|
Post by Lone Wanderer on Mar 12, 2019 17:37:34 GMT
A point refuted a thousand times, commonly abbreviated as PRATT, and called a canard outside of this website, refers to a point or argument that has literally been refuted so many times that it is not worth bothering with. Religious exampleReligion is required in order for a person to be moral/There is no morality without GodIf this were anywhere near true, the world would be in chaos as a fairly sizable 16% of the world's population has no religion. That's nearly 1 in 6 people who would happily murder the other 5, including you because they lacked any form of morality ā this just doesn't stack up to observed evidence. Secular humanism has established several non-religious moral codes, and biologists and psychologists have tracked various evolutionary pathways for why we act in (what we define as) a moral manner. Perhaps most importantly, statistical analysis (rates of murder, adultery, rape, theft, etc.) shows that non-religious folks behave no less morally than those who have found religion (or had it hammered into them since childhood). rationalwiki.org/wiki/Point_refuted_a_thousand_times
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2019 6:18:07 GMT
Let me ask one more time. Are you a dog? So I say no Great! So the difference between a man and a dog is that a man doesn't require domestication. You train the dog in order to shape dog's behaviour. I do not need any invisible master to tell me that I will go to hell if I disobey some set of rules. People who help other because they hope for a reward are same kind of people, who will donate their blood to somebody and be staying there waiting for "thank you" or for more material gratitude. They are same kind of people who will hold the door for a woman only to later ask her for number. They are same kind of people who will take a hitchhiker and ask him for money. People who are not doing bad things because they are afraid of hell and punishment are same kind of people who do not kill people only because they are afraid of prison. Same kind of people who do not rape only because they are afraid of negative consequences THEY may experience. They don't care about the victims. If I have an opportunity to help someone, I do it selflessly. Because I want to help someone out, make his or her life a bit easier, especially if it's not an effort for me. I don't expect any medals. In a same way I do not kill, not because I'm afraid of prison, but because I am not a sadistic psychopath and I do not want to harm anyone, and I don't want to inflict any suffering on other people. Because I actually do care about other people. If someone refrains him-/herself from doing bad stuff as a result of fear of damnation, and is encouraged to do good because of hope for bonuses in the afterlife, then the morality of such person is a garbage. Maybe for such psychos having an invisible friend who will keep them on a leash is a good idea. But I do not need one. And a lot of other folks don't need to be trained like a dog neither. I may not consider myself particularly good person, but I do not need God to keep me away from becoming an asshole.
|
|
|
Post by DKTrav88 on Mar 13, 2019 6:40:18 GMT
Great! So the difference between a man and a dog is that a man doesn't require domestication. You train the dog in order to shape dog's behaviour. I do not need any invisible master to tell me that I will go to hell if I disobey some set of rules So are you saying that you were born with the morality that you currently have?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2019 6:43:26 GMT
Great! So the difference between a man and a dog is that a man doesn't require domestication. You train the dog in order to shape dog's behaviour. I do not need any invisible master to tell me that I will go to hell if I disobey some set of rules So are you saying that you were born with the morality that you currently have? No.
|
|
|
Post by DKTrav88 on Mar 13, 2019 6:48:05 GMT
So are you saying that you were born with the morality that you currently have? No. Where does morality come from then?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2019 6:49:28 GMT
Where does morality come from then? The next to last paragraph contains the answer.
|
|
|
Post by DKTrav88 on Mar 13, 2019 6:53:12 GMT
Where does morality come from then? The next to last paragraph contains the answer. This one? So, morality comes from... not being a sadistic psychopath and caring about people? Don't these things have to be taught?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2019 7:02:14 GMT
So, morality comes from... not being a sadistic psychopath and caring about people? Partially. To quite large extent. As a kid I watched plenty of films in the TV. I observed various situations. For instance films about bad guys who terrorize people, and then some Rambo guy appears and saves the world. I started to think - "how would I feel if I were among these terrorized people?". "Bad", I answered myself. Therefore, why should I be the one who is the reason why people suffer? It would be as much painful for them as it would to me. And then I followed a very simple rule: treat the others in a way you'd want to be treated. This is called reasoning. And this is where my morality comes from.
