The Religious Components of Moral Beliefs
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
20-01-2015, 07:00 PM (This post was last modified: 20-01-2015 07:04 PM by ClydeLee.)
RE: The Religious Components of Moral Beliefs
(20-01-2015 06:08 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(20-01-2015 04:54 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  And I've told you in the past how there are people nowadays with these beliefs outside of religious contexts too. There has been people defending Moral Obligations and Objective morality as a innate universal scheme that aren't religious. There are some other metaphysical ideas like Integral Theory which aren't religious but have a moral and universal layered function idea that fits this.

lol, if you're a person selling intrinsic moral obligations, and claiming you're not selling a religion, then you're not much different than those theists trying to tell me christianity is not a religion, it's a relationship.

But every once in while I do run across an atheist, stating that he believes in intrinsic moral obligations, but it doesn't take long before he recants, and acknowledge that he was confusing intrinsic with extrinsic.

As far as objective morality, that would be a bit of a different discussion, because there seems to be various non-believers advocating for it, without asserting the existence of any intrinsic moral obligations. But we can ignore this since it's not really pertinent here.

Trying to package intrinsic moral obligations, without appealing to a teleology doesn't work, it's like trying to sell me on a square circle. If you think you can make it fit, I would enjoy the shit out of watching you try. But if all you got is, hey I got some homies in China, manufacturing square circles, don't expect me to believe that shit.


Quote:But to the point.. you're presuming which came first. The idea of intrinsic moral obligations or humanity coming up with religious ideas. Because it SEEMS impossible to be a thing without religion to you doesn't make it so. You really aren't equipped to know what caused what in this line of thought.

lol, you're confused. It's not a question of what came first. Intrinsic moral obligation is a religious idea.

I've given you repeated examples you can look up more information upon that counter your proclaimed non-existent sect of people.

The Integral Theory is all about a design.. the idiot founder of it even used dumb arguments like irreducible complexity of the eye in his ideas about design and the human form being a "higher" state of being.. and they think consciousness grows in Holons.. these little encompassing circular steps. It's woo.. but it's atheistic and it's basis is universal, objective, and that boils down to morality as well as so much more... and millions of people believe in this. It's not a gigantic movement, but it is out there. Raliens are another group that may fit the bill, at least for human development but what their standard on in the entire world is probably different. Again I may expect you come out and say something stupid like I hinted prior if you say these are religious-like or religions. Religion is a believe in a deity/god.. if you're not a belief in a deity you aren't a religion. There are other non-religious woos.

Stop being dense... saying it is a religious idea doesn't make it a religious idea. You need to stop only viewing things in your already conceptualized boxes that don't contain every known angle.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes ClydeLee's post
20-01-2015, 07:20 PM
RE: The Religious Components of Moral Beliefs
(20-01-2015 06:20 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(20-01-2015 05:04 PM)Dahlia Wrote:  Tomasia, how do you define "intrinsic"?

intrinsic: belonging to the essential nature of a thing : occurring as a natural part of something.

synonymous with inherent, innate.

As opposed to extrinsic: not part of the essential nature of someone or something; coming or operating from outside.

Ok, good. So I don't know why it would be difficult to see how "intrinsic moral obligations" could be evolutionary and therefore part of human nature. Unless you are a creationist, in which case this argument is pointless.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Dahlia's post
20-01-2015, 07:24 PM (This post was last modified: 20-01-2015 07:30 PM by Tomasia.)
RE: The Religious Components of Moral Beliefs
(20-01-2015 07:00 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  The Integral Theory is all about a design.. the idiot founder of it even used dumb arguments like irreducible complexity of the eye in his ideas about design and the human form being a "higher" state of being.. and they think consciousness grows in Holons.. these little encompassing circular steps. It's woo.. but it's atheistic and it's basis is universal, objective, and that boils down to morality as well as so much more... and millions of people believe in this. It's not a gigantic movement, but it is out there. Raliens are another group that may fit the bill, at least for human development but what their standard on in the entire world is probably different. Again I may expect you come out and say something stupid like I hinted prior if you say these are religious-like or religions. Religion is a believe in a deity/god.. if you're not a belief in a deity you aren't a religion. There are other non-religious woos.

