Registered Deed of Title to Morality
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
24-12-2014, 05:05 PM
Registered Deed of Title to Morality
I've seen this come up in assorted threads, the notion that atheists, not having a moral foundation, use religious morals.

Excuse me?

Is that meant to imply that if I act in a manner someone devout would call "moral", that I was only capable of acting that way because I learned it from religion?

What would be an example of something "moral" that ONLY someone religious would be capable of?

This appropriation of "morality" as if it's the exclusive property of religion is one of the most colossal conceits the religiously sotted parade around.

I'll concede religionists do have title to something; it's theirs outright, but it isn't morality. It's sanctimony. And they can keep it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like Airportkid's post
24-12-2014, 05:16 PM
RE: Registered Deed of Title to Morality
Quote:21 And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword.

Joshua 6

Fuck them. I would never do anything this immoral.... now matter what some fucking god said.

Atheism is NOT a Religion. It's A Personal Relationship With Reality!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Minimalist's post
25-12-2014, 09:57 AM (This post was last modified: 25-12-2014 10:04 AM by Tomasia.)
RE: Registered Deed of Title to Morality
(24-12-2014 05:05 PM)Airportkid Wrote:  What would be an example of something "moral" that ONLY someone religious would be capable of?

Nothing.

In fact if only people raised in a particular religion, or with a particular holy book, could be moral, it would be more problematic for the validity of some important religious beliefs.

Most religions believe that life has a sense of moral direction, moral arc so to say, that this sense of moral direction, exists beyond any particular religion, or holy book, a point even evangelist apologist such as WLC make when arguing about this. Catholics theology even holds that our conscious can reveals this direction to us.

Religions hold a preconceived narrative, that human being are endowed with a sense or purpose, a purpose that contains moral direction, a telos. The claim that only religious people can be moral, would be problematic for the veracity of this narrative.

Where I do think a problem arises for atheists, is not in particular to how they behave, but how they develop a moral language, the language in which they are able to form moral protest, to condemn certain actions as immoral, or evil, or bad. In this particular case atheists tend to borrow from the religious moral narrative, to make such statements, even though they might not acknowledge this themselves.

This is a point the atheist philosopher Jurgen Habermas makes:

"Universalistic egalitarianism, from which sprang the ideals of freedom and a collective life in solidarity, the autonomous conduct of life and emancipation, the individual morality of conscience, human rights and democracy, is the direct legacy of the Judaic ethic of justice and the Christian ethic of love. This legacy, substantially unchanged, has been the object of continual critical appropriation and reinterpretation. To this day, there is no alternative to it. And in light of the current challenges of a postnational constellation, we continue to draw on the substance of this heritage. Everything else is just idle postmodern talk." (Jürgen Habermas - "Time of Transitions")

For religious people of nearly every faith and tradition this moral narrative is a given, that man is directed to moral life, that he has moral obligations and duties, even if he fails to live up to it. For religious people this exists in the background without even being given a second thought, and as a result those attempting to construct morality anew outside of religion, are not cognizant of forming morality in the absence of teleology. They proceed with their moral philosophies with these preconceived religious beliefs in tact, unaware of their own incoherencies.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-12-2014, 10:58 AM
RE: Registered Deed of Title to Morality
(24-12-2014 05:05 PM)Airportkid Wrote:  This appropriation of "morality" as if it's the exclusive property of religion is one of the most colossal conceits the religiously sotted parade around.

Yes, and it's just about as specious as the claim that their god is good, despite evidence to the contrary.

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-12-2014, 11:34 AM
RE: Registered Deed of Title to Morality
(24-12-2014 05:05 PM)Airportkid Wrote:  I've seen this come up in assorted threads, the notion that atheists, not having a moral foundation, use religious morals.

Excuse me?

Is that meant to imply that if I act in a manner someone devout would call "moral", that I was only capable of acting that way because I learned it from religion?

What would be an example of something "moral" that ONLY someone religious would be capable of?

This appropriation of "morality" as if it's the exclusive property of religion is one of the most colossal conceits the religiously sotted parade around.

I'll concede religionists do have title to something; it's theirs outright, but it isn't morality. It's sanctimony. And they can keep it.

The problem with atheist morality is that it has no foundation. In religious morality of any kind (be it right or wrong) there is a chain of authority going back to the commands of God (and granted, the particular religion can be wrong about that), and God is the author of right and wrong, because God is presumably the Creator of all things. He can't be "under" a system of right and wrong or He wouldn't meet the definition of God (with a capital G).

That's how it works.

If you remove God from the equation, you have one man telling another man what to do because the first man wanted it that way--for whatever reason. But logically we are all born equal in human worth (even if we're not worth very much). So there is no rational basis for one man to tell another man what to do, or not do. Unless, that is, you up the ante.

If you give the first man a gun, and he can take the life of the second man, and if the second man is willing to cooperate so as not to be shot and killed, then the first man can tell the second man what to do--but we intuitively know that such a case is not a system of morality. It is simply an act of force. The first man has no authority on which to base his demands, and the second man is not elevated because he isn't doing the "right thing" with a gun in his face; he's doing the only thing he can.

So, atheists have no moral foundation. They may act morally, because the law forces them to, but they can't ever truly be moral creatures. But there's a caveat to that. Atheism is not true. There is a God. Morality is based on His authority, and this works its way down through the laws of nations and reasoning of philosophers, and atheists obey it and feel they are just as good as anyone else.

Jesus gives us a different moral system, which on the surface looks a lot like anarchy, but there's a twist to it, and it's rarely discussed. It's not adhered to by the mainstream Christian religions, because they have chosen to follow Jewish Law instead of the teachings of Jesus Christ. The morality of Christ shutters the institutions of government, secular and religious, and so no one wants to pay it any mind. No one's ready for a world like that.

But they will be soon. They'll have to be. Yes
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-12-2014, 12:07 PM (This post was last modified: 25-12-2014 12:17 PM by Free.)
RE: Registered Deed of Title to Morality
(24-12-2014 05:05 PM)Airportkid Wrote:  I've seen this come up in assorted threads, the notion that atheists, not having a moral foundation, use religious morals.

Excuse me?

Is that meant to imply that if I act in a manner someone devout would call "moral", that I was only capable of acting that way because I learned it from religion?

What would be an example of something "moral" that ONLY someone religious would be capable of?

This appropriation of "morality" as if it's the exclusive property of religion is one of the most colossal conceits the religiously sotted parade around.

I'll concede religionists do have title to something; it's theirs outright, but it isn't morality. It's sanctimony. And they can keep it.

In my opinion, all human morals stem from the ancient and inherent Ethic of Reciprocity, also known in theology as The Golden Rule.

1. One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself.

2. One should not treat others in ways that one would not like to be treated.


There are only two things that all sentient life forms attempt to do;

1. Increase our pleasure.

2. Decrease our pain.


No matter what we do, it is impossible for any action we take to not serve one of the two listed above. These two listed above come from the most primal aspect all sentient life inherently has:

The Preservation of Self.

The preservation of self is like the "prime directive" of our sentient existence. It is at the root of all emotions as it is greatly influenced by the emotion of Fear. Fear is what compels us to preserve ourselves, and that preservation of self is accomplished by either increasing our pleasure, or decreasing our pain.

The Ethic Of Reciprocity resonates with all of us because each and every one of us inherently understands that we should not bring any harm to anyone that we would not want done to ourselves (decease our pain,) and since we inherently understand pleasure, we will do unto others those good things that we ourselves enjoy.

All true moral structure begins with the primal Preservation of Self, then is processed into either increasing pleasure or decreasing pain, then from there it gets manifested and externally displayed as the Ethic of Reciprocity.

Theism has no claim on morality, as the origin or all morality was within all sentient life long before the existence of theology. Therefore, "The Registered Deed of Title to Morality" is inherently human.

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-12-2014, 12:24 PM
RE: Registered Deed of Title to Morality
(25-12-2014 12:07 PM)Free Wrote:  All true moral structure begins with the primal Preservation of Self, then is processed into either increasing pleasure or decreasing pain, then from there it gets manifested and externally displayed as the Ethic of Reciprocity.

The ethic of reciprocity in your understanding is based on what though? A fear that people will treat me as poorly as I treat them? A sort of karma in essence?

Or is it something along the lines of empathy, like the way it which I treat those that I care about and love?

