- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Stunning Admission By Renowned Atheist; Decline of Christianity is Hurting Society
Posted on 11/7/19 at 2:08 pm to Azkiger
Posted on 11/7/19 at 2:08 pm to Azkiger
quote:
Why can't neurons firing create, through a very long evolutionary process, feelings of altruism (a conscience).
If having those sorts of feelings increases the likelyhood of survival and the reproduction of your species then it would be selected naturally.
It's not hard to imagine how an altruistic nature would be a good thing for a species.
See, this guy, perhaps wittingly, perhaps unwittingly, is on to something.
0
Posted on 11/7/19 at 2:11 pm to ThuperThumpin
quote:
Humans realized well before Judaism that not murdering and stealing from your neighbor benefited the tribe. Not suggesting you believe this but a lot of ignorant people believe the Bible is the end all be all of coding morality.
And well after. Look at Buddhism.
If you took it to mean I saw Christianity as the only societal solution to a moral code, I should have communicated better. I think Christianity is the best example so far, but there are other religions which are also superior in moral stability to atheistic humanism. I'd put the only one that is worse at Islam, but they're close.
Posted on 11/7/19 at 2:12 pm to Perfect Circle
Moral codes like the one found in Christianity, at least how its practiced today, act like bumpers in a bowling alley. They prevent gutter balls. Sure, some people are skilled enough not to need them but most of the population isn't.
Dont be surprised when you remove bumpers that the average score drops drastically.
Dont be surprised when you remove bumpers that the average score drops drastically.
Posted on 11/7/19 at 2:12 pm to theronswanson
(no message)
This post was edited on 1/11/21 at 2:04 am
Posted on 11/7/19 at 2:13 pm to Perfect Circle
quote:
Stunning Admission By Renowned Atheist; Decline of Christianity is Hurting Society
This is something I've long argued.
When you remove the mysticism from it any religion is nothing more than a philosophical framework for accepted and shunned behaviors both in society and when alone. When religion was removed from schools no other philosophy was put in to fill the gap for children. So we went from having at least daily reaffirmations of a philosophical structure of not just right and wrong but the penalties and benefits associated therewith to more and more people putting into place their increasingly individualized philosophies.
As a society we forget the lessons of the past after around 2-3 generations (while technically a generation is considered 30 years, I consider more closer to 20 as the time period is defined as "the average period during which children are born, grow up, become adults and begin to have children of their own"). Religion was removed from public schools ~1963. Advance that 30 years and we hit 1993, another 30 and here we are (approximately).
But why is this bad? Generally speaking, the more homogeneous a society is in its behavioral philosophies, the less conflict you'll have within that society. Conversely, the more spread out a society's beliefs on behavioral philosophies then the more likely there is to be conflict within that society.
Look at Japan, for instance. They don't have religion in their schools but they don't have the rampant violence and disrespect we have in ours. What's the difference?
Instead of religion they have a system set up around self-responsibility and respect. For instance, Japanese students don’t take any exams until they reach 10yrs old (instead they take small tests). They believe the goal for the first 3 years of school should not be to judge the child’s knowledge or learning, but to instead establish good manners and to develop their character. They are taught to respect other people and to be gentle to animals/nature. They also taught to be generous, compassionate and empathetic. Besides this, pupils are taught qualities like grit, self-control, and given a sense justice.
Fun fact: most Japanese schools do not employ janitors. Why? Because the students clean the schools themselves (the classrooms, the cafeteria, even the bathrooms). They believe that teaching the kids to clean their school teaches them to treat one another with respect and it infuses a sense of responsibility.
So while we don't necessarily need religion in schools, the removal of it left a vacuum that was filled with something far less adequate and that is in part why we see such a major degradation in our schools and in student behavior in general when compared to how those things were when religion was still allowed in schools.
This post was edited on 11/7/19 at 2:23 pm
Posted on 11/7/19 at 2:17 pm to Bard
quote:
So while we don't necessarily need religion in schools, the removal of it left a vacuum that was filled with something far less adequate and that is in part why we see such a major degradation in our schools and in student behavior in general when compared to how those things were when religion was still allowed in schools.
Bingo.
Posted on 11/7/19 at 2:18 pm to CoachChappy
The fear of divine retribution is not what stops people from murdering each other. That's silly. Catholics have confession for that anyway, if it was a concern.
Empathy and compassion, which are fundamental human emotions but can be reinforced by religion, prevent it.
I'm Catholic and some of the most vile, hypocritical people I know are also of a Christian denomination. Yet, the kindest, most gentle human being I know has been an atheist his entire life. How many times have you seen murderers/gang members with religious tattoos? "Only God Can Judge Me", praying hands, crucifixes, and the like.
It's all subjective of the individual.
Empathy and compassion, which are fundamental human emotions but can be reinforced by religion, prevent it.
I'm Catholic and some of the most vile, hypocritical people I know are also of a Christian denomination. Yet, the kindest, most gentle human being I know has been an atheist his entire life. How many times have you seen murderers/gang members with religious tattoos? "Only God Can Judge Me", praying hands, crucifixes, and the like.
It's all subjective of the individual.
Posted on 11/7/19 at 2:21 pm to Jon Ham
quote:Humans are capable of knowing right from wrong because we're made in the image of God with His moral law written on our hearts. My worldview can account for this.
If humans are incapable of looking within to know what is right and what is wrong, then how do humans know that what religion tells us is “right?”
In a worldview that denies God, morality can only exist in the minds of the individual and therefore it can't be a transcendent truth or reality that all people are accountable to or can judge their own moral standards by.
If you believe that humans can look within to know right and wrong without the Biblical God, then you have to agree that each human can look within and find their own version of moral truth.
If every person can have their own version of moral truth then there cannot objectively be one right or one wrong version of morality that exists for humanity. And without an objectively right standard of morality, each individual moral standard is neither right nor wrong, just a different interpretation for each individual, meaning that they are all equally valid to one another. That means Hitler's moral standard that he received by looking within is equal in validity to Gandhi's moral standard.
This reduces morality to nothing more than a convention determined by each individual, or as I and others like to say, a preference rather than a actual moral ought.
This post was edited on 11/7/19 at 2:52 pm
Posted on 11/7/19 at 2:28 pm to BuckyCheese
quote:
I'm not religious at all but have always understood the teachings of the church were necessary for an ordered society
some need it. some don't.
Posted on 11/7/19 at 2:30 pm to SidewalkDawg
quote:That's precisely my point. If morality is nothing more than an accepted social contract, then that means any accepted social contract is as valid as any other accepted social contract. There are many societies that have their own versions, after all. How do we determine which one is "right"? We can't, because "right" requires a standard to judge by, and if our only standard is whatever society accepts, then the standard can change all the time, meaning you have no ultimate basis to condemn the actions of a society who adheres to one standard (even if it's morally evil in our current estimation) because they were acting in accordance with their particular societal moral standard at that time.
Atheists recognize that morality is nothing more than accepted social contracts.
quote:Do we know what makes a "good" society? "Good" has to be measured against a standard and you've just admitted that such a standard is based on what is accepted by societal contract. How do you know what's really "good" in an ultimate sense if each society dictates their own version of what is "good"? Don't you have to have a transcendent moral standard in order to even know what is objectively "good" in order to know if our current society's standard is falling short? Same for the term "successful".
Most of what dictates those social morals is time tested. We know what makes good society. Cooperation, Empathy, and Compassion are far more likely to lead to successful civilization than Murder, Haterd, and Violence.
Cooperation, empathy, and compassion are things that are beneficial to a society if they want a society that those things benefit. What about societies that accept individualism, apathy, and indifference towards each other?
quote:I have a justification for why people can "know" these things as well as for having an objective moral standard that can call those things "good", but atheism can't provide such a thing.
It doesn't take a Religious experience to know these things.
Atheists can certainly be what we consider "moral", but they have no basis for requiring morality nor for judging actions as objectively moral or immoral.
quote:I'm glad you can see this. It's because Christianity has a transcendent moral standard that can be used to measure actions and either praise them as moral or condemn them as immoral.
Although, admittedly Christianity is one of the single best vehicles of the kind of morals that lead to successful civilizations. I love Christians and thank them for creating the greatest society ever known.
Posted on 11/7/19 at 2:31 pm to Bard
quote:
Look at Japan, for instance. They don't have religion in their schools but they don't have the rampant violence and disrespect we have in ours. What's the difference?
Was this the case in the early 20th century or is it a recent thing? During that time and before they didn't have a problem with rampant violence or disrespect against others they felt were inferior to them.
Posted on 11/7/19 at 2:32 pm to ShortyRob
quote:That's not a rational response.
False
You're so fricking stupid
Posted on 11/7/19 at 2:32 pm to bmy
quote:While I could provide a justification for the passage within my worldview, I'd like to ask you what your basis is for calling that evil or immoral?
2Kings 2:23
Posted on 11/7/19 at 2:35 pm to Bard
quote:
When religion was removed from schools no other philosophy was put in to fill the gap for children.
I would argue that the removal of Christianity from our schools was replaced with Secular Humanism.
Posted on 11/7/19 at 2:40 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
Humans are capable of knowing right from wrong because we're made in the image of God with His moral law written on our hearts. My worldview can account for this. In a worldview that denies God, morality can only exist in the minds of the individual and therefore it can't be a transcendent truth or reality that all people are accountable to or can judge their own moral standards by. If you believe that humans can looking within to know right and wrong without the Biblical God, then you have to agree that each human can look within and find their own version of moral truth. If every person can have their own version of moral truth then there cannot objectively one right or one wrong version of morality that exists for humanity. And without an objectively right standard of morality, each individual moral standard is neither right nor wrong, just a different interpretation for each individual, meaning that they are all equally valid to one another. That means Hitler's moral standard that he received by looking within is equal in validity to Gandhi's moral standard. This reduces morality to nothing more than a convention determined by each individual, or as I and others like to say, a preference rather than a actual moral ought.
These are the laws in the bible punishable by death:
Murder
Adultery
Bestiality
Rape of a betrothed virgin
Male-male sexual intercourse
One man picked up sticks on the Sabbath, he was taken into custody because a punishment was not known. The LORD told Moses that the man in custody must be killed. This particular crime and punishment is isolated case law.
The man and woman when a man meets a betrothed woman in town and sleeps with her. But if it is a case of rape where out in the country she called for help and no one heard, the death penalty only applies to the man
A woman who is found not to have been a virgin on the night of her wedding
Worshiping other gods
Witchcraft
Taking the LORD's name in vain or cursing his name
Cursing a parent
Kidnapping
Rebellion against parents
Having a spirit of divination
Most would agree that most of these are not capital offences but there was a time when there were. We have grown morally in the west to accept that stoning gays to death is barbaric. Where does this growth over time come from? We are not locked into beliefs or laws on morality that existed 1000's of years ago. We evolve (or de-volve as is the case with some cultures and in the opinion of some) based on many factors. So how can you suggest moral truth is objective?
Posted on 11/7/19 at 2:41 pm to ThuperThumpin
quote:
These are the laws in the bible punishable by death:
Yes, in the old testament. The new testament clearly has a significantly different take.
Posted on 11/7/19 at 2:42 pm to theronswanson
quote:
Atheists do not need Christianity to know that things like murder and rape are bad. I want to live in a peaceful society and be safe from harm because I am a rational human being with a conscience.
Lulz
That's just not the way this works. You can have your nice little feelings all you want, only because you live in a society surrounded by Christians
Ask good husbands, fathers, citizens in China, Russia, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Syria, etc if good thoughts alone keep them safe? Hint: It Doesn't
The only place on Earth where atheists don't live in fear are in the nation states that were founded on Christian beliefs, and that also allowed them to thrive without fear of repercussions
Yet few of them will admit to their naivete on this matter
Posted on 11/7/19 at 2:44 pm to CoachChappy
quote:
One question I have always wanted to ask a real atheist is: What keeps you in line? Most crimes go unsolved. What keeps you from murdering someone who aggravates you?
Murder is against the law. The risk far outweighs the reward.
Posted on 11/7/19 at 2:45 pm to CoachChappy
quote:
What keeps you in line? Most crimes go unsolved. What keeps you from murdering someone who aggravates you?
The social contract, which if abided by allows for subjective happiness within western society as currently constructed. Additionally, random acts of violence for the sake of violence serve no real evolutionary advantage and are more likely to hurt my chances of propagating the species.
Posted on 11/7/19 at 2:49 pm to tiggerthetooth
quote:
Yes, in the old testament. The new testament clearly has a significantly different take.
Who knew objective moral standards could change.
Page 5 of 19
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News