Why are religious people more disgustingly stupid, barbaric, and evil?

[johnhanks]

Then why did you write this. "In fact, there are no objective morals. Period."

So you really can't tell the difference between "there are no morals" and "there are no objective morals"? Tell me, can you tell the difference between "there are no horses" and "there are no purple horses"?

No morals have not changed.

But they demonstrably have. Our failure to connect with each other is based I think on your ascribing objective status to the moral code followed by one particular society worshiping one particular deity at one time in history, whilst I take a more global view. Morality as practised world-wide and throughout history shows huge plasticity.

If murder is objectively wrong the fact that the world could decide it was right means nothing. Murder would still be objectively wrong even if noone believed in it.

Since murder is by definition unlawful homicide, "murder is right" would be an oxymoron: if a killing is regarded as right and proper, by definition it isn't murder. What is more interesting is the multiplicity of ways in which different societies have defined what is and isn't murder. In some contemporary societies it is considered morally acceptable to kill your daughter or sister if you think she has dishonoured your family; and as I'm sure you know, until a few generations ago a Frenchman who caught his wife in flagrante with another man and killed her could expect to be convicted not of murder but of a crime passionel, punished by perhaps a couple of years in prison. You and I, I imagine, subscribe to a moral code that would call both of those instances murder; but that is because we have been brought up in a different culture.

Being that Quetzalcoatl was more of a demon but probably was made up by the aztecs he has nothing to say about objective value even if I believed he did. Actually they carried him around on their sholders and he told them where to go.

It is one of the functions of a culture's deities to give ultimate authority to that culture's moral code. Why should a non-Yahwist give any more credence to the alleged pronouncements of Yahweh than you give to those of Aztec gods?

Throughout history people of all cultures have regarded their moral codes as objectively grounded and absolutely right. Your position seems to be that all cultures except yours have been mistaken in that regard; I adopt the more likely view that you are as mistaken as the rest.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

So you really can't tell the difference between "there are no morals" and "there are no objective morals"? Tell me, can you tell the difference between "there are no horses" and "there are no purple horses"?

An analogy which better captures 1robin's train of thought is "there are no horses" vs "there are no unicorns". In other words, the claim seems to be that subjective morality isn't really morality at all. It's semantics of course, but there is certainly something to be gained by considering this interpretation. If there is no objective morality (ignoring for the moment what objective morality would entail), then viewing genocide as moral is an opinion, and just as valid as viewing it as immoral. Condemning actions generally considered barbaric, immoral, and disgusting (child murder and rape, ethnic cleansing, etc.) are simply opinions.

Since murder is by definition unlawful homicide, "murder is right" would be an oxymoron: if a killing is regarded as right and proper, by definition it isn't murder.

I think there is a logical flaw here (at least with respect to the soundness of your argument). You are conflating two different things: legality and morality. Generally, people don't believe running a stop sign or going 5 miles over the speed limit are immoral actions, but they break laws. Likewise, most people regard the actions of those who helped lead southern slaves in the US to the north a morally "right", despite the illegality of the action.

In other words, you're argument runs something like the following]

Premise: ∀x( x is illegal → x is immoral)
Premise: Murder is illegal

Conclusion: Murder is immoral

The argument is valid, but as I think the first premise is false, I don't think it's sound.

 

[johnhanks]

An analogy which better captures 1robin's train of thought is "there are no horses" vs "there are no unicorns". In other words, the claim seems to be that subjective morality isn't really morality at all. It's semantics of course, but there is certainly something to be gained by considering this interpretation. If there is no objective morality (ignoring for the moment what objective morality would entail), then viewing genocide as moral is an opinion, and just as valid as viewing it as immoral. Condemning actions generally considered barbaric, immoral, and disgusting (child murder and rape, ethnic cleansing, etc.) are simply opinions.

I've seen this argument several times before - "if there is no objective morality then condemning child rape as wrong is no more than your opinion". It's basically an appeal to consequences, isn't it? It certainly doesn't lead to the logical conclusion "therefore objective morality must exist".

I think there is a logical flaw here (at least with respect to the soundness of your argument). You are conflating two different things: legality and morality.

Serves me right, I suppose. I considered inserting a rider to the effect that "unlawful" and "immoral" are not the same thing, but decided that would make the post too long-winded. I assumed that most people would regard murder as (by definition) immoral as well as unlawful. We do not, I think, apply the word murder to homicides we consider morally justifiable, irrespective of their legality.

Next time I'll take care to spell everything out in full, and to hell with the bandwidth.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

If there is no objective morality (ignoring for the moment what objective morality would entail), then viewing genocide as moral is an opinion, and just as valid as viewing it as immoral. Condemning actions generally considered barbaric, immoral, and disgusting (child murder and rape, ethnic cleansing, etc.) are simply opinions.

Everything is simply opinion, isn't it? If not, then you must believe that some particular human -- when expressing his view -- is expressing actual 'truth', rather than simply expressing his opinion.

How do you decide which human is expressing objective morality, rather than expressing his personal opinion?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Everything is simply opinion, isn't it?

I'm agnostic. So my answer is: I don't know.

If not, then you must believe that some particular human -- when expressing his view -- is expressing actual 'truth', rather than simply expressing his opinion.

No. I need only believe that it is possible that some particular human is. That is, imagine there is a universal moral law established by some "mind" which either is, created, and/or is involved in the cosmos, and whose moral law is intricately woven into the fabric of the cosmos (for the moment, just accept this ambigious definition of objective morality, however ill-defined it is). If a human's view of morality matches this objective morality, than that human's conception is "true."

A problem, of course, is better defining what "woven into the fabric of the cosmos" means. Clearly, it is not the same as the laws of physics, as if objective morality exists, it would appear that its laws may be freely violated and also rejected in favor of subjective moral codes. And if by objective morality we mean only that there is, say, Allah's law, and all those who violate will be punished for eternity, then I don't see how this makes morality objective, rather than simply the subjective law of God enforced in a manner similar to how humans enforce subjective morality (punishment and the threat of punishment). There are some explanation of objective morality which are far more nuanced and somewhat convincing in that they seem to make the notion of objective morality plausible, but I'm still unsure whether they are convincing enough.

How do you decide which human is expressing objective morality, rather than expressing his personal opinion?

"you" meaning "me" or "you" meaning "one/a person/someone/anyone"? If the former, I haven't decided. If the latter, I have no idea.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

I'm agnostic. So my answer is: I don't know.

OK, but do you have an opinion? Is it your opinion that everything is opinion, or that some Absolute Moral Truth resides somewhere (like in the Noggin of God)?

If you answer that you don't know, well that's my answer too. Of course I don't know. But my opinion is that no such Moral Truth exists, at least not in a Conscious Mind.

I think that for most of us, our morality is controlled by our culture and laws. When I see an American who considers 'drug-use' to be immoral, but alcohol-use to be OK, I know I've encountered a person who is slave to his cultural morality. Same with many other issues. From nude sun-bathing to infanticide. Most of us assume that our own culture is the one culture in all time and space to get morality right.

No. I need only believe that it is possible that some particular human is. That is, imagine there is a universal moral law established by some "mind" which either is, created, and/or is involved in the cosmos, and whose moral law is intricately woven into the fabric of the cosmos (for the moment, just accept this ambigious definition of objective morality, however ill-defined it is). If a human's view of morality matches this objective morality, than that human's conception is "true."

Sure, and we can believe that a broken watch is right twice each day, but I can't see the use of such thinking. I guess it somehow calms some of us to believe that TimeTruth exists within the Clock's perfect knowledge.

But if we can never know whether a human's view of morality matches objective morality... well, we're right back to the idea that it's all just opinion, aren't we?

A problem, of course, is better defining what "woven into the fabric of the cosmos" means. Clearly, it is not the same as the laws of physics, as if objective morality exists, it would appear that its laws may be freely violated and also rejected in favor of subjective moral codes.

Good point. Maybe there are things which the universe 'wants', though. It seems to want life, although I can't imagine why. It even seems to want life to become more complex, varied, even dare I say... more intelligently conscious.

In which case, anything which slowed down that process would be immoral. Wars, unnecessary killings, cultural disruptions, cultural stasis, whatever.

Just musing. Who the heck knows.

 

[johnhanks]

A problem, of course, is better defining what "woven into the fabric of the cosmos" means...

Since humans are, to the best of our knowledge, the only generators and practitioners of morality in the universe, we might do better to look at how morals are "woven into the fabric" of human societies.

The pattern of acquisition of behavioural codes by small children suggests that, like language, that acquisition is 'hard-wired' into us; and like language, of course, which particular code we acquire depends on the culture we're brought up in. In other words, morality is innate but morals are learned.

Cultures evolve over time, and so do the interpersonal transactions that take place within and between them; unsurprisingly, what one generation has found to be a satisfactory consensus on behavioural mores may be found some generations hence to be wanting, and so we ease ourselves into a new consensus, wondering how our grandparents could have got things so wrong. But still, because the notion that their cherished morality may be no more than a social consensus makes them uncomfortable, some go on insisting that their moral code is grounded in objective reality.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

The pattern of acquisition of behavioural codes by small children suggests that, like language, that acquisition is 'hard-wired' into us; and like language, of course, which particular code we acquire depends on the culture we're brought up in. In other words, morality is innate but morals are learned.

First, many linguists (today, see especially those whose approach falls under the framework cognitive linguistics) do not belive that the acquisition of language is "hard-wired" into us. Second, the capacity for empathy seems to be the basis for morality, and that seems to be "hard-wired", but I wouldn't say morality is hard-wired.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

The Levites were the priestly tribe of Israel. They were generally the only ones allowed to perform the ceremonial requirements that you want to drag into this era. Here is a verse on a core requirement of those laws.

That I want to drag into this era? You mean, which you wish to disobey in this era? In what way is this era different from that in which the laws were given? Does God care what decade it is as far as the law is concerned?

The Jews keep them today, in this era. Why do you fail to?

*garbage from Paul removed*

He is saying that if you look to the law for justification then you must keep the whole thing and Christ has no meaning for you. Since we can't hope to perfectly keep the law then it is a waste of time to look to it for salvation.

Funny but the Jews around you don't think it has no meaning; and since they were the ones to whom God gave the laws, they are the ones who know better than you.

If Paul is ruled out then we have to discuss something other than the bible. He wrote more of the new testament than anyone. The other apostles accepted and confirmed his staus and works. Their judgement supercedes even the almighty Heathen Hammers.

The reason Paul is ruled out is because he was teaching his own law; he was barely teaching what Christ said, let alone the laws he himself had originally been educated in. The 'judgment of the apostles' is highly suspect since once Paul was on the scene what you had was essentially a cult where everyone towed his line, and where he, as you admit, wrote the history; so of course it sounds as if everyone listened to him.
In any real case, their judgment does not supersede God either; and God made the laws. So it doesn't matter who agrees with your erroneous assumption: the 613 laws are what are to be followed, and are NOT to be superseded, or rewritten, by any man.

Here are many others so I don't get the Paul copout.

Deuteronomy 4:13 And he declared to you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, that is, the Ten Commandments, and he wrote them on two tablets of stone (This one suggests that even the ten commandments were applicable within the context of the old covenant. Keep that in mind)

Yes and? And also, this text does not in any way suggest the subtext you are asserting.

Hebrews 8:13 In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

Paul speaking. At least, that is scholarly consensus, so again, a void point. God's laws don't grow ol;d and obsolete.

Luke 22:20

And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood (there went the ten commandments)

LOL, that's essentially heresy. Jesus is making his own personal covenant here with his disciples; he's not wiping out the Ten Commandments over a cup of wine! Wow, what Sunday School did you go to?

Luke 24:44

Then he said to them, “These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.”

OK, I am not sure what you aren't getting. Any spot in the NT where the 'old laws' are said to be removed, is an 'illegal call'. It doesn't matter who said it. Nobody in the NT had the authority to strike out the laws laid down by God for the Jews.
For now I will simply pass by these references as it would entail a whole other discussion about Jesus not fulfilling all these things he mentions in Psalms and etc, in the first place, and I know you won't want to handle that now.

Jeremiah 31:31

“Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah,

And I guess the fact that God lays out that new covenant immediately after this quote, isn't important? He essentially describes the End of the World covenant; nothing of Jesus' 'new covenant' nor anything said by Paul. I won't quote it unless refreshment is needed. Also note: he says 'with the House of Israel and Judah'. What does this have to do with anyone else?

Just how much of the old covenant do you think the thief on the cross obeyed. Jesus himself said he would be in paradise.

All of it. IF the thief was even a Jew. Ask any Jew. Despite what you wish to portray these laws were not only for the high priests; that's incorrect.

Jesus said he would be in paradise because he was throwing the thief a bone, so to speak, because he and the thief were dieing together. And the thief was scared. Jesus was just being human.

I could keep goind indefinately but I don't think it would matter.

True in both cases.

I am somewhat amazed at your earlier statement: You believe Jesus negated the Decalogue, by saying he gave up his blood? I have seen a number of Christians suggest that the 613 laws were no longer applicable but I've never seen one yet say not a single one of God's laws were applicable in the 'new covenant' before. Wow. That's almost signature worthy.

 

[johnhanks]

First, many linguists (today, see especially those whose approach falls under the framework cognitive linguistics) do not belive that the acquisition of language is "hard-wired" into us...

... and many others believe that it is. I don't think we'll get anywhere playing "my linguists are smarter than yours".

Second, the capacity for empathy seems to be the basis for morality, and that seems to be "hard-wired", but I wouldn't say morality is hard-wired.

There are some cognitive abilities that small children seem to acquire very readily, and without apparent conscious effort or formal instruction. Language is one; ideas of right and wrong are another. If you prefer the phrasing that it's the basis for morality that's hard-wired, that's fine with me.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

... and many others believe that it is. I don't think we'll get anywhere playing "my linguists are smarter than yours".

No, the issue is what the state of cognitive science is concerning what is or isn't "hard-wired".

There are some cognitive abilities that small children seem to acquire very readily, and without apparent conscious effort or formal instruction. Language is one

Linguistics and cognitive science are my areas of research. I am quite aware of the research on this subject.

If you prefer the phrasing that it's the basis for morality that's hard-wired, that's fine with me.

Great. But that makes a difference. Empathy is the ability to relate to others whom one thinks is comparable to oneself. If men are taught to think that women are not comparable, then history shows they will act accordingly. Empathy is unfortunately not very much when it comes to what western society considers moral actions/thought.

 

[johnhanks]

... Empathy is the ability to relate to others whom one thinks is comparable to oneself. If men are taught to think that women are not comparable, then history shows they will act accordingly. Empathy is unfortunately not very much when it comes to what western society considers moral actions/thought.

Even though " the capacity for empathy seems to be the basis for morality"? If you'll recall, I was at pains earlier to distinguish between the acquisition of morality - the capacity to distinguish right from wrong - and of morals - which particular actions or purposes are judged to be right or wrong. I agree that a man who has been raised to see women as outside the realm of empathy is unlikely to see suppression of women as immoral, but that speaks to the second category of acquisition, not the first.

 

[Kathryn]

You know what's really sad? That an OP so obviously in jest has been taken so seriously.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

You know what's really sad? That an OP so obviously in jest has been taken so seriously.

:yes:

 

[johnhanks]

You know what's really sad? That an OP so obviously in jest has been taken so seriously.

:yes:

Some might say that this poster was taking the issue pretty seriously:

We have more than enough experience with societies that militantly reject religion and the result is not pretty. To pretend that state sponsored atheism is the sole cause for this ugliness would be absurd, but to paint it as no more than a curious coincidence would be remarkably stupid and/or dishonest.

We are a provisionally civilized species and religion, despite its human origins, limitations, and abuses, has long served to mitigate barbarism. Those who denigrate religion and all who are inspired by it while pretentiously insulate themselves from criticism with the childish mantra that atheism is no more than the absence of belief know nothing about history and even less about anthropology.

 

[Fiddler]

I am pretty much religious man however, I am quiet good.

For non belivers; As long as you would be annoyed by religious people,your fight with them will never see an end.

Fundamentalist atheism ,and sort of, is no different than fundamentalist religious

 

[1robin]

So you really can't tell the difference between "there are no morals" and "there are no objective morals"? Tell me, can you tell the difference between "there are no horses" and "there are no purple horses"?

You are correct about this. I did not see the word "not" in your sentence. Anyway, let me put it this way. If there is a God then his moral requirements would by necessity be objective from our point of view. If you believe that there is no absolute truth then everything is just opinion. With no higher standard to appeal to then it would not be possible to call Bin Laden wrong and Mother Theresa right.

But they demonstrably have. Our failure to connect with each other is based I think on your ascribing objective status to the moral code followed by one particular society worshiping one particular deity at one time in history, whilst I take a more global view. Morality as practised world-wide and throughout history shows huge plasticity.

I could not dissagree more. If something was wrong in 500AD it is always wrong. A possible exception would be that God gave some specific orders to the Jews for a specific time. Those require did not apply to paople outside Israel and only applyed to Israel for a certain time. They didn't change much about what was right and wrong but more about penaltys. It is no wonder if it is an frivolous elestic moral system. That is because there is no roots for it. It just changes the same as opinion does. This is a terrible system. If the standard of the new testament was followed then war, hunger, tryanny, genecide etc...... could not exist. In your whatever goes system that is not the case.