And what would you say of those who don't act according to the ethics of reciprocity, let say like a thief. Is his behavior the result of irrationality, for suppressing some truth? How is he wrong? Is he wrong for breaking some rule that exists beyond himself, this supposed golden rule, binding on all of us?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-12-2014, 12:40 PM (This post was last modified: 25-12-2014 12:44 PM by Free.)
RE: Registered Deed of Title to Morality
(25-12-2014 12:24 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(25-12-2014 12:07 PM)Free Wrote:  All true moral structure begins with the primal Preservation of Self, then is processed into either increasing pleasure or decreasing pain, then from there it gets manifested and externally displayed as the Ethic of Reciprocity.

The ethic of reciprocity in your understanding is based on what though? A fear that people will treat me as poorly as I treat them? A sort of karma in essence?

Or is it something along the lines of empathy, like the way it which I treat those that I care about and love?

And what would you say of those who don't act according to the ethics of reciprocity, let say like a thief. Is his behavior the result of irrationality, for suppressing some truth? How is he wrong? Is he wrong for breaking some rule that exists beyond himself, this supposed golden rule, binding on all of us?

This takes us to the next step.

Every last thing we do is a selfish act. It is impossible to do anything that is not a selfish act.

Now I will explain why:

It begins with the Preservation of Self, and is processed to serve one of the two; increase our pleasure, or decrease our pain. It is from here that we make a decision on which one of those two will best serve our selfish interests.

In your example of the thief, he is acting in his own self interests and against the Ethic of Reciprocity. The moment he commits the act of thievery, he may have increased his pleasure, but he has also increased his pain through the emotion of guilt, which is manifested from the inherent Ethic of Reciprocity. He may appear to have suppressed his guilt eternally, but in reality the guilt exists, and this brings harm upon his self; increased his pain.

An experienced thief will become conditioned to the suppression of guilt to reap the benefits of increasing his pleasure through the rewards of his thievery.

However, he is only benefiting through the increase in pleasure, while at the same time his actions are detrimental to the Preservation of Self because of the inherent emotional state of guilt brought on by his breaking the Golden Rule.

Your thief has made a decision to sacrifice some degree of his preservation of self through his pain because he has reasoned that the increase of his pleasure outweighs the increase in pain.

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-12-2014, 12:54 PM
RE: Registered Deed of Title to Morality
(25-12-2014 09:57 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Most religions believe that life has a sense of moral direction, moral arc so to say, that this sense of moral direction, exists beyond any particular religion, or holy book,

Really ?
How about you take 5 religions and tell us exactly where that is found in the teachings of those 5.

(25-12-2014 09:57 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  a point even evangelist* apologist such as WLC make when arguing about this. Catholics theology even holds that our conscious can reveals this direction to us.

* There are 4 "evangelists". WLC would never agree he is one of them. He might call himself an "evangelical".


(25-12-2014 09:57 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Religions hold a preconceived narrative, that human being are endowed with a sense or purpose, a purpose that contains moral direction, a telos. The claim that only religious people can be moral, would be problematic for the veracity of this narrative.

So you assert, yet fail to provide any support or explanation.

(25-12-2014 09:57 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Where I do think a problem arises for atheists, is not in particular to how they behave, but how they develop a moral language, the language in which they are able to form moral protest, to condemn certain actions as immoral, or evil, or bad. In this particular case atheists tend to borrow from the religious moral narrative, to make such statements, even though they might not acknowledge this themselves.

Assertions with no evidence. Look who's talking about problems with language. Weeping

"Universalistic egalitarianism, from which sprang the ideals of freedom and a collective life in solidarity, the autonomous conduct of life and emancipation, the individual morality of conscience, human rights and democracy, is the direct legacy of the Judaic ethic of justice and the Christian ethic of love. This legacy, substantially unchanged, has been the object of continual critical appropriation and reinterpretation."

Totally, completely, demonstrably false. It arose during the Enlightenment, before which Christianity and Judaism were perfectly comfortable with a hierarchical society which included the "divine right of kings".

Try taking a little http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropology some day, please.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
25-12-2014, 01:15 PM
RE: Registered Deed of Title to Morality
One that I hate is the way Christians claim to be responsible for building the modern world, it's architecture, philosophy, morality, music and politics...

Bullshit... Some of the architecture, art and music I will give them, but our modern morality and philosophy comes from the Enlightenment... Christianity held the western world back for hundreds of years.

[img]

via GIPHY

[/img]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Sam's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: