|
Post by Isapop on Feb 9, 2018 21:39:44 GMT
Accepting that, we could just substitute a phrase like "majority preferential judgments about behavior" for "morality", but it wouldn't affect a discussion of whether those behaviors are more commonly found in theists than atheists. (You'll at least agree with that , I hope).
Why would you insert the word "majority" there? Because the behaviors we're talking about (act honestly, don't act harmfully) are behaviors that (I assume) the majority prefers. And without that word the question becomes meaningless since everyone is acting on SOME preference, so that alone can't be more common among one group than another.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Feb 9, 2018 21:50:23 GMT
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL .....WOW just wow! It makes sense you would think that funny since you are taking it seriously. Pardon me! So you were joking when you said that?
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Feb 9, 2018 22:07:16 GMT
tpfkar I'm more interested in the foundation of where our morality comes from. The theist believes that basic morality is "baked" into the fabric of reality. It's objective truth (e.g. it's OBJECTIVELY wrong to murder someone). The atheist believes... what, exactly? What does morality/ethics come down to? How you personally feel about something? How the majority of people feel about something? What is it based on? Is there ANY objectivity to it? If so, how? The morality "baked" into the fabric of reality is pretty savage. But the bigger problem is that the mythical "objective" story that you construct your "morality" from is distinctly bestial and depraved. And people who follow it can and often do suppress and subvert their human empathy in the name of a lot of the nasty it contains. Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 10, 2018 0:09:06 GMT
tpfkar I'm more interested in the foundation of where our morality comes from. The theist believes that basic morality is "baked" into the fabric of reality. It's objective truth (e.g. it's OBJECTIVELY wrong to murder someone). The atheist believes... what, exactly? What does morality/ethics come down to? How you personally feel about something? How the majority of people feel about something? What is it based on? Is there ANY objectivity to it? If so, how? The morality "baked" into the fabric of reality is pretty savage. But the bigger problem is that the mythical "objective" story that you construct your "morality" from is distinctly bestial and depraved. And people who follow it can and often do suppress and subvert their human empathy in the name of a lot of the nasty it contains. Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius.I'm sorry that they hurt you, Cupcakez.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Feb 10, 2018 0:19:39 GMT
tpfkar The morality "baked" into the fabric of reality is pretty savage. But the bigger problem is that the mythical "objective" story that you construct your "morality" from is distinctly bestial and depraved. And people who follow it can and often do suppress and subvert their human empathy in the name of a lot of the nasty it contains. Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius.I'm sorry that they hurt you, Cupcakez. I'm sorry, but not surprised that your experiences have given you such ideas, zbop. The Silence of the Lambs
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 10, 2018 0:30:56 GMT
tpfkar I'm sorry that they hurt you, Cupcakez. I'm sorry, but not surprised that your experiences have given you such ideas, zbop. The Silence of the Lambs
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Feb 10, 2018 0:43:10 GMT
tpfkar You poor dudes, thinking weak smack covers up instead of glaringly highlights your inability to reconcile the silly you've bought into. in the know
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 10, 2018 0:53:12 GMT
tpfkar You poor dudes, thinking weak smack covers up instead of glaringly highlights your inability to reconcile the silly you've bought into. in the knowSUPA HOT CUPCAKEZ AT IT AGAIN! Spittin' flame afta flame. Can't be stopped!
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Feb 10, 2018 1:00:39 GMT
tpfkar You poor dudes, thinking weak smack covers up instead of glaringly highlights your inability to reconcile the silly you've bought into. in the knowSUPA HOT CUPCAKEZ AT IT AGAIN! Spittin' flame afta flame. Can't be stopped! What a blow! You keep this up, I might end up "butthurt" against really dumb people. He was clearly burned by the church at some point.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 10, 2018 1:02:15 GMT
Broken Cupcakez, moving in for the kill!
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Feb 10, 2018 1:06:26 GMT
tpfkar Broken Cupcakez, moving in for the kill! Let's see how many you've got! The morality "baked" into the fabric of reality is pretty savage. But the bigger problem is that the mythical "objective" story that you construct your "morality" from is distinctly bestial and depraved. And people who follow it can and often do suppress and subvert their human empathy in the name of a lot of the nasty it contains. Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 10, 2018 1:13:28 GMT
tpfkar Broken Cupcakez, moving in for the kill! The morality "baked" into the fabric of reality is pretty savage. But the bigger problem is that the mythical "objective" story that you construct your "morality" from is distinctly bestial and depraved. And people who follow it can and often do suppress and subvert their human empathy in the name of a lot of the nasty it contains. Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Feb 10, 2018 1:14:33 GMT
tpfkar The morality "baked" into the fabric of reality is pretty savage. But the bigger problem is that the mythical "objective" story that you construct your "morality" from is distinctly bestial and depraved. And people who follow it can and often do suppress and subvert their human empathy in the name of a lot of the nasty it contains. Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius. Whack-An-Aggrieved-Projector is grand stuff! The morality "baked" into the fabric of reality is pretty savage. But the bigger problem is that the mythical "objective" story that you construct your "morality" from is distinctly bestial and depraved. And people who follow it can and often do suppress and subvert their human empathy in the name of a lot of the nasty it contains. Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 10, 2018 1:18:58 GMT
tpfkar The morality "baked" into the fabric of reality is pretty savage. But the bigger problem is that the mythical "objective" story that you construct your "morality" from is distinctly bestial and depraved. And people who follow it can and often do suppress and subvert their human empathy in the name of a lot of the nasty it contains. Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Feb 10, 2018 1:19:56 GMT
tpfkar Whack! The morality "baked" into the fabric of reality is pretty savage. But the bigger problem is that the mythical "objective" story that you construct your "morality" from is distinctly bestial and depraved. And people who follow it can and often do suppress and subvert their human empathy in the name of a lot of the nasty it contains. Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Feb 10, 2018 3:02:55 GMT
Eva Yojimbo 1. I've read them before. This isn't a new topic on the board 2. the article was too long to get to when factoring in lack of interest in the article. I have no issues with the examples they present except to say that they will be limited to the what covers both groups and the larger group already acknowledged problems with some of their followers and the other group barely acknowledges they are a group. I don;t need a study to determine my level of morality wit others anyway. What does that prove or solve if I'm comfortable with fitting into a Scriptural definition of morality? The answer is I don't and I think my first comment on it should be satisfactory in order to even avoid a conflict on this matter. The bolded part here: ... is garbage, not on the basis of it being true, let's assume that it is, but it's an argument no one brings up in the first place. It's built on a paranoia of what religious people think of the atheist (Which is based largely on the worst parts rather than the whole which should sound familiar on this board.) when there's no reason to care what a religious person thinks of the atheist. Assume that we think you are fine additions to society that don;t live up to scriptural standards of righteousness, shrug that notion off, & live happily ever after. What a religious organization does with their own is not the problem of anyone outside of the group, but maybe they address wickedness among the religious although some here think it's immoral to keep the religious organization clean too so that may be another criteria that has distinct differences in morality. 1. You haven't read THIS one before, and yet you were speculating on what was in it without reading it. There's no excuse for that level of blatant ignorance. 2. LOL, 1300 words, too long. At an average reading speed it's a 4-minute read. It probably took you that long to type the post! For a more advanced reader it's perhaps a 2-minute read, including the ability to quickly scan over the less relevant parts. The rest of this post is just rambling incoherence. I can't make heads or tails out of that first paragraph/sentence. Second paragraph is irrelevant; no studies can say anything about YOU in particular unless YOU in particular are (one of) the subject(s). The point is to show that the rampant mistrust of atheists and rampant belief that religion makes people more moral is blatantly false. You claim that quoted part is "garbage" but another thing the article shows (via links to studies) is that atheists are among the least trusted groups out there, and religious believers DO believe they're more moral than they actually are; so clearly that claim is not "garbage" as it's directly relevant to what the article is discussing! So your claim that it's "paranoia of what religious people think of atheists" is the actual "garbage" claim; it's not paranoia, the data bears it out.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Feb 10, 2018 3:11:39 GMT
Why would you insert the word "majority" there? Because the behaviors we're talking about (act honestly, don't act harmfully) are behaviors that (I assume) the majority prefers. And without that word the question becomes meaningless since everyone is acting on SOME preference, so that alone can't be more common among one group than another. Hence why I said that it's impossible to take seriously any study that suggests a quantification of "moralness," because that evidences a very fundamental misunderstanding of what morality/ethics is. Taking a majority or consensus opinion of just what behavior is morally preferred and attempting to make that morality period is completely bogus and biased, and it implies the argumentum ad populum fallacy. It does a great disservice to helping anyone understand what morality is.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Feb 10, 2018 3:16:11 GMT
I'm more interested in the foundation of where our morality comes from. The theist believes that basic morality is "baked" into the fabric of reality. It's objective truth (e.g. it's OBJECTIVELY wrong to murder someone). The atheist believes... what, exactly? What does morality/ethics come down to? How you personally feel about something? How the majority of people feel about something? What is it based on? Is there ANY objectivity to it? If so, how? I can't speak for all atheists--I'm sure many atheists believe that morality is objective and "'baked' into the fabric of reality" without the need for God to do it--but it's always seemed obvious to me that morality is ultimately subjective, and at best relative (relative in regards to what many people subjectively think). People do things, and other people feel a certain way about whether those actions are "good" or "bad," and, as Shakespeare-via-Hamlet said, nothing is good or bad but thinking makes it so; and if it requires thought in order to make something good or bad, then that's subjective by definition (subjective meaning "things that only exist in the mind"). The only thing "objective" about morality is that certain ethical systems will lead to certain "worlds" in which certain behaviors are more common than others. Because the majority will prefer those worlds where there's a lower probability of them being murdered, robbed, raped, etc., then that's why most everyone agrees that those actions are immoral; but it's also obvious that there are many issues on which there is NOT almost universal agreement: war, abortion, gun laws, assisted suicide, etc. If morality was objective in the same way the sun's existence was, then nobody would disagree about what was/wasn't moral; we disagree precisely because it ultimately comes down to how people feel about stuff.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Feb 10, 2018 3:37:00 GMT
Because the behaviors we're talking about (act honestly, don't act harmfully) are behaviors that (I assume) the majority prefers. And without that word the question becomes meaningless since everyone is acting on SOME preference, so that alone can't be more common among one group than another. Hence why I said that it's impossible to take seriously any study that suggests a quantification of "moralness," because that evidences a very fundamental misunderstanding of what morality/ethics is. Taking a majority or consensus opinion of just what behavior is morally preferred and attempting to make that morality period is completely bogus and biased, and it implies the argumentum ad populum fallacy. It does a great disservice to helping anyone understand what morality is. I don't think that's what the article/studies are doing. I think they're just taking certain actions for which there is wide agreement on their classification as "moral" and studying whether or not the religious take these actions more so than atheists. The article doesn't address the issue of what morality is, it just assumes that most would classify the actions as moral; I don't see where it's suggesting (beyond the aforementioned assumption) that those actions are "moral period."
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Feb 10, 2018 4:08:38 GMT
Hence why I said that it's impossible to take seriously any study that suggests a quantification of "moralness," because that evidences a very fundamental misunderstanding of what morality/ethics is. Taking a majority or consensus opinion of just what behavior is morally preferred and attempting to make that morality period is completely bogus and biased, and it implies the argumentum ad populum fallacy. It does a great disservice to helping anyone understand what morality is. I don't think that's what the article/studies are doing. I think they're just taking certain actions for which there is wide agreement on their classification as "moral" and studying whether or not the religious take these actions more so than atheists. The article doesn't address the issue of what morality is, it just assumes that most would classify the actions as moral; I don't see where it's suggesting (beyond the aforementioned assumption) that those actions are "moral period." "Most would classify these particular things as moral" is promoting a misconception of what morality is. Morality isn't any particular stances. If you're just going to ask if atheists are more or less likely to agree with particular stances, you need to spell out the stances. And then you can survey atheists to see what they say, and you can also survey predictions about what atheists would or wouldn't agree with, and then see just how accurate those predictions are.
|
|