|
|
|
Post by DKTrav88 on Mar 13, 2019 7:14:35 GMT
So, morality comes from... not being a sadistic psychopath and caring about people? Partially. To quite large extent. As a kid I watched plenty of films in the TV. I observed various situations. For instance films about bad guys who terrorize people, and then some Rambo guy appears and saves the world. I started to think - "how would I feel if I were among these terrorized people?". "Bad", I answered myself. Therefore, why should I be the one who is the reason why people suffer? It would be as much painful for them as it would to me. And then I followed a very simple rule: treat the others in a way you'd want to be treated. This is called reasoning. And this is where my morality comes from. Okay, but someone could say this is unreasonable to them and that youāre stupid or a psychopath because you believe this way. They could say the only sane thing to do is to terrorize people, take advantage of people, use people to get what they want, concentrate on only pleasing themselves, etc. Who decides as the ultimate authority who, you or this other person, is right?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2019 7:21:59 GMT
Partially. To quite large extent. As a kid I watched plenty of films in the TV. I observed various situations. For instance films about bad guys who terrorize people, and then some Rambo guy appears and saves the world. I started to think - "how would I feel if I were among these terrorized people?". "Bad", I answered myself. Therefore, why should I be the one who is the reason why people suffer? It would be as much painful for them as it would to me. And then I followed a very simple rule: treat the others in a way you'd want to be treated. This is called reasoning. And this is where my morality comes from. Okay, but someone could say this is unreasonable to them and that youāre stupid or a psychopath because you believe this way. They could say the only sane thing to do is to terrorize people, take advantage of people, use people to get what they want, concentrate on only pleasing themselves, etc. Yeah, just like someone may say "God told me to rape my sister, kill my brother, set my neighbour's house on fire, and I obediently follow what God says". Then such person may tell you that your religion is fake and his religion is right. Now, using your own words:
|
|
|
Post by DKTrav88 on Mar 13, 2019 7:28:51 GMT
Okay, but someone could say this is unreasonable to them and that youāre stupid or a psychopath because you believe this way. They could say the only sane thing to do is to terrorize people, take advantage of people, use people to get what they want, concentrate on only pleasing themselves, etc. Yeah, just like someone may say "God told me to rape my sister, kill my brother, set my neighbour's house on fire, and I obediently follow what God says". Then such person may tell you that your religion is fake and his religion is right. Now, using your own words: So, who decides who is right or wrong in either case?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2019 7:37:21 GMT
Yeah, just like someone may say "God told me to rape my sister, kill my brother, set my neighbour's house on fire, and I obediently follow what God says". Then such person may tell you that your religion is fake and his religion is right. Now, using your own words: So, who decides who is right or wrong in either case? I don't know. That's a very philosophical question, yet at the same very pointless. I decide for myself which principles I will follow. And it is my business. And it is up to me how I will judge the others. Based on my own principles. And on the laws of the society, which exist to keep the society together, preventing us from living in chaos, and saving us from living in fear that something bad may happen to us. That's why the law exist. How do you think? Who decides who is right and who is wrong?
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on Mar 13, 2019 17:42:02 GMT
If the only thing that prevents the individual from being an asshole is fear of the punishment, then such person is an asshole anyway. If the only thing that convinces the individual to help those in need is hope that God will see it and will give some additional points during the Judgement Day, then such person is an asshole. In both cases above what drives the individual is egoism and dreaming about ending up in a paradise. Not actual empathy. That kind of morality is garbage. You make a fairly reasonable argument. Nevertheless you do not delve into what you mean by empathy. Ordinary decency in ordinary situations, is never really an issue because regardless of religion or not, people work together for mutual benefit. The godless will pretend to have empathy so as to appear deserving of that mutual benefit, but will then revert back to the instincts of the Id, when nobody is watching. The belief that it is worth dying or worse to make the world a better place so you can reincarnate into that better place is not egotism; it is rationality. Egotism is where the person cares not that 1000 suffer or die or worse, so long as they can gain even that which is trivial. Egotism is where inferior-skilled people form a mob and slander those with better skills so as to have a small chance of gaining work thereby - and society as a whole be damned. You conflate rational self-interest with egotism. They are not at all the same. But true empathy is where one is willing to risk one's own soul, such that God may indeed punish you, for the sake of saving others. So when a Christian takes up arms for a noble cause, he knows that there is every chance that he will bring on his own suffering from God if he makes an error in applying them. That is empathy.
|
|
|
Post by Elizabeth on Mar 13, 2019 18:50:47 GMT
There is no morality without God.
Yup, I agree with this statement. This world isn't moral. It's evil. :(
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2019 19:13:26 GMT
And religious people wonder why atheists have problems with them. Prior to reading this topic I had no issues but now I see I should have serious ones.
|
|
|
Post by DKTrav88 on Mar 13, 2019 21:08:02 GMT
So, who decides who is right or wrong in either case? I don't know. That's a very philosophical question, yet at the same very pointless. I decide for myself which principles I will follow. And it is my business. And it is up to me how I will judge the others. Based on my own principles. And on the laws of the society, which exist to keep the society together, preventing us from living in chaos, and saving us from living in fear that something bad may happen to us. That's why the law exist. How do you think? Who decides who is right and who is wrong? Okay, so for you there is no ultimate authority, besides yourself, that decides what is right and what is wrong. But, and this is what I wanted to get at, and letās just stick with your personal moral code... what is itās origin? Do you think it is embedded in human nature? Because, for example, if we stick children together in isolation from an authority with no rules or law, they will eventually kill each other. The book āLord of the fliesā I think is a very good example of this and shows, even though it is a fiction it is very realistic, that human nature leads us to destroy ourselves. So where does the authority, law, order, etc. come from? It could not have come from man, because it is in manās nature to destroy man. What does that leave us with? I think you know what I think already, because you know Iām Christian.
|
|