Ah I see, so irreducible complexity, beliefs that we are designed, beliefs in a higher states of being, are not religious beliefs either.

We can probably add some other shit to this list as well, beliefs in life after death, beliefs in reincarnation, beliefs in spirits, souls, supernatural resurrections and miracles, , demonic possession, etc... are not religious beliefs either?

It appears that the only religious belief, is a belief in god?

Is this pretty much what you're saying?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-01-2015, 07:30 PM
RE: The Religious Components of Moral Beliefs
(20-01-2015 07:24 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(20-01-2015 07:00 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  The Integral Theory is all about a design.. the idiot founder of it even used dumb arguments like irreducible complexity of the eye in his ideas about design and the human form being a "higher" state of being.. and they think consciousness grows in Holons.. these little encompassing circular steps. It's woo.. but it's atheistic and it's basis is universal, objective, and that boils down to morality as well as so much more... and millions of people believe in this. It's not a gigantic movement, but it is out there. Raliens are another group that may fit the bill, at least for human development but what their standard on in the entire world is probably different. Again I may expect you come out and say something stupid like I hinted prior if you say these are religious-like or religions. Religion is a believe in a deity/god.. if you're not a belief in a deity you aren't a religion. There are other non-religious woos.

Ah I see, so irreducible complexity, beliefs that we are designed, beliefs in a higher states of being, are not religious beliefs either.

We can probably add some other shit to this list as well, beliefs in life after death, beliefs in reincarnation, beliefs in spirits, souls, supernatural resurrections and miracles, , demonic possession, etc... are not religious beliefs either?

It appears that the only religious belief, is a belief in god?

Is this pretty much what you're saying?

YES.. because that is what religion is. Belief in or worship of a god/deities. That's why I brought it up several posts ago wondering if you are being fitting with this concept of religion or if you were going to swap and start using it loosely in a anything that gets deemed spiritual/supernatural/woo like is religion.

Things FREQUENTLY associated with a thing aren't necessarily the thing. You can be atheist and believe in ghosts, demons, states of being, etc. It's the less common view for atheists but still frequent. It's kinda more frequent in the Pacific northwest in America.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes ClydeLee's post
20-01-2015, 07:33 PM (This post was last modified: 20-01-2015 07:44 PM by Tomasia.)
RE: The Religious Components of Moral Beliefs
So basically your argument boils down to you want me to replace the term religious belief, with woo beliefs, because woo merchants that sell shit that smells an awfully like lot like religion, would be offended and feel excluded?

Quote:You can be atheist and believe in ghosts, demons, states of being, etc. It's the less common view for atheists but still frequent. It's kinda more frequent in the Pacific northwest in America.

Well according to you, you can be an atheist and believe the universe was designed too. In fact you can be an atheists and believe in a creator/s according to this reasoning. Only thing you can't do is call whatever it is that designed us God/s.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-01-2015, 07:42 PM
RE: The Religious Components of Moral Beliefs
(20-01-2015 04:54 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  But to the point.. you're presuming which came first. The idea of intrinsic moral obligations or humanity coming up with religious ideas. Because it SEEMS impossible to be a thing without religion to you doesn't make it so.

Clyde's argument seems pretty clear to me.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-01-2015, 07:57 PM
RE: The Religious Components of Moral Beliefs
(20-01-2015 07:33 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  So basically your argument boils down to you want me to replace the term religious belief, with woo beliefs, because woo merchants that sell shit that smells an awfully like lot like religion, would be offended and feel excluded?

Quote:You can be atheist and believe in ghosts, demons, states of being, etc. It's the less common view for atheists but still frequent. It's kinda more frequent in the Pacific northwest in America.

Well according to you, you can be an atheist and believe the universe was designed too. In fact you can be an atheists and believe in a creator/s according to this reasoning. Only thing you can't do is call whatever it is that designed us God/s.

I don't want you to replace your idea; I want to realize that your argument is wrong... UNLESS from the start you meant religious int he loosy goosey woo way.

I want you to be try to be correct.. and understand things accurate to their actual situations. You are saying something INHERENTLY WRONG... because we have examples of the exact thing you say doesn't exist.

No believing in a "creator" would basically be deism a or another theistic belief. The Integral Theory doesn't believe in a creator. They believe in an order that exists in the universe, that just is. That is just what the universe is to them. But that isn't a belief in any entity or being that created it. This is still just 1 but well readupable on the internet example.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-01-2015, 08:09 PM
RE: The Religious Components of Moral Beliefs
(20-01-2015 07:42 PM)Dahlia Wrote:  
(20-01-2015 04:54 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  But to the point.. you're presuming which came first. The idea of intrinsic moral obligations or humanity coming up with religious ideas. Because it SEEMS impossible to be a thing without religion to you doesn't make it so.

Clyde's argument seems pretty clear to me.

Well, Clyde seems to be a full fledged literalist, adamant about one particular meaning of a word, and with a fervent refusal to accommodate anything other.

"Peter Mandaville and Paul James define religion as "a relatively-bounded system of beliefs, symbols and practices that addresses the nature of existence, and in which communion with others and Otherness is lived as if it both takes in and spiritually transcends socially-grounded ontologies of time, space, embodiment and knowing"
....
"The anthropologist Clifford Geertz defined religion as a "system of symbols which acts to establish powerful, pervasive, and long-lasting moods and motivations in men by formulating conceptions of a general order of existence and clothing these conceptions with such an aura of factuality that the moods and motivations seem uniquely realistic"
....
"The sociologist Durkheim, in his seminal book The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life, defined religion as a "unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things".[30] By sacred things he meant things "set apart and forbidden—beliefs and practices which unite into one single moral community called a Church, all those who adhere to them". Sacred things are not, however, limited to gods or spirits."
.....
"In his book The Varieties of Religious Experience, the psychologist William James defined religion as "the feelings, acts, and experiences of individual men in their solitude, so far as they apprehend themselves to stand in relation to whatever they may consider the divine".[33] By the term "divine" James meant "any object that is godlike, whether it be a concrete deity or not"[34] to which the individual feels impelled to respond with solemnity and gravity.[35]"
...

In fact the most closest corresponding equivalent of the term religion, in Hebrew "halakha", and in sanskrit "dharma", means law, and some our connotations don't carry over all that well. While some there's will likely illuminate our understanding.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion

I'm sure all these definitions just make Clyde want to explode with frustration, as to why they can't just keep it simple for him?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-01-2015, 08:12 PM
RE: The Religious Components of Moral Beliefs
(20-01-2015 07:57 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  No believing in a "creator" would basically be deism a or another theistic belief.

Belief in a designer/s is fine though? I can still be an atheist and believe this right?

You said earlier that the founder of integral theory believed in design: "The Integral Theory is all about a design.. the idiot founder of it even used dumb arguments like irreducible complexity of the eye in his ideas about design".

So people can believe we were designed and still be atheists, according to you.,

Quote:I don't want you to replace your idea; I want to realize that your argument is wrong.

Your entire argument is that my use of the term religion, in particular "religious belief" is wrong, because it doesn't fit the one single definition you have in mind. And it's a silly one at that.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-01-2015, 08:20 PM
RE: The Religious Components of Moral Beliefs
(20-01-2015 08:12 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  Belief in a designer/s is fine though? I can still be an atheist and believe this right?

Of course. Is your god omnipotent ?
If so it could have created an infinite number of designers.

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: