Now it's only third world countries and USA that are still religious

You remind me of a smug college freshman who has no idea that he's embarrassing himself.

Nothing in your reply addresses the problem.

First of all, if there's no objective standard for morality, then there is nothing intrinsically moral about not harming others. You still have nothing more than a utilitarian system fueled by ultimate self-interest, which is not true morality and furthermore which you have in no way convinced me is worthy of your pride.

But the real rub is this: who decides whether something is a "good reason" for violating rule #1? Society? Majority rule? What about when the majority in this country thought it was fine and dandy to own slaves? The individual? Surely you see the problem with that as pertains to this topic.


It wasn't a majority that the slaveholders decided to cite to rationalize their holding of slaves. In fact, quite the contrary, the plead states rights and tried to find every dodge to avoid the will of the majority on this subject.

you know what they did cite? The Fucking Bible. God gave a whole shitload of rules rationalizing slaver, such as when it was okay to beat your slave, when it was okay to sell your daughter into slavery, and so on .


Individuals and society both decide that they have all kinds of good reasons for harming others. We can (and have) rationalized just about anything we want into justification.

If that's your definition of "morality," come back when you've come up with something that Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, Sartre, or Camus didn't already think of first. The atheists from that group of thinkers actually followed it out to its logical conclusion, and they were right. Today's atheists somehow think they can have their cake and eat it too. They can't.

As opposed to a religionist, who tries to pretend that all the bad shit they ever did wasn't their own fault.

The Pope Collaborating with Hitler. Well, he had a good reason.
Inquisitions, crusades, witch-burnings, torture of heretics, molesting altar boys, etc.

Well, that's no reflection on God. The "NO True Scotsman Fallacy" applies.
 
...It wasn't a majority that the slaveholders decided to cite to rationalize their holding of slaves. In fact, quite the contrary, the plead states rights and tried to find every dodge to avoid the will of the majority on this subject.

you know what they did cite? The Fucking Bible. God gave a whole shitload of rules rationalizing slaver, such as when it was okay to beat your slave, when it was okay to sell your daughter into slavery, and so on .

...As opposed to a religionist, who tries to pretend that all the bad shit they ever did wasn't their own fault.

The Pope Collaborating with Hitler. Well, he had a good reason.
Inquisitions, crusades, witch-burnings, torture of heretics, molesting altar boys, etc.

Well, that's no reflection on God. The "NO True Scotsman Fallacy" applies.

I doubt seriously that the majority of American citizens in, say, 1790 were anti-slavery. Even if they were, if you don't think that's an accurate example, fine, pick something else. I know that the majority of American society in, say, 1950 was A-o.k. with segregation. Treating women unequally. Persecution of gays. Pick whatever you want, the point still stands. If "morality" relies on society to define it and decide when "doing no harm" is o.k. to suspend then it has no more intrinsic meaning than the fact the I prefer blue to red.

And we can have a discussion about religion if you want, but attempting to avoid dealing with a logistical problem of atheism by turning the focus of this conversation to religion will not work. Pointing out people's rationalizations regarding religion in no way answers the philosophical problem that atheism has with morality.

As I said before, there have been some really smart guys who have wrestled with this one, and they were honest about it and admitted that there was no way out of it. I doubt anyone here, including me, is going to solve the problem when they couldn't. But I know that trying to divert attention by saying, "Ahhh, but what about 3 x 3?" will not help us when the actual question asked is, "How does 2 + 2 not equal 4?"
 
[

I doubt seriously that the majority of American citizens in, say, 1790 were anti-slavery. Even if they were, if you don't think that's an accurate example, fine, pick something else. I know that the majority of American society in, say, 1950 was A-o.k. with segregation. Treating women unequally. Persecution of gays. Pick whatever you want, the point still stands. If "morality" relies on society to define it and decide when "doing no harm" is o.k. to suspend then it has no more intrinsic meaning than the fact the I prefer blue to red.

And we can have a discussion about religion if you want, but attempting to avoid dealing with a logistical problem of atheism by turning the focus of this conversation to religion will not work. Pointing out people's rationalizations regarding religion in no way answers the philosophical problem that atheism has with morality.

As I said before, there have been some really smart guys who have wrestled with this one, and they were honest about it and admitted that there was no way out of it. I doubt anyone here, including me, is going to solve the problem when they couldn't. But I know that trying to divert attention by saying, "Ahhh, but what about 3 x 3?" will not help us when the actual question asked is, "How does 2 + 2 not equal 4?"

I would argue that Atheism has a superior morality because the Atheist has to rationalize his position to reasonable people.

As opposed to the religionist, who can just point to his book of Bronze Age Fairy Tales and say, "See, says so right here. Stone the Gays!!!"

Of course, the way Religionists get out of it is they pretend the really bad stuff isn't actually in the bible. 12 years of Catholic Education, I didn't hear about the juicy parts like Jephthah butchering his own daughter until I became an atheist. (In fact, Catholic Schools avoided the whole book of Judges for some reason, and it's the best part of the book!)
 
I would argue that Atheism has a superior morality because the Atheist has to rationalize his position to reasonable people.

As opposed to the religionist, who can just point to his book of Bronze Age Fairy Tales and say, "See, says so right here. Stone the Gays!!!"

Of course, the way Religionists get out of it is they pretend the really bad stuff isn't actually in the bible. 12 years of Catholic Education, I didn't hear about the juicy parts like Jephthah butchering his own daughter until I became an atheist. (In fact, Catholic Schools avoided the whole book of Judges for some reason, and it's the best part of the book!)

In kindergarten I was taught that when I pointed my finger at someone else I was also pointing three fingers back at myself, and that has turned out to be a good lesson over the years.

Take a minute, back up, and read the exchanges we've had with as objective a perspective as you can. You are doing exactly what you (rightly) observe religious people doing.

I've been attempting to get you and another poster to deal with a very real, historically acknowledged logical problem of atheism. When a very shallow surface answer (complete with snide remark about a Sky Pixie) was exposed as such, you began to pretend the problem isn't there just like religious people pretend parts of the Bible are not there. The other poster did too. When faced with a difficult question, you both chose to focus on what religious people do rather than deal with the question regarding atheism. That's a classic non-confront.

IME atheists tend to like to view themselves as being measured and analytical. The truth is that when it comes down to brass tacks I don't find that to be any more common among atheists than I do religious people. I still see people reacting emotionally and using logic to justify the emotional decision.

I can understand the reaction and the emotion; I live in the deep south and around here an atheist is considered only a very small step up from an Islamic terrorist. I personally can't reconcile the logistical problem with atheism that I've referred to, which is why I do not consider myself an atheist. On the other hand, I don't believe in talking snakes and resurrected zombies either.

Just because I reject one, however, does not mean it's in my best interest to accept the other whole-cloth. If I find a problem in either I must at least attempt to reconcile it, or else my only honest answer is, "I don't know, neither one seems 100% accurate and I can't figure it out," which is the only answer I've got right now. One thing I do know, and that is: it is to no benefit to your side that the other side also has problems.

And so, the problem referenced here remains.
 
Last edited:
First, a sizable amount of the time it's not clear what action will afford the greatest utility for society, nor do we stop to philosophize to figure it out. The philosophizing almost always takes place after the fact and IMO serves to justify or rationalize a decision already made by different processes.

Not sure I agree with a “sizable amount of the time”. I would argue that my explanation could apply to most everything, including why stealing is bad, or why rape is bad, or even why you should love thy neighbor. I think most all “good” actions (like being honest, courageous, sharing, etc) are all pretty straightforward in their helpfulness to both the individual and the community. Personally, I think you’d be rather hardpressed to find a Biblical “moral” that can not be explained through common sense.

The only ones I can think of that cannot be explained through "common sense" - so to speak - are the morals such as loving God, avoiding blashphemy, etc.

Those different processes are frequently called "common sense" by atheists to explain them away, but many of the things we intuitively feel are right or wrong do not conform to common sense, nor are they the best for a larger society. For example, it's not at all clear that democracy actually produces the best, most stable society for the most people. I would make the case that a benevolent dictatorship that prohibited all behavior that we know is harmful (such as taking drugs or eating processed food) would do a much better job of that. However, there's something within us that still feels that democracy, freedom, and equal participation in society is "right."
I don’t know wanderer. I think the idea of a benevolent dictator is squashed by the common sense notion that the dictator will eventually die and that ultimate power may fall into the wrong hands. The model simply doesn’t work and therefore it makes the most sense to choose a “democracy” and a sort of living, breathing gov’t based on the will of the people of the day.

Second, a utilitarian explanation still doesn't establish a foundation for something being "right" or "wrong" in a moral sense. What it does is reduce the idea of morality to selfish utility. So why would the poster to whom I originally replied feel superior as an atheist for "doing what is right" for it's own sake when "doing what is right" merely means doing what will make him feel the best?

Yea, but why can’t morality be nothing more than a “selfish” utility for both the individual and society - what’s wrong with that? What’s “right” becomes essentially the action that produces the best outcome for all parties involved.
 
Last edited:
[

I doubt seriously that the majority of American citizens in, say, 1790 were anti-slavery. Even if they were, if you don't think that's an accurate example, fine, pick something else. I know that the majority of American society in, say, 1950 was A-o.k. with segregation. Treating women unequally. Persecution of gays. Pick whatever you want, the point still stands. If "morality" relies on society to define it and decide when "doing no harm" is o.k. to suspend then it has no more intrinsic meaning than the fact the I prefer blue to red.

And we can have a discussion about religion if you want, but attempting to avoid dealing with a logistical problem of atheism by turning the focus of this conversation to religion will not work. Pointing out people's rationalizations regarding religion in no way answers the philosophical problem that atheism has with morality.

As I said before, there have been some really smart guys who have wrestled with this one, and they were honest about it and admitted that there was no way out of it. I doubt anyone here, including me, is going to solve the problem when they couldn't. But I know that trying to divert attention by saying, "Ahhh, but what about 3 x 3?" will not help us when the actual question asked is, "How does 2 + 2 not equal 4?"

I would argue that Atheism has a superior morality because the Atheist has to rationalize his position to reasonable people.

As opposed to the religionist, who can just point to his book of Bronze Age Fairy Tales and say, "See, says so right here. Stone the Gays!!!"

Of course, the way Religionists get out of it is they pretend the really bad stuff isn't actually in the bible. 12 years of Catholic Education, I didn't hear about the juicy parts like Jephthah butchering his own daughter until I became an atheist. (In fact, Catholic Schools avoided the whole book of Judges for some reason, and it's the best part of the book!)






What's amusing is you militant atheists proselytize just as hard, and just as annoyingly as the deists. Atheism is every bit the same as religion in that respect. I'm an agnostic and have been for my whole life. I RESPECT all viewpoints and expect my viewpoints to be respected as well.

Just like I am annoyed by deists trying to convert me to their way of thinking I am just as annoyed by you supposedly more "moral" atheists spewing your nonsense.
 
Not sure I agree with a “sizable amount of the time”. I would argue that my explanation could apply to most everything, including why stealing is bad, or why rape is bad, or even why you should love thy neighbor. I think most all “good” actions (like being honest, courageous, sharing, etc) are all pretty straightforward in their helpfulness to both the individual and the community.

The problems I have with the utilitarian model are these:

1. The following summary that I hooked from the first Google search I did on "utilitarianism" sums up my first problem quite well. I simply disagree that determining the ultimate benefit to society is that simple:

"While utilitarianism is currently a very popular ethical theory, there are some difficulties in relying on it as a sole method for moral decision-making.

First, the utilitarian calculation requires that we assign values to the benefits and harms resulting from our actions and compare them with the benefits and harms that might result from other actions. But it's often difficult, if not impossible, to measure and compare the values of certain benefits and costs. How do we go about assigning a value to life or to art? And how do we go about comparing the value of money with, for example, the value of life, the value of time, or the value of human dignity?

Moreover, can we ever be really certain about all of the consequences of our actions? Our ability to measure and to predict the benefits and harms resulting from a course of action or a moral rule is dubious, to say the least.


Perhaps the greatest difficulty with utilitarianism is that it fails to take into account considerations of justice. We can imagine instances where a certain course of action would produce great benefits for society, but they would be clearly unjust.

During the apartheid regime in South Africa in the last century, South African whites, for example, sometimes claimed that all South Africans—including blacks—were better off under white rule. These whites claimed that in those African nations that have traded a whites-only government for a black or mixed one, social conditions have rapidly deteriorated. Civil wars, economic decline, famine, and unrest, they predicted, will be the result of allowing the black majority of South Africa to run the government. If such a prediction were true—and the end of apartheid has shown that the prediction was false—then the white government of South Africa would have been morally justified by utilitarianism, in spite of its injustice."

2. The idea is self-defeating, at least to some degree. It requires that in circumstances in which benefit to society is in opposition to benefit to the individual, the individual sacrifice himself and choose the course of action that benefits society. Now we're back to having to justify in some way why it is more "moral" for individuals to do this, which means we have to have some referee besides strict utility to provide the context. We all think well of the fellow who dives on the hand grenade, sacrificing his own life for his friends in the foxhole, but if utility is our guide, it's not the foregone conclusion that we take it to be. As a world in which people are willing to sacrifice themselves for others is of no use to a dead man, if that is our sole motivation we shall find it a rather ineffective one. There has to be something to resolve the conflict, and it can't be mere utility.


...I don’t know wanderer. I think the idea of a benevolent dictator is squashed by the common sense notion that the dictator will eventually die and that ultimate power may fall into the wrong hands. The model simply doesn’t work and therefore it makes the most sense to choose a “democracy” and a sort of living, breathing gov’t based on the will of the people of the day.

Dictatorships have worked much better than democracies throughout history. Kingdoms and dynasties were dictatorships and they were very stable, sometimes lasting thousands of years. Democracies have rarely lasted more than a couple of hundred years. We're on borrowed time with ours right now.


...Yea, but why can’t morality be nothing more than a “selfish” utility for both the individual and society - what’s wrong with that?

Nothing's "wrong" with it, per se. But if that is all that truly exists (clearly IMO it's not), then there is no what I call "true" morality. Morality simply becomes preference or perception. And if that's the case, there is really no reason to chose a "right" action over a "wrong" one unless the "right" one benefits a person (I mean actually benefits him or her...not "contributes to a world in which"). This violates how human beings act. We live as though some acts are actually wrong, not just non-utilitarian. So in evaluating what theory of life matches up most closely with what we observe, this point nags at the honest atheist viewpoint
.

The thread button says my reply is too short...HA!
 
Last edited:
The thread button says my reply is too short...HA!

Just about to dip here but want to make a few points.

1.) Obviously it's difficult to assign values to the Utilitarianism system, however (I believe) we are advanced spiritual beings that are far more intelligent, wise and intuitive than we believe and see on just the surface. I believe we are all connected - in a sense - so that when faced with a decision, we can quickly rifle through all of the possible actions and know the one that derives the most utility overall.

We may not select that option (because we want INSTANT utility now), but deep down we know generally what the best choice should have been. Note that I know this is getting highly opinionated, as these are my own personal beliefs.

I believe there is (at the highest level) no "self", as we are all part of the same thing.

2.) Say you are religious, does the bible list out values to all of our daily decisions (ie is one thing worse than another, etc) in a comprehensive manner. We're still going to be guessing anyways in most cases. The point I'm making is what sort of alternative do any of the world's religions offer to our basic Utilitarianistic view?

3.) You mention Justice and the apartheid. Perhaps temporarily white rule would mean better conditions for the Africans, however, is that necessarily the best "end state" taking all factors into account? Perhaps the civil unrest, war, would be temporary and necessary to forming the best society? Also, perhaps the fact that the Africans were experiencing famine, war, etc in the absence of white rule was not due to the absence of white rule itself - but instead the fact that the Africans have been brutally repressed and exploited by the whites for centuries (and would continue to be exploited whether or not a white figure head was in place).

4.) Definitely there are conflicts to self/society, but the fact of the matter is that we DO have the people who jump on the grenade (why is this if no utility is gained?). Perhaps it's because people do derive a great deal of utility and honor from saving the lives of others. Again, I'm a spiritual person and believe strongly in "oneness" of all. I think our actions are both consciously and subconsciously driven to reach an equilibrium benefiting both self and whole.

5.) As far as I'm concerned, the democracy in America has brought its citizens more wealth and a better quality of life than virtually any other society in history. Even our poor have running water, refrigerators, cell phones, and access to cheap entertainment. Sure, democracies might crumble more easily, but is stability the key defining factor in what makes the best form of government? I certainly don't believe so.
 
Last edited:
[

In kindergarten I was taught that when I pointed my finger at someone else I was also pointing three fingers back at myself, and that has turned out to be a good lesson over the years.

Take a minute, back up, and read the exchanges we've had with as objective a perspective as you can. You are doing exactly what you (rightly) observe religious people doing.

