08 Jul 13
Originally posted by no1marauderOkay, now we have established that no1 values human life because he is instinctually worried about the survival of the species. What about you PP? Do you value human life over an animal life? Why or why not?
Changes in our brains don't take place in such short time periods, so the answer is no.
I already answered the question. Because I am a member of the species homo sapiens, I naturally value human life over animal life. We make such moral judgments instinctively and then generally try to rationalize them.
08 Jul 13
1 edit
Originally posted by PsychoPawnWhether or not any set of morals is “religious” depends on whether it is based on a religious theory, such as divine command theory. A non-religious neo-Aristotelian value-ethicist (or a Stoic, just for example) might conclude to many of the same ethical-moral principles as a given religionist, but from a different set of arguments. Same for a Kantian arguing from a categorical imperative. The question is a matter of how one gets from an “is” to an “ought”.
What would you define as being "religious morals"?
Also, two divine-command ethicists might come to two different sets of [religiously derived] morals (moral codes), with perhaps some stark disagreement—and this can be true within the same religion, as well as across religions. [In philosophical discourse, “ethics” and “morals” sometimes carry the distinctions illustrated by that sentence.]
I have never found much difference between Christians and non-Christians in terms of ethical behavior (and since I don’t play the “No True Christian™” game, I take people at their word as to religious identification)—that is, for example, if someone is a Christian, I do not assume they are any more or less honest than anyone else. I suspect that, if someone could derive a “general morality statistical distribution” , the population of identified Christians would look, in general, like most other populations, with differences in some particulars.
08 Jul 13
Originally posted by dryhumpI suspect that he thinks that anyone else’s pro-human preference in that regard also ultimately derives from the same (“instinctual” ) source, but that many/most of us (being more or less rational beings) attempt to find “reasoned reasons” for our beliefs—and then fail to accept the possibility of that “ultimate” derivation. This is not to deny the validity of the reasons arrived at, in our journey of consciousness. But it is also not to deny the possible evolutionary grounding of No.1’s view here. To do that, you would have to find a way to disprove the hypothesis (rejection is not falsification), which would seem to have at least some inductive argument in its favor (based on biological/anthropological evidence).
Okay, now we have established that no1 values human life because he is instinctually worried about the survival of the species. What about you PP? Do you value human life over an animal life? Why or why not?
09 Jul 13
Originally posted by dryhumpHave you never heard of human sacrifices?
Have you never heard of human sacrifices? The Aztecs were particularly prolific. These were done to improve society's growth (at least according to their beliefs). What makes human life more valuable than animal life? Surely that's a simple enough question.
Well, those weren't done en masse were they? Of course this is just the kind of ridiculous stuff that religion makes you do.
This doesn't mean that the Aztecs didn't value their lives though - they saw the sacrifices as something valuable enough to trade for the expectation of prosperity from their fictional god. Just like the Hebrew god demanded sacrifices - the Jews just made up lesser things for their god to want as a sacrifice.
Religion can make you CRAZY!
What makes human life more valuable than animal life? Surely that's a simple enough question.
Yes it is a simple question. It's one that I have every confidence that you can answer yourself.
Can you answer that question yourself without invoking a supernatural being?
09 Jul 13
Human beings have not really changed over the years. The notion that we are "evolving" into something completely different is absurd.
The natural rule of law is the Golden Rule, do unto others as you would have them do to you. Essentially, let man be free so long as he does not hinder the freedom of others. But inevitably, such freedom of choice is abused by violating others freedom, all in the name of enhancing your own freedom and power.
In the instance of child sacrifice, these people were sacrificing their children to enhance their own lives. They wanted a better crop, or to win a military conquest etc. It is no different than people today who have abortions so that they can still afford that new car or lifestyle. If it were not for the material gains, no human being would have ever sacrificed their child to a god and most would never set foot in an abortion clinic.
09 Jul 13
Originally posted by vistesdI have. Statistically, Christians, or those of faith, who attend a religious service routinely are different. On average, they give more to charity in terms of donations and their time. They tend to have dramatically lower divorce rates, but only if they attend religious services routinely. In short, the difference lies in those who make their faith a lifestyle rather than just an intellectual exercise stating that God exists. You also see statistics that people who attend religious services routinely live longer.
I have never found much difference between Christians and non-Christians in terms of ethical behavior (and since I don’t play the “No True Christian™” game, I take people at their word as to religious identification)—that is, for example, if someone is a Christian, I do not assume they are any more or less honest than anyone else. I suspect that, if someone ...[text shortened]... ould look, in general, like most other populations, with differences in some particulars.[/b]
So to say that there is no difference from those not of faith is a fabrication, even though you may not know people who profess the faith and walk the walk.
09 Jul 13
2 edits
Originally posted by PsychoPawnLOL. I can see your perspective, but being a person of faith I believe that Abraham actually talked to his God and trusted him implicitly.
So when Abraham was going to sacrifice his child Isaac it was for material gains?
I realize that most here would look at the story and think it barbaric, but in a world that was accustomed to child sacrifice, so it was a very important statement. It was the statement to the world that child sacrifice is not acceptable to the God of the Bible. It reinforced this position by condemning the ritual child sacrifices to the gods of Canaan.
Naturally, someone like you does not believe such stories, so take it for what it is, which is a condemnation of child sacrifice. 😵
09 Jul 13
Originally posted by whodeyYes, please continue your logical somersaults.
LOL. I can see your perspective, but being a person of faith I believe that Abraham actually talked to his God and trusted him implicitly.
I realize that most here would look at the story and think it barbaric, but in a world that was accustomed to child sacrifice, so it was a very important statement. It was the statement to the world that child sacrif ...[text shortened]... believe such stories, so take it for what it is, which is a condemnation of child sacrifice. 😵
God asked him to sacrifice his child in order to condemn it and Abraham was an immoral, spineless idiot for almost going through with it. If that was your god's way of doing this then he's a pretty idiotic god.
09 Jul 13
Originally posted by whodeyThose points are well-taken, but I noted that I was referring to all identified Christians, not just those that you understand as “walking the walk”. If that is the focus, then the comparison for ethical behavior have to be with others who walk the walk in terms of their particular ethical norms.
I have. Statistically, Christians, or those of faith, who attend a religious service routinely are different. On average, they give more to charity in terms of donations and their time. They tend to have dramatically lower divorce rates, but only if they attend religious services routinely. In short, the difference lies in those who make their faith a lif ...[text shortened]... h is a fabrication, even though you may not know people who profess the faith and walk the walk.
09 Jul 13
1 edit
Originally posted by vistesdFrom what I have seen, a faith unwalked and unpracticed is virtually dead, or soon will be.
Those points are well-taken, but I noted that I was referring to all identified Christians, not just those that you understand as “walking the walk”. If that is the focus, then the comparison for ethical behavior have to be with others who walk the walk in terms of their particular ethical norms.
If you look up divorce rates among Christians, you will see that it is no different than the rest of society. In fact, it is really no different than those who attend church occasionally. However, those that go every week the numbers are chopped in half. The same can be said for those who give to charity.
Is this such a surprise? It is the divide between people who use religion only as a crutch for when it feels good rather than those who are willing to sacrifice their own selfish desires for a greater cause.
09 Jul 13
Originally posted by vistesdIs there any difference between value systems based on 'religion' or some other belief system? I argue no because any system is based on something that must be accepted by faith alone. The only difference is what you put your faith in.
Whether or not any set of morals is “religious” depends on whether it is based on a religious theory, such as divine command theory. A non-religious neo-Aristotelian value-ethicist (or a Stoic, just for example) might conclude to many of the same ethical-moral principles as a given religionist, but from a different set of arguments. Same for a Kantian argu ...[text shortened]... ould look, in general, like most other populations, with differences in some particulars.
09 Jul 13
Originally posted by PsychoPawnCan you answer that question yourself without invoking a supernatural being?[/b]
[b]Have you never heard of human sacrifices?
Well, those weren't done en masse were they? Of course this is just the kind of ridiculous stuff that religion makes you do.
This doesn't mean that the Aztecs didn't value their lives though - they saw the sacrifices as something valuable enough to trade for the expectation of prosperity from their ...[text shortened]... yourself.
Can you answer that question yourself without invoking a supernatural being?[/b]
No. If you're honest with yourself, you can't answer it either without invoking something science has trouble even defining, let alone explaining. Namely: consciousness.
09 Jul 13
Originally posted by dryhumpOf course there are myseries about consciousness that science can't explain. So what?
Can you answer that question yourself without invoking a supernatural being?
No. If you're honest with yourself, you can't answer it either without invoking something science has trouble even defining, let alone explaining. Namely: consciousness.[/b]
Religion doesn't provide anything but the most trivial of explanations that it does for everything: God just did it. It's not a real explanation with any actual evidence to back it up.
If "god said so" is the only reason you can come up with why you don't kill and eat other human beings vs pigs then I pity you.