threats to its survival. Thus everything is not permitted, as evolution keeps weeding out the non-co-operatives.

To provide a simple example, take child killing. A child killer, quite aside from being assessed as a threat and being removed by the co-operative members of society, is also more likely to remove their offspring from the gene-pool. So in a sense we evolved away from child killing. As I'm sure you will see if you ponder, God is not required to actively weed out child killers. I personally feel that it could be argued that our morality is evolutionary in nature, and therefore exists as independantly as it is possible for anything to exist from God. In other words what i mean to say is that taking God out of the equation does not change our evolutionary history, or our morality that necessarily evolved with it.

By the way I am a monotheist, but only because I am hardwired to believe in God, not because morality is logically dependant on God.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Hi.

Dostoevsky and Nietzsche were both writing on the dangers they foresaw in the Atheistic ideologies that were emerging amongst the european intellectual schools. Both men thought that the loss of the underlying responsibility to something transcendent would lead mankind to grope around for new idols to follow. The 200 000 000 people killed by totalitarian regimes in the 20th century show that they were not wrong.

And the many more millions killed under the pretense of religion in times past and in modern times? Why do you discount these? Do you know what I think curtailed a lot of religious-related killing and violence? Making sure that the governance of our society was secular in nature. That's what modern majority Islamic cultures in the Middle East are lacking - and look what it has got them. And "secular" does not mean "atheist." I don't advocate for an "atheist-led" government or society. I argue for one in which RELIGION or RELIGIOUS BELIEF (even the non-belief of atheism) IS NOT EVEN CONSIDERED IN CRAFTING PUBLIC POLICY. This has proven itself the most effective means of quelling violence and unrest. Keep religion private within your citizenry. Never let any religious idea or ideal be the sole justification for anything governing the public at large. Keep your religion to YOURSELF. It is that simple. Do you think I would attack religion if people just shut up about their religiously-based views? Do you think I would care one bit if you prayed at home, or in your churches and it all STOPPED THERE? Do you think I would even know that you were religious if you didn't throw it in my face with statements like the ones you are making in these posts? Think about it now. Keep your views to yourself and I don't even have a soap box to stand on to challenge you. It is that simple.

.....................................................................
Looking at the world today i suppose that China would be the example, in religious matters, of how the no God policy thing would go. All that happens in these situations is the STATE steps into the role of religion and the nation into the role of God. It is fascinating to watch the confucian system of filial responsibility being subsumed beneath the rationalist Chinese policies.
..........................................................................................

Again - I don't advocate "no God" - I advocate that everyone keep their gods to themselves and their fellow practitioners. Keep it out of the public sphere - don't try to sway people's opinions with religious-only justification. Don't point at "bad" things going on in society and say "See? Without God, stuff like this is going to happen." Just shut your mouth and bring REAL help/solutions and valid opinions to the table. Religious justification for anything is simply not a valid opinion or critique or anything. If you have nothing else backing your position then YOU HAVE NOTHING.

higher moral standard of our own (nurture/nature/culture/introspective/etc.) crafting who do not, and would not do those things. (nurture/nature/culture/introspective/etc.) crafting who do not, and would not do those things.

Hmmmm ... this seems a grandiose claim that has little backing when looking at the moral standards that prevail today in the secular world. So you think that without religion mankind will magically find a true moral path that will preclude warfare bigotry and bring about a more equitable world. Really.
Please give me the example of a single thinker, or a school of intellectual thought that has been able to articulate a higher moral standard of our own. You could try Marx and Engles but the results of their morality killed millions so maybe not.
Dawkins? Harris? Hitchens? They are close..... until you get them to talk about the "meme as a unit of cultural transmission" then they waffle. The "meme" when you dig into it turns out to be the Archetypal stories that were encoded in our religious traditions.

But don't you see? We've already accomplished this... and right under your nose apparently. Our society here in the U.S. has all but separated church and state. Religion is kept out of government, and people are highly discouraged from legislating anything purely based on religious justifications. This was the genius of our forefathers at work - the founders of the country who saw that religion sticking its nose in the ruler-ship of a nation has caused no end of strife, conflict, persecution and suffering for many past nations and even nations in modernity. And so, our laws, as the framework of our nation's cultural morality, were crafted upon RATIONAL justifications. Not religious ones. Done. A consensus-based system of morality that is open to re-interpretation and updates as are deemed necessary. It's already been done, and it is working far better than any theocracy ever did.

The Wests answer seems to be that you can do whatever you want as long as "you do no harm" but then they can't agree on what harm is. It seems like either the left or the right will have to get rid of the others ideology for the west to stop eating itself. That might lead to some death though.

Honestly, you seem to be conflating philosophical and ideological meanderings with public governance and law-bound moral prescriptions. These things are not, at all, the same. No one is going to be able to agree on the philosophical foundations of nearly anything - and so we cannot concern ourselves with that. It may be interesting to talk about, and some good ideas can come forth from that body of discussion/thought/knowledge - but ultimately all we should be concerned with is the way to keep the vast majority of people following the structure of moral principles attempted to be legislated by our laws. Making sure that structure fairly matches the culture of the people present in the country, and making sure that it keeps the peace. I don't care about your ideology nearly as much as I care that you stay off my property and keep any intent to change my law-abiding lifestyle to better match your religious convictions TO YOURSELF.

If you were to TEACH me how to be a "good person" on what standards of behaviour would my goodness be moulded?

Nature?
The Animal world which you think we are a part of?

This right here proves you a fool in my estimation. Animals are far more peaceful, in-tune and commune with nature, mostly incapable of deceit, nearly incapable of experiencing "depression" or "persecution," the vast majority of species don't "go to war" - and the ones that do (like chimpanzees) are (guess what?) human's closest relatives in the animal kingdom. Point being - we should all strive to be more like animals if we want this world to turn out better with us in it. Seriously. And guess what else animals do not have? Religion. They explicitly DO NOT NEED IT. It is worthless. Toward the goal of survival it is fluff and garbage. A nothingness, and a non-consideration to animals. There is a wisdom to be found there - animals simply do not lament their lives and conditions like humans CONSTANTLY do. We're all sad and worried and wandering around looking for the "outlook" the philosophy or ideology that can "fix" it all. And there it is right in front of us. Just live and let live. Be like the animals - the ones YOU seem to look down upon as if they are some sub-species. You aren't "the top" - you're an aberration - a specific honing of mental capacity that resulted in a being who is capable of contemplating its own superiority - and strictly because it has that capacity, this species of being (humans) decided that it WAS superior! So very very DUMB.

What is the moral impediment to infanticide or senicide?
If life is not "sacred" then what is the prohibition against taking life? Fear of the State?

It pretty much IS that simple, yes. Those who are capable of feeling empathy understand that they do not want to be the cause of things to others that they themselves would not have to deal with, and anybody without that empathy is going to suffer at the hands of the rest of us - who are going to lock them up, chastise and berate them and attempt to get them to understand where they are going wrong. We're going to attempt to rehabilitate them, and, if necessary, put them down if they simply will not behave themselves. Why is this deemed so awful? So terrible? This is literally the way the world has worked for A LONG TIME. But everyone is stuck with their minds in a cloud of "ideology." They can't see that the system we need is at work, all the time, right in front of them.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Practically speaking, yes they are just cloth worn under other clothes. They have some symbols on them which make them religious clothing, if you will. The general idea is that they remind us that we made covenants or promises with God. We take them off when they can't reasonably be worn, like when I run or go swimming and things like that. They are worn underneath other clothes because we don't use them as an outward expression of our faith. Someone might wear a cross for example to let people know they are Christian, which is great. But the garment is intended only as an internal reminder. I think of a Pastor who every time he puts on his white collar (if he's the type of Pastor who wears a white collar), he's reminded that he has been set apart to his calling and should behave accordingly. The garment works like that for me. To the extent that we wear the garment and consider it's meaning, and are reminded of covenants of obedience to God, the garment can become a protection from temptation. It's not the garment itself, but the principle, the reminder of covenants made. It's like if I carry a photo of my wife with me, it might remind me to not go home with the cute woman who hits on me. (Not that any women hit on this old guy). That would not make it a magic photo with super powers, it's just a photo with a very special image, the image of my wife which happens to remind me of the promise I made to her. This is how the temple garment can be considered a protection from "temptation" or "evil". But, some fellow Church members have taken it another step to claim protection from physical harm (which is their private and personal interpretation that goes beyond the stated and common sense purpose of the garment). Such claims, when they hit the internet and the general public have morphed into claims that Mormon's think their underwear has super powers and hence is "magic underwear". An unfortunate twist of reality. I like the video link produced by my Church which keeps it real and simple.

Thank you for the explanation. I love the "internal reminder" idea. It is a very humble gesture, to be sure.

 

[Katzpur]

Ok, I'm fine with a little teasing and you probably thought you were safe with Katzpur when I butted in. Now I feel guitly for being too harsh... that's a Mormon characteristic.

No need to feel that way, Scott. Viole and I have had conversations about temple garments before and she knows that I feel exactly the same as you do. I've explained what their purpose is and why we wear them, and it's not as if she doesn't understand. It's one thing to joke around, but when someone has been told (on more than one occasion) that his/her ridicule is hurtful and yet persists in repeating the same old bad jokes again and again, all you can really do is ignore them.

 

[viole]

You didn't even use the acronym.

You said, "Fair point, although it was a sort of teasing, because I know the LSD church is sensitive about that"

LSD =/= LSD

The most important portion of the name of our church is the name "Jesus Christ" not "Latter-day Saint"

We are the Church of JESUS CHRIST of Latter-day Saints.

Oops, sorry. Freudian slip I suppose.

And I know that the jesus name important. Alas, all christians I know do not recognize you as such. I am not sure the name alone will help you there, tho.

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

Ok, I'm fine with a little teasing and you probably thought you were safe with Katzpur when I butted in. Now I feel guitly for being too harsh... that's a Mormon characteristic.

Yes, I like to tease Katzpur with that. Not sure why. Maybe because she does not like it at all. But I agree it is a bit childish from my side. I swear on my soul, that I will stop.

I still don’t know how people can be offended, though. But it is me. I cannot imagine myself to be offended if anyone ridicule my beliefs, or lack thereof. Actually, I like it when people do that.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Our morality is intrinsic to evolution, I would argue that the more moral a species is on a co-operative level, the more likely it is to triumph against the evolutionary threats to its survival. Thus everything is not permitted, as evolution keeps weeding out the non-co-operatives.

To provide a simple example, take child killing. A child killer, quite aside from being assessed as a threat and being removed by the co-operative members of society, is also more likely to remove their offspring from the gene-pool. So in a sense we evolved away from child killing. As I'm sure you will see if you ponder, God is not required to actively weed out child killers. I personally feel that it could be argued that our morality is evolutionary in nature, and therefore exists as independantly as it is possible for anything to exist from God. In other words what i mean to say is that taking God out of the equation does not change our evolutionary history, or our morality that necessarily evolved with it.

I think we actually agree on the mechanisms of morality, just not on the specifics of what it means to have everything permitted.

I am likely overgeneralizing the original quote. By assuming no God, I suggest that there is nothing intrinsic about the Universe to make me stop myself from doing anything.

But I suppose I am incorrect in my thinking. Natural consequences are just as intrinsic--more so!--than God.

I am, to quote Sarte, free to choose, but I must accept consequences.

By the way I am a monotheist, but only because I am hardwired to believe in God, not because morality is logically dependant on God.

I am...complicated. I understand the possibility of a creator god, but without specific proof I view God as a relationship between the individual and the rest of existence.

 

[Prestor John]

Oops, sorry. Freudian slip I suppose.

And I know that the jesus name important. Alas, all christians I know do not recognize you as such. I am not sure the name alone will help you there, tho.

Ciao

- viole

Then you do not know many Christians. Or the ones you know are ignorant of our Church and its beliefs.

We believe that Jesus Christ is our Lord and Savior and that it is He who directs the affairs of His Church and Kingdom upon the Earth.

You best learn to accept that we believe this and respect our beliefs.

 

[Muffled]

If god exists and is as wicked as indicated in the Bible, humans should be looking at ways of exterminating it. Any ideas as to how it could be done?

I believe He does exist, is only wicked in you perverted view and He can't be terminated.

 

[Muffled]

By stopping giving any damns if you're an atheist who wants to exterminate what you see as a fictional character, and go do something useful with your life instead of wasting your time ranting about a made up being?

I believe that is like a man wishing to cross a river but there is no ford or bridge so he decides to ignore it is there and walks into it until he drowns.

 

[Muffled]

Famous or otherwise, Doestoevsky’s claim listed here is nonsense.
If God does not exist it is still immoral to do many things.
Morality would still exist independently of God

I believe nothing exists independently of God. If there were no God there would be no you.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

I believe nothing exists independently of God. If there were no God there would be no you.

You do understand that this belief means NOTHING to someone like me, right? That your belief that this is the case does not make it the case? You get that? Because you speak as if you do not understand this.

I don't have to accept your belief that without God there is no "me." As far as I can tell, there are no consequences to my choosing not to believe what you believe. Oh, sure, you can go on to tell me all of the things that will happen to me after I die - but don't you see how impotent that position is? Nothing you say can be verified or validated as true... we have to wait until "after death." It's all just TOO convenient for you and your wild views, because then you can literally claim WHATEVER YOU WANT (and from what I have seen, you do), and you don't have to provide any demonstration of the truth of what you are saying, because you report that the "answers" lie within a realm that no one here on Earth can access. So you feel safe in saying whatever you want, because no one can prove you wrong. It is a rather cowardly thing to do, honestly. To be only so bold when you are quite certain no one can effectively refute you because there is not compelling enough evidence either way. And this is the realm that things like The Bible operate within. Preying on the credulous and gullible among us.

It's quite like the snake oil salesman who claims his product is a "cure-all", and points to one case where a person's condition got better who drank his potion. When everyone drinks and isn't cured, the man beats a hasty retreat. Except that the time for you to make your retreat from your failures never comes... because you'll already be dead! Which means you NEVER HAVE TO ANSWER FOR BEING WRONG and leading others astray. And you sit there, confident in the knowledge that this is the case - that you will never have to fess up to your failures in thinking, and you call it "righteousness." What a farce.

 

[viole]

Then you do not know many Christians. Or the ones you know are ignorant of our Church and its beliefs.

We believe that Jesus Christ is our Lord and Savior and that it is He who directs the affairs of His Church and Kingdom upon the Earth.

You best learn to accept that we believe this and respect our beliefs.

I told you I have equal respect to all beliefs. I am quite ecumenical when it comes to religious beliefs.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Prestor John]

I told you I have equal respect to all beliefs. I am quite ecumenical when it comes to religious beliefs.

Ciao

- viole

So how does using the correct name of a particular religion factor into your commitment to being respectful?

 

[viole]

So how does using the correct name of a particular religion factor into your commitment to being respectful?

What commitment?

I said I have exactly the same respect for all religious beliefs. I did not say that this respect is bigger than zero.

Kidding of course...

Ciao

- viole

 

[Prestor John]

What commitment?

I said I have exactly the same respect for all religious beliefs. I did not say that this respect is bigger than zero.

Kidding of course...

Ciao

- viole

Aw. I gotcha.

 

[Jos]

By the way I am a monotheist, but only because I am hardwired to believe in God,

So your theism isn't based on a choice? Funny that other theists think belief in God is a choice.

 

[Trailblazer]

If it exists then you can't exterminate it, since the god you're talking about is all powerful.

Shoot, you just beat me to the punch.

 

[danieldemol]

So your theism isn't based on a choice? Funny that other theists think belief in God is a choice.

That’s ok, theists can be quite individual, same as atheists

 

[Trailblazer]

By the way I am a monotheist, but only because I am hardwired to believe in God, not because morality is logically dependant on God.

I guess the hard-wiring is the same for me. I have tried to be an atheist but it didn't work.