Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You're kinda still reasoning like one of those type of believers that believe they have an obligation to change save someone. I can see them using the hot stove analogy.
Is there a problem with my reasoning or am I just not using words you like?
Deity vs non-deity is the wrong binary. One vs many is better.
Maoism is a governing system organized around ONE person. Democracy is a governing system organized around MANY people. Islam is a religion organized around ONE deity. Hinduism is a religion organized around MANY deities.
Pluralism matters more than epistemology.
What really matters is the idea and the fact that people follow and idea and lose the ability to reason. Or reason within an echo chamber that only reinforces the erroneous views that go along with the idea.
This question is something I've always wondered about. My thoughts on it have changed over time. The question is essentially:
If you believe that religion is morally wrong, do you have an obligation to fight against it?
If you saw a mugging happening in the street and you had the means to help, I would think you should. In the same way, if you see someone teaching information that you know can lead to dangerous behavior, it seems you may be obligated to do something?
The way my personal views on it have changed over time is I used to spend a lot of time arguing against religion, but the more I did, the more I realized that there's not a single target you're arguing against. Everyone has their own personal religion, and very often their beliefs are pretty benign. For example, they may take the Bible as metaphoric or only take seriously the verses they like. The result being I end up spending a lot of time fighting something that seems relatively inconsequential.
I'm curious what all of your takes on this are.
I'm not sure where your reasoning comes from. Religion is illogical. But religious belief in itself does not cause dangerous behavior. We as humans have control over our actions. Morality is separate from religion. That's why atheists can be moral, religious people can be immoral, and the converse can also be true. Most of time I think religion is harmless. It's just a waste of time and it devalues the role of human effort in achieving their own destiny.
If your morality is subjective then there’s no obligation to intervene.
The mugging is just “survival of the fittest” playing out in an indifferent, meaningless universe.
Your ignorance about how morality works is amusing.
If your morality is subjective then there’s no obligation to intervene.
The mugging is just “survival of the fittest” playing out in an indifferent, meaningless universe.
You don't get it. when there is only us it becomes the only meaning there is. Help each other through the transition.
I disagree. If I see a child reaching to touch a hot stove I will feel a moral obligation to stop them from doing that. I don't think moral objectivity is necessary at all for this. A sadist might enjoy watching the child touch the stove.
I purposefully phrased everything I said acknowledging the subjectivity of it. I figured a lot of the people active in the atheist forum would share a similar disposition on the morals of this topic.
People decide which morals to bind to and which ones not to. That is what makes is subjective and a choice. Now reacting to somebody getting hurt may not necessarily be moral obligation but rather instinct or compulsion.
Morality usually has some logical or some superstitious basis. Russell wrote that the two most important things in life are kindliness and intelligence, and I try to go with that. But intelligence needs to include emotional intelligence, empathy mainly. To try to see things from other peoples' perspective and practice compassion and forgiveness.
The struggle is to find a balance between appropriate self-esteem and the opposite, self-centeredness. Not always an easy task.
Is there a problem with my reasoning or am I just not using words you like?
Both. The analogy places you as the adult and the other person as a child about to injure himself. I don't think that's a good place to start from. I also don't like when people frame their viewpoint as some ultimate truth. It looks the same way to you as it does to me. To someone of my old group, they are even more convinced of their rightness than you or I could ever manage. That is also a bad place to start. Better that we all just discuss our idea and may the best one win.
You don't get it. when there is only us it becomes the only meaning there is. Help each other through the transition.
We’ve evolved to believe things like that. We can make up our own ideas about meaning but there is no actual meaning to our lives. We’ve won the cosmic lottery and are fortunate to get the opportunity to consciously experience our universe, but what difference does any of it make in the end?
People decide which morals to bind to and which ones not to. That is what makes is subjective and a choice. Now reacting to somebody getting hurt may not necessarily be moral obligation but rather instinct or compulsion.
Correct, morality is not one thing, it is both an evolved instinct that allows us to live in groups and also a set of cultural rules.
Unfortunately this leads us to treat those not in our groups differently, based on color, race, gender, religion, nationality, football team, etc.
Fortunately more people are learning we are all part of one group, people, and everyone should be treated the same.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