I've been attempting to get you and another poster to deal with a very real, historically acknowledged logical problem of atheism. When a very shallow surface answer (complete with snide remark about a Sky Pixie) was exposed as such, you began to pretend the problem isn't there just like religious people pretend parts of the Bible are not there. The other poster did too. When faced with a difficult question, you both chose to focus on what religious people do rather than deal with the question regarding atheism. That's a classic non-confront.

Guy, I ain't going to play this sissy-ass High School debate club nonsense with you.

You asked me why I think my morality as a Atheist is superior to a religionists, and I gave you two very succinct answers.

1) When I do something, it's not because I'm afraid the Sky Pixie is going to punish me.

2) In my life, I've never did... (whole list of stuff religions people did.)

To me, that's a good enough argument.



[


I can understand the reaction and the emotion; I live in the deep south and around here an atheist is considered only a very small step up from an Islamic terrorist. I personally can't reconcile the logistical problem with atheism that I've referred to, which is why I do not consider myself an atheist. On the other hand, I don't believe in talking snakes and resurrected zombies either.




I used to use this cop-out for a while. "Well, yeah, I don't believe in XXXX, but gosh darn, there has to be a purpose or a reason for creation, etc. etc. "

So let's get down to what probably keeps you on the superstition reservation. Pascal's Wager, or as it often called "Fire Insurance". We are all afraid of death, as we should be. We are all afraid of what come after, especially when you have more years behind than ahead. (The situation I find myself in now.)
 
No, sorry kid. Superstition rules the world. It seems to always rule, they hunt down endangered Rhinos and take their horns. All those Chinese wankers KNOW it's all bullshit. How do we convince them other wise?
 
[. . .]I find it amusing that you guys will buy Nazi propaganda hook, line, and sinker and claim to be critical thinkers when you are anything but.[...]

This from the one who posted a bunch of spurious quotes from a book that was long ago discredited as revisionist Christian propanda. Hilarious.

[...]It is too easy to show what Hitler was. A egomaniacle, amoral, vegetarian atheist. Who also happened to be a mass murderer. His beliefs didn't make him a mass murderer. His amorality did that.[...]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk]Click here[/ame].

Hitler was many things, but "amoral" wasn't one of them. You might say his ethic was horribly twisted, even immoral by most standards, but his morals, such as they were, were definitely on display. For instance, he opposed homosexuality, prostitution, pornography, abortion, and pretty much everything else Germany's conservative Christians were bitching about at the time, which might explain his enormous popularity among conservative Christians in Germany ...and in pockets abroad. ;)

Now, since the rest of "your" post amounts to little more than a hodge-podge of copied and pasted opinions of others (much of which is based on a common refusal or inability to account for the nuances of the many struggles between competing denominations of Christianity), I'm pretty much done with it ...and you. Sorry, but I hate the idea of arguing with people who aren't really here to argue back, just 'cause some schmo on the internet apparently likes to pass off their thoughts as his own.

In case anyone else is interested though, regarding the evolution of Hitler's antisemitism, the following excerpts are all from Mein Kampf, Volume One - A Reckoning, Chapter II: Years of Study and Suffering in Vienna:

"[...]Not until my fourteenth or fifteenth year did I begin to come across the word 'Jew,' with any frequency, partly in connection with political discussions[...] For the Jew was still characterized for me by nothing but his religion, and therefore, on grounds of human tolerance, I maintained my rejection of religious attacks in this case as in others. Consequently, the tone, particularly that of the Viennese anti-Semitic press, seemed to me unworthy of the cultural tradition of a great nation.[. . .]


I was not in agreement with the sharp anti-Semitic tone, but from time to time I read arguments which gave me some food for thought.[. . .]

At all events, these occasions slowly made me acquainted with the man and the movement, which in those days guided Vienna's destinies: Dr. Karl Lueger and the Christian Social Party.[. . .]


The man and the movement seemed 'reactionary' in my eyes. My common sense of justice, however, forced me to change this judgment in proportion as I had occasion to become acquainted with the man and his work; and slowly my fair judgment turned to unconcealed admiration. Today, more than ever, I regard this man as the greatest German mayor of all times.[. . .]

How many of my basic principles were upset by this change in my attitude toward the Christian Social movement!

My views with regard to anti-Semitism thus succumbed to the passage of time, and this was my greatest transformation of all.[. . .]

Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.
"
________________________​


Just think, if not for the influence of Dr. Lueger and the flaming antisemitism of the Christian Social Movement, one of the most murderous leaders in human history might not have been.
 
[. . .]I find it amusing that you guys will buy Nazi propaganda hook, line, and sinker and claim to be critical thinkers when you are anything but.[...]

This from the one who posted a bunch of spurious quotes from a book that was long ago discredited as revisionist Christian propanda. Hilarious.

[...]It is too easy to show what Hitler was. A egomaniacle, amoral, vegetarian atheist. Who also happened to be a mass murderer. His beliefs didn't make him a mass murderer. His amorality did that.[...]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk]Click here[/ame].

Hitler was many things, but "amoral" wasn't one of them. You might say his ethic was horribly twisted, even immoral by most standards, but his morals, such as they were, were definitely on display. For instance, he opposed homosexuality, prostitution, pornography, abortion, and pretty much everything else Germany's conservative Christians were bitching about at the time, which might explain his enormous popularity among conservative Christians in Germany ...and in pockets abroad. ;)

Now, since the rest of "your" post amounts to little more than a hodge-podge of copied and pasted opinions of others (much of which is based on a common refusal or inability to account for the nuances of the many struggles between competing denominations of Christianity), I'm pretty much done with it ...and you. Sorry, but I hate the idea of arguing with people who aren't really here to argue back, just 'cause some schmo on the internet apparently likes to pass off their thoughts as his own.

In case anyone else is interested though, regarding the evolution of Hitler's antisemitism, the following excerpts are all from Mein Kampf, Volume One - A Reckoning, Chapter II: Years of Study and Suffering in Vienna:

"[...]Not until my fourteenth or fifteenth year did I begin to come across the word 'Jew,' with any frequency, partly in connection with political discussions[...] For the Jew was still characterized for me by nothing but his religion, and therefore, on grounds of human tolerance, I maintained my rejection of religious attacks in this case as in others. Consequently, the tone, particularly that of the Viennese anti-Semitic press, seemed to me unworthy of the cultural tradition of a great nation.[. . .]


I was not in agreement with the sharp anti-Semitic tone, but from time to time I read arguments which gave me some food for thought.[. . .]

At all events, these occasions slowly made me acquainted with the man and the movement, which in those days guided Vienna's destinies: Dr. Karl Lueger and the Christian Social Party.[. . .]


The man and the movement seemed 'reactionary' in my eyes. My common sense of justice, however, forced me to change this judgment in proportion as I had occasion to become acquainted with the man and his work; and slowly my fair judgment turned to unconcealed admiration. Today, more than ever, I regard this man as the greatest German mayor of all times.[. . .]

How many of my basic principles were upset by this change in my attitude toward the Christian Social movement!

My views with regard to anti-Semitism thus succumbed to the passage of time, and this was my greatest transformation of all.[. . .]

Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.
"
________________________​


Just think, if not for the influence of Dr. Lueger and the flaming antisemitism of the Christian Social Movement, one of the most murderous leaders in human history might not have been.






Heydrich presented Hitler with a list of German generals with Jewish blood in 1941. Hitler took the list, tore it up, and told Heydrich "I'll tell you who is Jewish and who is not". Hitler was many things, but religious wasn't one of them. I notice how you avoided my second links like the plague and resorted to ad hom attacks.

You lose....
 
Guy, I ain't going to play this sissy-ass High School debate club nonsense with you.

You asked me why I think my morality as a Atheist is superior to a religionists, and I gave you two very succinct answers.

1) When I do something, it's not because I'm afraid the Sky Pixie is going to punish me.

2) In my life, I've never did... (whole list of stuff religions people did.)

To me, that's a good enough argument.

That's fine. I thought you might be inclined to seriously and critically examine your views and face the flaws, two things you seem to berate "religious" people for not doing. I was wrong about that. Carry on.


I used to use this cop-out for a while. "Well, yeah, I don't believe in XXXX, but gosh darn, there has to be a purpose or a reason for creation, etc. etc. "

That might be a cop-out. Unfortunately for what you are claiming, however, it's not what I said. There's a big difference in recognizing a specific flaw in the atheist line of logic (that has also been pointed out by major philosophers and thinkers throughout history) and being unable to swallow it and resisting it based on what you typed above.


So let's get down to what probably keeps you on the superstition reservation. Pascal's Wager, or as it often called "Fire Insurance". We are all afraid of death, as we should be. We are all afraid of what come after, especially when you have more years behind than ahead. (The situation I find myself in now.)

I have the opposite experience. I'm at middle age right now and the older I get, the less I fear death. It is not scary to me to consider dying and having nothing come after. Frankly, it is more scary to me to think that life continues on, and not because I believe in hell. Life is difficult. 70-90 years of it is enough for me.

.
 
Last edited:
The thread button says my reply is too short...HA!

Just about to dip here but want to make a few points.

1.) Obviously it's difficult to assign values to the Utilitarianism system, however (I believe) we are advanced spiritual beings that are far more intelligent, wise and intuitive than we believe and see on just the surface. I believe we are all connected - in a sense - so that when faced with a decision, we can quickly rifle through all of the possible actions and know the one that derives the most utility overall.

We may not select that option (because we want INSTANT utility now), but deep down we know generally what the best choice should have been. Note that I know this is getting highly opinionated, as these are my own personal beliefs.

I believe there is (at the highest level) no "self", as we are all part of the same thing.

2.) Say you are religious, does the bible list out values to all of our daily decisions (ie is one thing worse than another, etc) in a comprehensive manner. We're still going to be guessing anyways in most cases. The point I'm making is what sort of alternative do any of the world's religions offer to our basic Utilitarianistic view?

3.) You mention Justice and the apartheid. Perhaps temporarily white rule would mean better conditions for the Africans, however, is that necessarily the best "end state" taking all factors into account? Perhaps the civil unrest, war, would be temporary and necessary to forming the best society? Also, perhaps the fact that the Africans were experiencing famine, war, etc in the absence of white rule was not due to the absence of white rule itself - but instead the fact that the Africans have been brutally repressed and exploited by the whites for centuries (and would continue to be exploited whether or not a white figure head was in place).

4.) Definitely there are conflicts to self/society, but the fact of the matter is that we DO have the people who jump on the grenade (why is this if no utility is gained?). Perhaps it's because people do derive a great deal of utility and honor from saving the lives of others. Again, I'm a spiritual person and believe strongly in "oneness" of all. I think our actions are both consciously and subconsciously driven to reach an equilibrium benefiting both self and whole.

5.) As far as I'm concerned, the democracy in America has brought its citizens more wealth and a better quality of life than virtually any other society in history. Even our poor have running water, refrigerators, cell phones, and access to cheap entertainment. Sure, democracies might crumble more easily, but is stability the key defining factor in what makes the best form of government? I certainly don't believe so.

I don't have time for a full reply here, but I did want to point out that your questions regarding what constitutes the best form of government (which in this discussion was based on stability simply because the poster to whom I was responding assigned that as a major value when he opined that benevolent dictatorships weren't stable enough to be considered the best form of government), whether initial unrest as pertains to apartheid are necessary for best form of government, etc. all prove my point.

The very fact that we're all debating what the best form of government is, etc. proves my initial assertion about utilitarian basis for morality. It's very often difficult to determine what actually benefits the majority of people the most.
 
MUCH OF THE USA is a third world nation, so this should not much surprise us.
 
MUCH OF THE USA is a third world nation, so this should not much surprise us.

A third world nation is a non-industrialized nation. I suppose you can argue that with all our industry shipping overseas we are becoming one. But I dont really buy it.
 
I like to study religions and stats around it and I have found some interesting things.
All the other western nations have a majority of the population being non-religious.
Take a look at these numbers:

Is Religion important in your life - People who answer "No" in percentage below:

Sweden 88%
Denmark 80.5%
Norway 78%
Czech Republic 74.5%
Hong Kong 75.5%
Japan 75%
United Kingdom 73%
Finland 70%
France 69.5%
Germany 69%
Australia 67.5%
Canada 67%
Netherlands 66.5%
New Zealand 66%


There is not one single "western" nation left now that haven't left religion behind. Even if you compare the "old" British colonies - Canada, Australia & New Zealand there is a big difference compared to America. Why is this ??

Western nation = Western Europe, Japan, Australia, New Zealand & Canada.

America is on the same religious level as third world countries like:
Uganda
Jamaica
Armenia
Uzbekistan
El Salvador
Honduras

....which I don't think is a good thing.

Still Religious:
1. Third world nations & Muslim nations
2. USA

USA is the only western nation where you are not considered nuts if you believe in Noah's Ark and Creationism.

Will this ever change ?
It is not uniform across the country. I can't post links yet, but google "journal of religion and society gregory paul".
 

Forum List

Back
Top