Atheism And Moral Progress

[Sparko]

I love it...


Don't look now, but you may be learning, paduan...

Nope. basically we just agree about how wrong Jim is. We still disagree on the nature of morality. I believe it is objective and you don't. But at least we are consistent on our "theory" - Jim seems to want it both ways and can't understand the contradiction he is putting forth.

[Sparko]

No, you are not getting the point, seer. A peaceful society is a moral good because that is ultimately what morals are all about, i.e. the good of the people. In other words, morals have a relative purpose to human beings, they serve to promote the best interests of people, their lives, their survival. Morality for you, on the other hand , serves no purpose to humanity, it's simply the arbitrary law of a god. If I ask you the same question, you will answer it's moral simply because "god says so." Actually it's kind of a silly question if you stop and think about it. "why is a peaceful society good?" Think about it!

If the Nazis had won WW2, and controlled the world, their society would be peaceful. I guess you think Nazi society is good?

[carpedm9587]

Nope. basically we just agree about how wrong Jim is. We still disagree on the nature of morality. I believe it is objective and you don't.

Correct. So we also agree that we disagree...

But at least we are consistent on our "theory" - Jim seems to want it both ways and can't understand the contradiction he is putting forth.

[Tassman]

That us just stupid Tass, I have showed you a number of studies that clearly shows that devote religious people are generally happier, more confident, at peace and hopeful. So if your secular countries did become more religious they would be even more happier. Never mind the fact that many of these countries are not that diverse. Which brings its own problems.

Yet the most Christian country in the Western world, i.e. the USA, does not rank highly on the Human Development and Happiness Indices. The more secular countries do.

That is a bold faced lie Tass, for instance I made clear on the issue of homosexuality the Biblical texts are quite clear. No interpretation is needed. And that those who are Biblically literate fall on my side of the debate, it is the Biblically illiterate who disagree.

Many other Christians disagree and view homosexuality in keeping with the psychiatric assessment of it, namely that it is a normal variant of human sexuality.

[Roy]

If the Nazis had won WW2, and controlled the world, their society would be peaceful.

Do you think peacefulness includes mobs of vigilantes destroying shops and houses, burning churches and synagogues, and assaulting and murdering innocent people? Or are you just ignorant of what Nazis do in areas they control?

[seer]

Yet the most Christian country in the Western world, i.e. the USA, does not rank highly on the Human Development and Happiness Indices. The more secular countries do.

You are mainly speaking of "secular" countries that do not have the diversity that we do, and that has its own problems. As countries like Sweden and Germany are finding out. So, again, even your secular countries would be happier if they were more religious.

Many other Christians disagree and view homosexuality in keeping with the psychiatric assessment of it, namely that it is a normal variant of human sexuality.

But that has nothing to do with what Scripture says, so your whole "interpretation" argument is pure BS...

[seer]

Do you think peacefulness includes mobs of vigilantes destroying shops and houses, burning churches and synagogues, and assaulting and murdering innocent people? Or are you just ignorant of what Nazis do in areas they control?

"Yes, once they remove the "unwanted" or "different" or "dissenter" they will have a more homogeneous and like minded society. China did a pretty good job of it with Mao's Cultural revolution.

[Sparko]

Do you think peacefulness includes mobs of vigilantes destroying shops and houses, burning churches and synagogues, and assaulting and murdering innocent people? Or are you just ignorant of what Nazis do in areas they control?

Talking about the actual Nazis, not the fascist morons who claim to be Nazis today (or antifa). The Nazis were very good at controlling the population. If they had won and the world was Nazi, once they had defeated any resistance and eliminate the Jews and non-Aryans, they would have had a very peaceful society. Probably not much crime when the punishment could be being sentenced to the gas chambers or sent for experimentation. Much like the USSR. They had a very peaceful society. Totalitarianism tends to be peaceful because the alternative is being imprisoned or killed.

So if the "goal" of morality is peace, totalitarianism is just as good as any way to get there, right? The ends justify the means and all that.

[JimL]

Nope. basically we just agree about how wrong Jim is. We still disagree on the nature of morality. I believe it is objective and you don't. But at least we are consistent on our "theory" - Jim seems to want it both ways and can't understand the contradiction he is putting forth.

Correct, I believe that the morals which serve the best interests of society do so whether anyone agrees to that or not. Any one, unreasonable, individual, could come to the conclusion that theft is not immoral, not harmful to society as a whole, but the reasonable person understands that to be wrong thinking. Therefore theft would be immoral regardless of what any one particular person or group of people believes. That's where the adage "do unto others........." comes in when applying it to groups of people, or distinct societies, as opposed to distinct individuals. It's the same principle.

[Sparko]

Correct, I believe that the morals which serve the best interests of society do so whether anyone agrees to that or not. Any one, unreasonable, individual, could come to the conclusion that theft is not immoral, not harmful to society as a whole, but the reasonable person understands that to be wrong thinking. Therefore theft would be immoral regardless of what any one particular person or group of people believes. That's where the adage "do unto others........." comes in when applying it to groups of people, or distinct societies, as opposed to distinct individuals. It's the same principle.

Yet if everyone thought theft was good then that means nobody would think it was wrong. Except you of course. It appears that what you think is moral or immoral, you believe it the only correct view. Or can you give me an example of something you believe to be moral but is actually immoral?

[JimL]

Yet if everyone thought theft was good then that means nobody would think it was wrong. Except you of course. It appears that what you think is moral or immoral, you believe it the only correct view. Or can you give me an example of something you believe to be moral but is actually immoral?

As I have try to make you understand, MORALITY ISN'T ABOUT WHAT I, OR WHAT YOU, OR WHAT ANYONE ELSE MIGHT THINK. Sure, most likely we are going to agree on what is good, on what is in our best interests as a member of human society, but what is in the best interests of human society isn't necessarily dependent upon what we think. Your belief, or even a groups belief, that theft being immoral and illegal is not in the best interests of society doesn't make so, it just makes your belief, an ignorant belief. Theft being immoral and illegal is a benefit to society regardless of whether you believe it or not.

[Sparko]

As I have try to make you understand, MORALITY ISN'T ABOUT WHAT I, OR WHAT YOU, OR WHAT ANYONE ELSE MIGHT THINK. Sure, most likely we are going to agree on what is good, on what is in our best interests as a member of human society, but what is in the best interests of human society isn't necessarily dependent upon what we think. Your belief, or even a groups belief, that theft being immoral and illegal is not in the best interests of society doesn't make so, it just makes your belief, an ignorant belief. Theft being immoral and illegal is a benefit to society regardless of whether you believe it or not.

And you aren't getting the point that if nobody thinks something is "moral" how are we supposed to know it is moral unless someone in authority tells us?

You seem to think that even if everyone in the world thought theft was moral, it would still be immoral. But if nobody believed it was immoral, how would they know it was immoral? If there are things that people think are moral but actually are immoral, then you, as a human being, should be able to tell me something that you think is moral but actually isn't. And then explain how you know it is actually immoral even though you think it is moral.

[Tassman]

You are mainly speaking of "secular" countries that do not have the diversity that we do, and that has its own problems. As countries like Sweden and Germany are finding out. So, again, even your secular countries would be happier if they were more religious.

Neither secular Sweden nor Germany have anything approaching the social disconnect and gross economic inequity, violence and incarceration rates of the USA. Clearly, religion does not make populations happier. You only have to look at the more religious countries around the world to see that.

But that has nothing to do with what Scripture says, so your whole "interpretation" argument is pure BS..

You mean what scripture says in your opinion. You are demonstrating one of the greatest problems with religious belief. There can be no way to resolve conflicts about moral issues when differing interpretations of scripture are mutually exclusive. You're basically left with an: "I'm right and you're wrong" argument.

[JimL]

And you aren't getting the point that if nobody thinks something is "moral" how are we supposed to know it is moral unless someone in authority tells us?

You seem to think that even if everyone in the world thought theft was moral, it would still be immoral. But if nobody believed it was immoral, how would they know it was immoral? If there are things that people think are moral but actually are immoral, then you, as a human being, should be able to tell me something that you think is moral but actually isn't. And then explain how you know it is actually immoral even though you think it is moral.

Yes, well that seems to be your problem, like seer, you don't see reasons why a thing is immoral, behaviors are only immoral to you because someone in authority "says so." So, why does god "say so"?

[Roy]

Talking about the actual Nazis, not the fascist morons who claim to be Nazis today (or antifa). The Nazis were very good at controlling the population. If they had won and the world was Nazi, once they had defeated any resistance and eliminate the Jews and non-Aryans, they would have had a very peaceful society. Probably not much crime when the punishment could be being sentenced to the gas chambers or sent for experimentation. Much like the USSR. They had a very peaceful society. Totalitarianism tends to be peaceful because the alternative is being imprisoned or killed.

I was also talking about the actual Nazis, specifically about Kristallnacht, which you don't seem to have recognised. If the Nazis were good at controlling the population, it was via state-sanctioned violence, not via a peaceful society.

If the Nazis had won WWII and controlled the world, society would have been extremely violent while they tried to eliminate Jews and non-Aryans.

As for totalitarianism tending to be peaceful, such peace as exists tends to be short-lived and followed by extremely brutal civil war. I invite you to look at totalitarian societies that exist today, and see how peaceful they are compared to Western democracies:

Saudi Arabia
The Sudan
North Korea
Syria
Equatorial Guinea
Eritrea