• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

the golden rule for this life

Darkstorn

This shows how unique i am.
Basically the difference is how we see humanity.

Possibly. I just don't think this has been established in any rational way.

For me your rational arguement for Humanity is the same as your arguement for a post-scarcity society, extremely hypothetical.

My argument for humanity is merely this: Either we die out eventually through our own collective stupidity, or we work for a better future, and MAYBE evolve towards a more stable state for our species. And by extension that WOULD imply a natural progression towards a post-scarcity society. But again; We might die off before it happens.

It's not AS hypothetical as you seem to reduce it to. It's not possible with our current level of technology and societal evolution. Post-scarcity can be reduced to this: It is simply more efficient. And there is no practical reason not to strive for maximum efficiency in all things: It is human nature to want to make things easier for oneself, and potentially those around you.

MY actual opinion about it is this: We are probably too stupid and will kill ourselves before any noticeable improvement.

I doubt we could ever come to an agreement.

Fair enough. I think that's just selling both of us short. Make me a rational argument that is convincing and it has ALL the prerequisites for me to potentially agree with it.

And i expected the same from you.
 

bobhikes

Nondetermined
Premium Member
Possibly. I just don't think this has been established in any rational way.



My argument for humanity is merely this: Either we die out eventually through our own collective stupidity, or we work for a better future, and MAYBE evolve towards a more stable state for our species. And by extension that WOULD imply a natural progression towards a post-scarcity society. But again; We might die off before it happens.

It's not AS hypothetical as you seem to reduce it to. It's not possible with our current level of technology and societal evolution. Post-scarcity can be reduced to this: It is simply more efficient. And there is no practical reason not to strive for maximum efficiency in all things: It is human nature to want to make things easier for oneself, and potentially those around you.

MY actual opinion about it is this: We are probably too stupid and will kill ourselves before any noticeable improvement.



Fair enough. I think that's just selling both of us short. Make me a rational argument that is convincing and it has ALL the prerequisites for me to potentially agree with it.

And i expected the same from you.

You may think I am running away, but I see our differences as to Great to overcome. Its also not that important to me, as you say it is hypothetical now and we need to work towards it.
 

Darkstorn

This shows how unique i am.
You may think I am running away, but I see our differences as to Great to overcome.

I still don't think it's been established that we're actually that different. I feel there's instead a misunderstanding here somewhere.

Like i say: No matter who you are, or when you are, or where you are: If you make a rational, logical argument that either holds to its internal logic, or has enough evidence to support the claim, i will accept it. Plain and simple.

If there's a difference, it might be arising from this. You don't agree?

Its also not that important to me, as you say it is hypothetical now and we need to work towards it.

True, but i was talking about things other than the hypothetical as well. Such as the rationality of wants. That is not hypothetical. Those are observations of reality.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
It's puzzling, mind boggling, and somewhat alarming that people need god, religion, and an afterlife or else their is no "moral gate" holding them back from doing heinous and terrible deeds.
The problem with that is that sort of Randian self-centeredness and greed are not things we evolved to display, and a healthy society cannot function or last long without communal cooperation. And, of course, mutual cooperation brings mutual benefits.
Myself, I need no reason beyond "this person is another human being who deserves to be treated with a minimal level of decency and respect." Why do I need any sort of afterlife or god or religion to tell me that is a good way of treating others?
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
Really, what sort of broken or clogged moral compass needs an afterlife and god and all that to know that no one wants to be or likes being treated like crap?
 

bobhikes

Nondetermined
Premium Member
I still don't think it's been established that we're actually that different. I feel there's instead a misunderstanding here somewhere.
Like i say: No matter who you are, or when you are, or where you are: If you make a rational, logical argument that either holds to its internal logic, or has enough evidence to support the claim, i will accept it. Plain and simple.

If there's a difference, it might be arising from this. You don't agree?

All human understanding is based on experiences. People that share similar experiences can communicate fairly well but even the closest of people will at times not be able to understand each other. While I'll agree that an open mind can be changed by logic, emotion and many other things but this is only true if experiences can be share.

I'll give you an example as a teen I grew up with the slang from a another area then where I lived my first encounter in a place to eat. I asked the owner For an Italian Hero with a pop. He looked at me and said there are no hero's here and I don't no where your pop is. So I said hoggie and coke, the store only sold Pepsi and did not know what a hoggie was. I ended up leaving to later understood the problem. I see the same thing with you. I am the teen and you are the owner my hero is your sub and my pop is your pepsi only we don't yet have the experience to understand.
 

FunctionalAtheist

Hammer of Reason
I believe our propensity to treat others fairly, as we would be treated, even kindly is part of our evolution. And it is not unique to humans. Elephants, chimps, many species of birds, in fact the majority of species of vertebrates demonstrate altruistic behavior. Do they do so because they have souls and want to go to an afterlife? They do so because these behaviors are beneficial.

I would also point out that our altruistic tendencies evolved in a PRE-ABUNDANCE world. Before life got easy for humans, we needed each other much more so than we do today in order to survive. In tribal society there is no greater punishment than banishment. Being cast out almost always meant imminent death.

Do unto others...is smart, is necessary for survival in a world of scarcity. That's why we have the tendency. That and it just feels good to help out others.
 
it seems some people are willing to.....
Do unto others as they would have it done unto them
but do not believe in the afterlife

as there is no life after death.....(not my belief)
why not do as you see fit?
every man for himself
take all you can ....give nothing back (Capt. Jack Sparrow)

a pirates life under a pirates code

A person with real character chooses to treat others with respect because it's the right thing to do. If a person is only treating others with respect out of fear of going to hell or because of the benefits of going to heaven then they are just faking it.
 

Thief

Rogue Theologian
A person with real character chooses to treat others with respect because it's the right thing to do. If a person is only treating others with respect out of fear of going to hell or because of the benefits of going to heaven then they are just faking it.
and if you go around nodding your head to ...who ever....

your respect is as shallow as a ripple in water

I suspect ....a knee down and a bowed head....before God and heaven cannot be faked

you do under stand....that position is complete surrender

even your head
 

Thief

Rogue Theologian
Really, what sort of broken or clogged moral compass needs an afterlife and god and all that to know that no one wants to be or likes being treated like crap?
and the after life would be chaos without Someone in charge

you can see the condition of this life
what if the crap carried on into the next?
 
and if you go around nodding your head to ...who ever....

your respect is as shallow as a ripple in water

I suspect ....a knee down and a bowed head....before God and heaven cannot be faked

you do under stand....that position is complete surrender

even your head

So do you believe you only need to apply the golden rule to people you feel deserve it?

Maybe this is why people don't like Christians they only apply the golden rule to people like themselves. Very ignorant.

Why is the surrender of logic, reason, and certain death a good thing?
 

Altfish

Veteran Member
The problem with most religions is that you have a 'get out of jail' card available.
You can go round murdering and raping; then miraculously see the light and find god; start praying, confessing your sins and accepting JC and you have a pass to heaven.

Non-believers have no such card. If we do something wrong we accountable for it.
 

LukeS

Active Member
The problem with one YOLOers is it makes people more liable to defect in game theoretic politics. Within groups defectors can win, but groups of co-operators beat groups of defectors. Its difficult to act with a sense of justice from "behind a veil of ignorance" and choose impartially, when you think "I can take the money and run" without any deterrent.
 

idav

Being
Premium Member
it seems some people are willing to.....
Do unto others as they would have it done unto them
but do not believe in the afterlife

as there is no life after death.....(not my belief)
why not do as you see fit?
every man for himself
take all you can ....give nothing back (Capt. Jack Sparrow)

a pirates life under a pirates code
A person might see this life more precious and go about less careless knowing this is the only life.
 

Thief

Rogue Theologian
A person might see this life more precious and go about less careless knowing this is the only life.
and that could be a serious error

no chance of surviving the last breath?
not one in billions?
 

Thief

Rogue Theologian
So do you believe you only need to apply the golden rule to people you feel deserve it?

Maybe this is why people don't like Christians they only apply the golden rule to people like themselves. Very ignorant.

Why is the surrender of logic, reason, and certain death a good thing?
I didn't carve the rule in stone....
that happened at least a thousand years before the Carpenter walked
(so said an archaeologist in a science documentary)

I can't take it away
neither can you
 

pearl

Well-Known Member
Atheists, agnostics, and others who do not believe in some magical post-death judgment, live by the basics of the golden rule because it is a fundamental, inherent part of being a human being.

Kohlberg's six stages of moral development
In Stage six (universal ethical principles driven), moral reasoning is based on abstract reasoning using universal ethical principles. Laws are valid only insofar as they are grounded in justice, and a commitment to justice carries with it an obligation to disobey unjust laws. Legal rights are unnecessary, as social contracts are not essential for deontic moral action. Decisions are not reached hypothetically in a conditional way but rather categorically in an absolute way, as in the philosophy of Immanuel Kant.[18] This involves an individual imagining what they would do in another’s shoes, if they believed what that other person imagines to be true.[19] The resulting consensus is the action taken. In this way action is never a means but always an end in itself; the individual acts because it is right, and not because it avoids punishment, is in their best interest, expected, legal, or previously agreed upon. Although Kohlberg insisted that stage six exists, he found it difficult to identify individuals who consistently operated at that level.[15]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Kohlberg%27s_stages_of_moral_development

In the highest stage of moral development the motivation is not to avoid punishment, and it ought not to be the motivation for the religious.
 

Thief

Rogue Theologian
Kohlberg's six stages of moral development
In Stage six (universal ethical principles driven), moral reasoning is based on abstract reasoning using universal ethical principles. Laws are valid only insofar as they are grounded in justice, and a commitment to justice carries with it an obligation to disobey unjust laws. Legal rights are unnecessary, as social contracts are not essential for deontic moral action. Decisions are not reached hypothetically in a conditional way but rather categorically in an absolute way, as in the philosophy of Immanuel Kant.[18] This involves an individual imagining what they would do in another’s shoes, if they believed what that other person imagines to be true.[19] The resulting consensus is the action taken. In this way action is never a means but always an end in itself; the individual acts because it is right, and not because it avoids punishment, is in their best interest, expected, legal, or previously agreed upon. Although Kohlberg insisted that stage six exists, he found it difficult to identify individuals who consistently operated at that level.[15]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Kohlberg%27s_stages_of_moral_development

In the highest stage of moral development the motivation is not to avoid punishment, and it ought not to be the motivation for the religious.
so if the logic is there.....and objection to a decree has a punishment attached
stand you ground in the face of authority

much like the devil, when told to serve Man

NAY!.....he is less than us (the angelic)
and therefore he should be made to serve us

I see nothing wrong with that logic
we humans do as much....unto all that is less

including each other

to whom do we bear resemblance?
 

pearl

Well-Known Member
so if the logic is there.....and objection to a decree has a punishment attached
stand you ground in the face of authority

What is pointed out in the stages of moral growth is what is possible to obtain and that a great number of us do not get beyond the reward and punishment motivation mentality, that of a child.
 
Top