Religion in general...

[disappoint]

I'm an atheist.

And by that I mean I don't know if there is a God or not and I really don't care all that much. I don't see evidence in support of there being a deity and you can't prove a negative so there is no proof of no God nor is that necessary nor sensible. Although I do think about this topic from time to time anyway in the context I will lay out now.

I just want what's best for humanity, and I'm not sure it matters much how we achieve that as long as we do.

I submit what's best for humanity is the most people acting in an ethical manner.

Now I may not be one of these people but I have seen people literally say that if it weren't for God there would be no reason for them to act ethically.

You may find that opinion deplorable and I understand why you would, but we have to keep in mind that not everyone is the same. People's perceptions of reality differ by a great deal.

I don't think our short term goal should be everyone having as firm a grasp of reality as possible as much as it should be most people acting ethically. Maybe a firm grasp of reality can be a long term goal for humanity and that would be great but it might not be achievable in the short term anyway.

So why not support religion if it incentivizes these sorts of people to act ethically?

So I'm making a case for religion being a good thing in the short term if some people need it to act ethically.

Yes I'd rather they find an internal reason to act ethically but what if they don't? They may not safely be ready for atheism.

Thoughts?

 

[MongGrel]

redacted.

 

[mikeymikec]

I think what religion (though religion is by no means a requirement for this) can do effectively is to get people to think about ethics in a more logical and fully-fleshed-out way, but unfortunately a lot of the time it gets distilled down to a message of "don't do this because this is bad, and do as I say". Ethics is a complex topic because the circumstances are infinitely variable, and sometimes life involves choosing the apparently least unethical course of action.

I was brought up as a Catholic, but looking back on going to Mass every Sunday as a teen, I can't think of anything quite so moronic as the "repeat after me, listen to this, kneel, stand up, sit down" routine I experienced. Nor can I ever remember a priest giving a sermon that might make people step back and re-think anything. This doesn't teach people to use their intelligence, develop their moral compass, and prepare them for the difficult choices they may have to make in their lives.

It sounds hilarious to even think this, but I think Star Trek TNG made me think a lot more about ethics (when I was a teen) than Catholicism ever did.

However I think there's more to religion than ethics, there's also faith (again though, faith is not solely derivable from religion). Everyone needs faith in something; eg. the feeling that "it's going to be alright", or that someone or something has your back or at least will be there for you. IMO someone who literally has no faith in anything is very likely to be (figuratively) completely dead inside.

 

[disappoint]

Try this one out.

Has a 30 day trial guarantee.

Stripper Factory? Is that like the Stepford Wives only for strippers? The Stepford Strippers? Let me guess they are made in Japan? I always knew they would be the first to market with robot women. But how big is the vending machine for that?

 

[MongGrel]

redacted.

 

[disappoint]

It sounds hilarious to even think this, but I think Star Trek TNG made me think a lot more about ethics than Catholicism ever did.

Actually that sounds pretty reasonable.

Yes I agree people need faith. I would prefer they have faith in themselves the most but not if that faith is misplaced or to put it another way not applicable because they lack the knowledge to be worthy of self faith. So I suppose I'm saying I would prefer they work toward having faith in themselves by learning the right kind of knowledge.

But most people would prefer to be told what to do than learn to think for themselves. So I don't see why religion can't be beneficial to a certain subset of the population if/until they are ready to break free of that.

I know some people will make the argument that religion prevents that kind of independent thinking but I don't agree. I was also raised Roman Catholic but it didn't stop me from becoming an Athiest/ independent thinker.

 

[OverVolt]

..

 

[MongGrel]

redacted.

 

[MongGrel]

redacted.

 

[MongGrel]

I am actually just removing all the pics, as this is an iffy thread that I tend to veer away from to begin with.

Is like walking on landmines in here.

Redacting everything actually, was fun for a bit but is too easy to get dinged in this thread.

 

[OverVolt]

..

 

[Caravaggio]

I'm an atheist.

And by that I mean I don't know if there is a God or not and I really don't care all that much.

Thoughts?

Let's start with definitions. You are not an atheist, you are an agnostic.
For clarification read, R. Dawkins ('God Delusion' see p 50-51), Sam Harris and that great Anti-theist, Christopher Hitchens. You are a standard 'stage 5' non-believer on the Dawkins 'belief scale'.

You seem to be saying that some good believers do good works, because of their faith, and we should therefore humour them as they 'mean well'.

Very many sincere believers do indeed do good works, and I share your ambition for more goodness and kindness in the world. The problem comes when we consider the sincere believers who cut the heads from innocent hostages. Take 'Jihadi John' as an example.

At some point we must distinguish the fanatical believer in the non-existent from the the kindly believer in the non-existent. It will be immediately clear that it is not 'belief' alone that divides those two groups.

The only way to do this is to tackle and to test the 'evidence' supporting belief per se. If we evade that necessary confrontation we end-up in a vortex of well-meaning self-deception.

There are good believers and good atheists. It is unlikely that both groups are equally grounded in science and truth.

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

I'm curious how athiests define ethical behavior?

 

[WelshBloke]

I'm curious how athiests define ethical behavior?

Probably the same way religious people do.

There's a massive difference in what religious people have considered accepted behavior over the eons and across cultures.

Even within the same religion correct behavior varies wildly. Look at Christian values in parts of Africa compared to Christian values in Germany. Something other than religion is responsible for that difference.

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

Probably the same way religious people do.

There's a massive difference in what religious people have considered accepted behavior over the eons and across cultures.

Even within the same religion correct behavior varies wildly. Look at Christian values in parts of Africa compared to Christian values in Germany. Something other than religion is responsible for that difference.

You're saying ethical behavior is subjective and tied to culture? If that is the case, there can be no agreement on "what's best for humanity."

 

[WelshBloke]

You're sayisayin

I'm whatiswhating?

 

[WelshBloke]

You're saying ethical behavior is subjective and tied to culture?

Is there any doubt that that's the case?

If that is the case, there can be no agreement on "what's best for humanity."

Has there ever been an agreement on that?

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

Is there any doubt that that's the case?




Has there ever been an agreement on that?

I'm trying to see how nonreligious folks behaving in an undefined "ethical " manner have a better chance at world peace than religious folks do. You also seem to imply that ethics is a result of what you do rather than what you believe.

 

[WelshBloke]

I'm trying to see how nonreligious folks behaving in an undefined "ethical " manner have a better chance at world peace than religious folks do.

I suppose an argument could be made that if you can't invoke the "Because God said so" argument you have to try reason instead.

You also seem to imply that ethics is a result of what you do rather than what you believe.

To other people it doesn't matter what your inner monologue says, it's what you share with the outside world that matters.

It may have been that Hitler dreamed of kittens and world peace but it's his actions that caused misery for millions.

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

I suppose an argument could be made that if you can't invoke the "Because God said so" argument you have to try reason instead.





To other people it doesn't matter what your inner monologue says, it's what you share with the outside world that matters.

It may have been that Hitler dreamed of kittens and world peace but it's his actions that caused misery for millions.

That reasoning is rather circular. Ones actions don't spring from whole cloth. However, I'll play. If ethics are irrelevant, what does matter? Is man merely an animal with more expensive toys?

 

[WelshBloke]

That reasoning is rather circular. Ones actions don't spring from whole cloth.

They don't. But rationale and "the ends" don't matter to the person suffering.

If ethics are irrelevant, what does matter? Is man merely an animal with more expensive toys?

I didn't say that ethics are irrelevant.

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

They don't. But rationale and "the ends" don't matter to the person suffering.



I didn't say that ethics are irrelevant.

So, any action that causes suffering is unethical? Who decides? If actions speak louder than words, doesn't that make ethics irrelevant or, can ethical behavior only be determined after the fact?

 

[WelshBloke]

So, any action that causes suffering is unethical?

Did I say that?

Who decides?

People decide. The same way they do if it's in a religious society or a secular one. Who else is going to?

If actions speak louder than words, doesn't that make ethics irrelevant or, can ethical behavior only be determined after the fact?

Of course actions speak louder than thoughts.
Was Stalin a great bloke who was striving to bring about an egalitarian society or a butcher and a control freak?

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

Did I say that?
Not in those words so, what did you mean?



People decide. The same way they do if it's in a religious society or a secular one. Who else is going to?
I meant the one acting or the one being acted upon?


Of course actions speak louder than thoughts.
Was Stalin a great bloke who was striving to bring about an egalitarian society or a butcher and a control freak?

This certainly implies ethics are irrelevant. If that is not what you meant, what do you mean?

 

[Caravaggio]

I'm curious how athiests define ethical behavior?

Magnus, if your post, 13, was addressed to me specifically, I am happy to answer it. But it will take me some time to re-read material which I believe is central to this issue.
So, if I'm going to make that investment of time and effort, would you be wiling to do some research reading yourself? If so, then we could perhaps have a civilised debate (of the sort 'Moonbeam' here might have with either one of us)?

An article which more or less summarises my views can be found in the journal Nature, (2003), number 425, pages 785-791. The authors are Fehr, E. and Fischbacher, U. The title is: "The Nature of Human Altruism".
This article offers an evolutionary-biological perspective to empathy, kindness and altruism. I believe that they neatly side-step the 'infinite regress' of moral relativism by asking the evolutionary question "How do the social primates (such as ourselves) recognise kindness and empathy in others of their species?"

'Ethical' systems are briefly discussed but from a biological, not a moral position. Let me know if this is the sort of debate that might interest you...