Since murder is by definition unlawful homicide, "murder is right" would be an oxymoron: if a killing is regarded as right and proper, by definition it isn't murder. What is more interesting is the multiplicity of ways in which different societies have defined what is and isn't murder. In some contemporary societies it is considered morally acceptable to kill your daughter or sister if you think she has dishonoured your family; and as I'm sure you know, until a few generations ago a Frenchman who caught his wife in flagrante with another man and killed her could expect to be convicted not of murder but of a crime passionel, punished by perhaps a couple of years in prison. You and I, I imagine, subscribe to a moral code that would call both of those instances murder; but that is because we have been brought up in a different culture.

For the most part I agree. This is why an absolute standard is needed. It would be hard to adapt Christianity to a government system, as that is not what it is designed for. It is meant for the individual to choose. If the new testament was faithfully followed then neither one of these cases would have happened.

It is one of the functions of a culture's deities to give ultimate authority to that culture's moral code. Why should a non-Yahwist give any more credence to the alleged pronouncements of Yahweh than you give to those of Aztec gods?

Mainly because it's attestation is far superior. Do not think that I do not see the problem with selecting which religion is to be followed. Even though the question is simple to me with humans involved nothing works right. Christian morals also line up very close with what civilized humans reagard as being moral. The fact that the aztec's cut the hearts out of 20,000 people a year is completely opposite from what most advanced cultures believe should be a factor in it's dismissal.

Throughout history people of all cultures have regarded their moral codes as objectively grounded and absolutely right. Your position seems to be that all cultures except yours have been mistaken in that regard; I adopt the more likely view that you are as mistaken as the rest.

I regard your position is the worst possible scenario. You promote the existance of morals but root them or anchor them to nothing. There is no way to arrive at truth because there is no absolute truth. Justice is as meaningless as genocide. Hitler's opinion is as correct as yours with no standard to appeal to. It is moral nihilism. Even if all the problems you list are true it is still a vast improvement over a moral system based on ambiguity. Your system is so inept and my system so relevant, that even people who deny the premise for them will still insist on absolute moral standards when in dire circumstances and I believe you would as well.

 

[johnhanks]

I regard your position is the worst possible scenario. You promote the existance of morals but root them or anchor them to nothing. There is no way to arrive at truth because there is no absolute truth. Justice is as meaningless as genocide. Hitler's opinion is as correct as yours with no standard to appeal to. It is moral nihilism. Even if all the problems you list are true it is still a vast improvement over a moral system based on ambiguity.

Very impassioned, but still nothing more than an appeal to consequences. Wanting something to be so does not make it so; and all the empirical evidence suggests that objective moral standards, desirable or not, do not exist.

Your system is so inept and my system so relevant, that even people who deny the premise for them will still insist on absolute moral standards when in dire circumstances and I believe you would as well.

My system? Describing the world as I observe it to be does not make it mine. And you're wrong on the last point - it's precisely "in dire circumstances" when these mythical "absolute moral standards" break down - hence the classic 'cannibalism in lifeboats' stories.

 

[1robin]

Very impassioned, but still nothing more than an appeal to consequences. Wanting something to be so does not make it so; and all the empirical evidence suggests that objective moral standards, desirable or not, do not exist.

There is no more empirical evidence for love, beauty, or human worth than for objective morallity, yet they are universally accepted the way same as objective values are virtually accepted. At least until atheist proffesors can teach people to be so smart that they no longer recognise the word moral anymore. What a great utopia we are creating.

My system? Describing the world as I observe it to be does not make it mine. And you're wrong on the last point - it's precisely "in dire circumstances" when these mythical "absolute moral standards" break down - hence the classic 'cannibalism in lifeboats' stories.

When churchhill or Roosevelt appealed to the country for the task to come. To stop a man from using atheistic evolutionary ethics from destroying the world. Did they do it be appealing to their subjective opinion, did they say well Hitler in an evolutionary frame work really isn't wrong but we need to stop him anyway. No they appealed to the absolutes of right and wrong which we all instinctively know exists until moral nihilism became the new fad.

 

[ChristineES]

You know what's really sad? That an OP so obviously in jest has been taken so seriously.

You're right about that, sister.