OT: Insightful (re: Amish shooting)

[dmm]

Imperator Fyron said: Christian morality is just as much a matter of opinion as that of any other religion, or humanist moral systems.

You are not being logical. If ALL moral systems are simply opinion, then ALL are a load of crap. In that case, anyone who doesn't do whatever he can get away with is a fool. So Ted Bundy was smart to rape and kill little girls. Why not?

This argument does not prove that Christianity is true or that humanism is false, and this thread (forum?) is not the place to argue about that. Logically, you could claim, "Everyone is wrong." But you cannot logically say, "Everyone is equally right."

Imperator Fyron said: How can you rightfully assert that the moral system of one arbitrary religion is somehow the absolute truth? You can make such assertions about any religious moral system; it doesn't mean one is somehow more true or better than others.

I cannot, of course, PROVE that one belief system is THE TRUTH. I can, however, examine the logical and historical consequences of various belief systems. Just because some "nominal atheists" have good morals does not mean that atheism does not have logically and historically demonstrable consequences for society in the long term that I consider to be loathsome.

Imperator Fyron said: Morality does not derive from religion; religious doctrine generally mimics morality.

Every major religion I can think of has a lot of moral code in common. It is like descent with mutations from a common ancestor. If you believe that the common moral ancestor was God-given, then there is good reason to cling to it. If you believe that the common moral ancestor was an accident of evolution, then there is no logical reason to keep it around, other than situational convenience. It is not true, only utile. Therefore if I find it restrictive, I can just drop it, like junk DNA. It is vestigial, and those organisms no longer encumbered by it will prosper best (provided they don't advertise this to others).

[Elsemeravin]

dmm said:
You are not being logical. If ALL moral systems are simply opinion, then ALL are a load of crap.

If A > B then B < A : this is logic
ALL moral systems are simply opinion then ALL moral systems are load of crap : this is not logic

Reading Spinoza may help you formulate logical non-mathematic propositions.

[Fyron]

dmm said:
Every major religion I can think of has a lot of moral code in common.

Indeed, since they all base their moral codes on common human morality. It's just the same as most religious mythologies (in the sense of the stories and such that comprise the teachings of the religion's culture, not some tacked on "explicitly false" connotation) using a lot of the same basic symbols in similar ways; the way colors, numbers, etc. are used in one religion are very similarly to how they are used in many other religions. We all evolved from the same source, so much of the basic thought patterns and instincts that make up the core of a human's psyche end up being the same. People everywhere have more or less the same genetic predispositions.

Basic tenets of morality have to do with humans being social animals; it harms the group to kill each other, to rape each other, to steal from each other. It helps the group if humans cooperate towards larger goals, help out others in need, provide their skills to benefit the group. Thus, as humans evolved, they evolved basic predispositions to not do these things. As intelligence grew ever more refined, naturally these basic social needs would become codified into "law," when the concept of "law" began to be developed. As basic spiritual beliefs started developing into organized religions, such inherent social needs became codified into belief systems. Since all humans have the same base genetic dispositions, religions the world over tended to develop along similar lines.

It's a matter of psychology; particular religious belief doesn't necessarily have anything to do with it. Of course, you could always argue that God set us up to develop that way. That is not a falsifiable argument though, so it can't be "proven" either way.

[ZeroAdunn]

Actually Fyron, it can be proven, somebody just needs to go find god, and have him explain it all? Anybody able to do that? No, okay then, lets disconnect morals from god for this argument and stick to what we know.

[narf poit chez BOOM]

I am convinced God exists, by my own personal experience

The simple idea that some portion of the populace has yet to be so convinced does not negate my experience. Nor does the fact that I can't scientifically prove my anecdotal experience.

However, saying that I can't prove it to myself is to make a blanket judgement of every single experience of my life - The vast majority of which you know nothing about and do not have the right to do, anyway.

[ZeroAdunn]

narf poit chez BOOM said:
However, saying that I can't prove it to myself is to make a blanket judgement of every single experience of my life - The vast majority of which you know nothing about and do not have the right to do, anyway.

Actually Narf, you can't prove it to yourself. We can't prove anything beyond our own moment to moment, each morning you wake up and take a leap of faith that all that has come before, truly did come before, and isn't just some delusion or fabrication. Faith is probably the most powerful thing in this world, everybody has it, few people understand it, and a good portion of the population don't want ot admit to it, but its their. There is nothing in this life that can be proven, each moment in time is like a photograph, at the moment it is taken, you know it is true, but forever after you can only make your claims, and hope somebody will back you up.

[narf poit chez BOOM]

The thing is, all my evidencee, ie., my memory, says that yours is the much lower chance.

[Puke]

dmm said:If ALL moral systems are simply opinion, then ALL are a load of crap. In that case, anyone who doesn't do whatever he can get away with is a fool. So Ted Bundy was smart to rape and kill little girls. Why not?

well sure thats true. but while its true, heres the "why not":

our shared set of laws and mutually-agreed sense of "morality" is generally beneficial to those that participate in it. it provides some sense of assurance that the horrible things that you spare other from, will in turn be spared delivery upon you.

The other part of "why not" is that you might fear reprisal, either legal or extralegal. Ted Bundy might not have been smart to comit his crimes, when you consider what came to him. If the consequences of his actions dont outweigh the pleasure he got from them, then sure he was smart to do it. or at least a rational economic actor.

on the other hand, I certainly would have gouged his eyes out if I had the chance. Not because it would be my Moral obligation to do so, but because it helps uphold our (society's) mutually consentual system of laws and morals. "morals" not "Morals". It benefits me to uphold them, so i do.

[Renegade 13]

People always tend to see the past through eyes that aren't quite objective. We tend to gloss over the bad and focus on the good. The result? Doom and gloom predictions, "oh man, society's going down the crapper, things are just gonna get worse, what are we gonna do?".