Is the moral standard of humanists better than God's?

[Segev Moran]

Dawkins says that all human behavior is based on the genetic drives in each of us.

I Know that's what he says.
He didn't say we are driven by nothing but genetic survival driven. He said we are based on it.

If you think he doesn't, then you need to go back and reread him.

I Probably should regardless

To Dawkins, there is no morality or right and wrong, only things labeled thus which actually exist to provide survival, and survival alone.

I Agree that there is no morality. it seems like you treat morality as an entity of itself.

His famous statement is, "we dance to our genes".

Indeed we are.

To Dawkins, rape is just the genetic driven male to mate

And it doesn't seem obvious that (most) acts of rape are driven by the most basic instinct? sex?

Sex in nature (humans included), is used at times to demonstrate domination, at times to demonstrate violence as a "force" and countless more reasons.

All of which are connected to the act of sex. domination through sex, violence through sex etc.

ultimately detrimental to society

You disagree?
You don't think it brings nothing but tragedy, sorrow and pain for millions of humans?
I Assume you do.

I have asked other new atheists this question, with no answer, I'll try you.

Thanks

What if that frustrated male dancing to his genes uses a date rape drug, render the object of his drive unconscious. What if then he is very careful that she not get pregnant, not get a disease, or be harmed in any way, before he rapes her. So then she doesn't know what happened, has no harm from the experience in any form, and his dance to his genes has been fulfilled, thus making it perfectly acceptable, right ? If not, tell me why not.

Of course not.
It causes harm to another being.

but why is it harm? if she didn't know.. "no harm done"? well.. wrong.

we have clear evidence that such incidents cause much harm.
we know because unfortunately, too many girls suffered such incidents with brutal results.
So we know as a society that these kind of acts cause harm regardless if the subject "remembers" being harmed.
we KNOW that allowing such behaviors is a devastation to our future as a society.
we KNOW that acts such as rape, as subjectively harmful it is, it is always also harmful to our species.
It is obvious that the more our societies advance (scientifically), the more we understand the harm in acts that abuse other humans.

By asking this question you suggest you have only one possible explanation for why rape is wrong. but in fact there a lot of reasons why it is wrong and should be eradicated from societies.

 

[shmogie]

I Know that's what he says.
He didn't say we are driven by nothing but genetic survival driven. He said we are based on it.

I Probably should regardless

I Agree that there is no morality. it seems like you treat morality as an entity of itself.

Indeed we are.

And it doesn't seem obvious that (most) acts of rape are driven by the most basic instinct? sex?

Sex in nature (humans included), is used at times to demonstrate domination, at times to demonstrate violence as a "force" and countless more reasons.

All of which are connected to the act of sex. domination through sex, violence through sex etc.

You disagree?
You don't think it brings nothing but tragedy, sorrow and pain for millions of humans?
I Assume you do.

Thanks

Of course not.
It causes harm to another being.

but why is it harm? if she didn't know.. "no harm done"? well.. wrong.

we have clear evidence that such incidents cause much harm.
we know because unfortunately, too many girls suffered such incidents with brutal results.
So we know as a society that these kind of acts cause harm regardless if the subject "remembers" being harmed.
we KNOW that allowing such behaviors is a devastation to our future as a society.
we KNOW that acts such as rape, as subjectively harmful it is, it is always also harmful to our species.
It is obvious that the more our societies advance (scientifically), the more we understand the harm in acts that abuse other humans.

By asking this question you suggest you have only one possible explanation for why rape is wrong. but in fact there a lot of reasons why it is wrong and should be eradicated from societies.

You provide no citations for what you allege you know. So, someone is harmed, even though they don't know it, and there is no physical proof of being harmed. How does that work ? How do you know that rape is always harmful to our species ? It isn't in the animal world, where it is the expression of dancing to the genes as a method of ensuring species survival. Aren't we just animals ? How can something be devastating to society when society doesn't know about it, one of the participants doesn't know about it and can't be damaged mentally by something she doesn't know about and has no measureable or identifiable physical harm ? You are making huge leaps here, why ?

 

[stevevw]

What about the millions of people that are dying of starvation while western societies are glutenous to the point that they are making themselves sick with too much food. Though we say it is right to help the poor we only give a token amount in doing so because we don't want to compromise our comfortable lives. This is an example of how we have an ideal of morality but do not really live up to it. Some might say that this could be a form of survival of the fittest. If you cannot look after yourself then you get left behind and die. Only the strong survive, only those with enough will live and at the end of the day in the back of people's minds is that they don't want to sacrifice too much as it may threaten their position so they would rather let others die by turning a blind eye so they will survive. The morals and ethics that societies claim to uphold and follow are really token ideals that everyone says we should follow but quietly let slip. It's about actions, not words or intentions.

 

[shmogie]

What about the millions of people that are dying of starvation while western societies are glutenous to the point that they are making themselves sick with too much food. Though we say it is right to help the poor we only give a token amount in doing so because we don't want to compromise our comfortable lives. This is an example of how we have an ideal of morality but do not really live up to it. Some might say that this could be a form of survival of the fittest. If you cannot look after yourself then you get left behind and die. Only the strong survive, only those with enough will live and at the end of the day in the back of people's minds is that they don't want to sacrifice too much as it may threaten their position so they would rather let others die by turning a blind eye so they will survive. The morals and ethics that societies claim to uphold and follow are really token ideals that everyone says we should follow but quietly let slip. It's about actions, not words or intentions.

What segment of western society gives more and does more for the poor in the world than any other demographic?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

What about the millions of people that are dying of starvation while western societies are glutenous to the point that they are making themselves sick with too much food. Though we say it is right to help the poor we only give a token amount in doing so because we don't want to compromise our comfortable lives. This is an example of how we have an ideal of morality but do not really live up to it. Some might say that this could be a form of survival of the fittest. If you cannot look after yourself then you get left behind and die. Only the strong survive, only those with enough will live and at the end of the day in the back of people's minds is that they don't want to sacrifice too much as it may threaten their position so they would rather let others die by turning a blind eye so they will survive. The morals and ethics that societies claim to uphold and follow are really token ideals that everyone says we should follow but quietly let slip. It's about actions, not words or intentions.

Who is "we"? Governments? Individuals?

I am American. Currently, America, which has lately become increasingly conservative and its government increasingly Christian, is dominated by a selfish ideology, which, as a a secular humanist and a liberal, is one I reject. That seems to be what you are describing.

Western European governments - the socialistic democracies - seem to be far more to my liking and consistent with my own values, which was reinforced this week when I saw "Where to invade next."

 

[shmogie]

Who is "we"? Governments? Individuals?

I am American. Currently, America, which has lately become increasingly conservative and its government increasingly Christian, is dominated by a selfish ideology, which, as a a secular humanist and a liberal, is one I reject. That seems to be what you are describing.

Western European governments - the socialistic democracies - seem to be far more to my liking and consistent with my own values, which was reinforced this week when I saw "Where to invade next."

Gads,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Gads,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Excellent rebuttal as always.

 

[shmogie]

Excellent rebuttal as always.

Thank you

Gads,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

You saw a movie by that mentally challenged obese slob. Wow, now that is impressive

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

You saw a movie by that mentally challenged obese slob. Wow, now that is impressive

Thank you.

 

[sayak83]

Dawkins says that all human behavior is based on the genetic drives in each of us. If you think he doesn't, then you need to go back and reread him. To Dawkins, there is no morality or right and wrong, only things labeled thus which actually exist to provide survival, and survival alone. His famous statement is, "we dance to our genes". To Dawkins, rape is just the genetic driven male to mate, but rape is "wrong" because it is ultimately detrimental to society, which is a genetic construct for survival. I have asked other new atheists this question, with no answer, I'll try you. What if that frustrated male dancing to his genes uses a date rape drug, render the object of his drive unconscious. What if then he is very careful that she not get pregnant, not get a disease, or be harmed in any way, before he rapes her. So then she doesn't know what happened, has no harm from the experience in any form, and his dance to his genes has been fulfilled, thus making it perfectly acceptable, right ? If not, tell me why not.

Everything you said about Dawkins is wrong and I have read all his books.

The argument you made about rape is similar to argument about speeding. While every act of speeding does not cause harm to others, it greatly increases the probability of such harm. Hence its illegal. So is the case for your perfect rape or a perfect lie etc. It also breaks preexisting contract of consent before sex that is instituted by law by people and hence is unethical.

 

[shmogie]

Everything you said about Dawkins is wrong and I have read all his books.

Well, apparently, you missed something along the way

 

[sayak83]

Well, apparently, you missed something along the way

No I did not. You were probably too biased to read it right

 

[shmogie]

No I did not. You were probably too biased to read it right

No, not at all. Bias has nothing to do with it. He is an angry hater of religion, who in his ignorance mis represents it in such a manner that fellow atheists are embarrassed by some of the dead wrong conclusions he comes to, and take him to task for it. If you think there is bias, look to him

 

[sayak83]

No, not at all. Bias has nothing to do with it. He is an angry hater of religion, who in his ignorance mis represents it in such a manner that fellow atheists are embarrassed by some of the dead wrong conclusions he comes to, and take him to task for it. If you think there is bias, look to him

Everybody has bias, Dawkins has too, but far less than you apparently based on how you misread him.

 

[columbus]

No, not at all. Bias has nothing to do with it. He is an angry hater of religion, who in his ignorance mis represents it in such a manner that fellow atheists are embarrassed by some of the dead wrong conclusions he comes to, and take him to task for it. If you think there is bias, look to him

You are kidding yourself.
Dawkins has come to employ some of the irritating methods religionists have been using for centuries. And of course they don't like it. But he hardly invented the simplistic diatribe.
Tom

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

No, not at all. Bias has nothing to do with it. He is an angry hater of religion, who in his ignorance mis represents it in such a manner that fellow atheists are embarrassed by some of the dead wrong conclusions he comes to, and take him to task for it. If you think there is bias, look to him

What wrong conclusions has Dawkins come to?

And is your use of the word "angry" intended to be some kind of rebuttal to his claims? His attitude is entirely justified. Religion does tremendous harm. Shouldn't he be angry?

How do you feel about the church's incessant effort to penetrate the church-state wall and impose Christian values on non-Christians using the might of the government? Or the Catholic pedophilia coverup? Or the marginalization and demonization of gays and atheists?

 

[shmogie]

You are kidding yourself.
Dawkins has come to employ some of the irritating methods religionists have been using for centuries. And of course they don't like it. But he hardly invented the simplistic diatribe.
Tom

I think not. Dawkins rages in ignorance, he makes aggressive untruthful statements about things he has totally mis represented. Even if your statement were true re the "irritating methods religonists have been using for centuries" ( you aren't) is that an excuse for ignorant statements, wrong conclusions, and employing a method of sarcasm, unrestrained words, and hyperbole that is so ridiculous it becomes funny and revolting at the same time. He rages at windmills that he has convinced himself and many others to be dangerous enemies hat must be viciously exposed. when all the time they are just windmills

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I think not. Dawkins rages in ignorance, he makes aggressive untruthful statements about things he has totally mis represented. Even if your statement were true re the "irritating methods religonists have been using for centuries" ( you aren't) is that an excuse for ignorant statements, wrong conclusions, and employing a method of sarcasm, unrestrained words, and hyperbole that is so ridiculous it becomes funny and revolting at the same time. He rages at windmills that he has convinced himself and many others to be dangerous enemies hat must be viciously exposed. when all the time they are just windmills

Yeah, Dawkins is a dangerous enemy that must be viciously exposed.

 

[Segev Moran]

No, not at all. Bias has nothing to do with it. He is an angry hater of religion, who in his ignorance mis represents it in such a manner that fellow atheists are embarrassed by some of the dead wrong conclusions he comes to, and take him to task for it. If you think there is bias, look to him

Can you present one argument Dawkins made that presents Ignorance?
I think the problem is that most religious people turn the other cheek when they encounter hideous things that religious authorities promote.
It is not ALL religious people, but the mere fact it can be used as an excuse, religion must be something that is supervised and ridiculed when needed.
The fact is that if someone thinks religion can justify an act of abuse, that someone belongs behind bars.

religion must not be accepted as a valid explanation for abusive, violent (physical and mental) or any harm to anyone else.

 

[shmogie]

Yes I will show that Dawkins is ignorant, I am away from my house right now, bur will post his statements as compared to reality this afternoon or evening. Of course terrible things have been done in the name of Christianity, we are sinners and certainly not perfect. And there have been many who took on the title with no true belief, but doing so was a way to power and wealth. Christians recognize those things, deeply regret them and accept that food or water till they diedwhat was done were totally against the teachings of Christ, and the Bible.

As to "religion" I only
speak as a Christiad n, however in general Buddhists and Hindu's appear totally peaceful unless attacked or provoked. I know more about Sikh's and their history and find them to be great people who want to live in peace. In India, the invading moslems did horrible things to them, boiled them in oil, stake them out in the sun with no
food or water till they died , etc. They went from a religious sect to a warrior/religious sect, because they had to. I know much about islam, their history of war,. conquest, killing, raping, all the rest is on a monumental scale, and it is going on as I type. Also people are literally being bought and sold as slaves whether by isis, or saudi arabia, chattel slavery it's all the same.