Neat Video Explaining the Evidence of Our Relationship To the Other Great Apes

[Muslim-UK]

Because actions have consequences. Their actions will have consequences that affect other people. Those other people are going to have something to say about it.

I agree, one group feels it's right, the other group feels it's wrong >> Subjectivity

Morality comes from us and has to do with our well-being. It's the only place it truly can come from.

And it's subjective.

Morality benefits us both individually and as a group, so it's in everyone's best interest to care about morality (i.e. the well-being of living creatures, especially human beings). We're the ones practicing it, and we're the ones affected by it, so why wouldn't it come from us?

How do you decide what's right and what's wrong? You say we are like a herd having evolved from the animal kingdom. There are few rules, though we see animals rarely turn on their own kind. Other animals see something they like and just take it.

Why do you think morality has to come from some place outside ourselves?

Because it's subjective when left for us to decide amongst ourselves.

It doesn't become impossible at all. I can easily condemn all of those things as actions that negatively effect the well-being of human beings.

Yes and I'm sure animals look around and think, there was no need to kill that defenceless deer, and then carry on eating their meal, or going back to sleep. Is that how humans should be?

If every one of us carried out genocide and murder our species would have died out long ago.

Yes someone that is outside and looking in has put in place a balance. Gifted us with wisdom, the sense to think and elect to follow a superior moral code.

Why can't I praise brotherhood, equality and love as good?

Subjective. You see good, whilst someone else may not agree. You praise and love someone and someone else hates that person and wants to kill them.

How so? And what do you mean?

Millions thought it a horrendous crime against humanity, Millions more saw nothing wrong with it. From a naturalistic view point, it's objectivity again.

Sure it does. They were harming a great deal of people. That is bad for the well-being of human beings. The Allied forces collectively decided that what they were doing was horribly wrong and worked to stop them (and succeeded).

America sat on the sidelines not initially wanting to get involved. Subjectivity again.

There are a lot of psychological reasons for this that we need to be aware of so that we don't make the same kinds of mistakes over and over. We must learn from our history and strive to be better. And I think for the most part, we have been doing that. Slavery is no longer acceptable to us, in the Western world, at least. We no longer kill witches en masse. Just for a couple of examples.

But it's ok to impose sanctions on innocent people? It's ok to tell democratically elected people, they are not allowed to rule? It's ok to invade other Nations for their resources? Sounds quite subjective to me.

If we are just following the orders of some god, I would argue that we're not actually exercising morality at all; rather, we're just doing what we're told. In essence, we'd be doing what the Nazis did.

Doesn't that same God warn people who oppress and kill, they will be held accountable, will pay for eternity? The Nazis would have to show God commanded them to kill the innocent Jews.

When the full implication of what the Nazis were doing was exposed to the world, the Nazis did actually end up with serious opposition.

Yes great, and people waved banners in protest during the Korean war, Vietnam war, Arab Israeli wars, Angolan war, Momzambican civil war etc etc

I disagree. What the Nazis were doing was objectively bad/wrong for at least 6 million people.

I'm sure the victims would find your words comforting.

Morality is not purely subjective. Once we can agree that morality is about the well-being of living creatures, in any given situation, there will be an objectively right (or good) action to take and probably some wrong (or bad) options as well. Then we have to take the time to figure out them which is the best action to take, using that criterion.

Ask 100 people and get 100 opinions. How do you decide?

Who are these hundreds of millions of innocent people and who are the non believers who are responsible for their deaths?

The Christians in their Millions were killed by non believers like Stalin. He used his moral subjectivity and decided Religious people had to go in their Tens of Millions.

As we can see, this is why mankind needs morale guidance from outside, from someone who knows best, otherwise you can not move forward. Indeed you have no right to tell animal what to eat, when, how etc

Without God's guidance, everything is subjective. Just because you might not like something, doesn't mean it will stop it from happening. Look at the conflicts of the last 100 years. Were they the result of collective understanding and approval from mankind or were they decided by individual Countries driven by greed, disagreements and a sense to dictate to weaker nations?

 

[Looncall]

I agree, one group feels it's right, the other group feels it's wrong >> Subjectivity

And it's subjective.


How do you decide what's right and what's wrong? You say we are like a herd having evolved from the animal kingdom. There are few rules, though we see animals rarely turn on their own kind. Other animals see something they like and just take it.


Because it's subjective when left for us to decide amongst ourselves.


Yes and I'm sure animals look around and think, there was no need to kill that defenceless deer, and then carry on eating their meal, or going back to sleep. Is that how humans should be?


Yes someone that is outside and looking in has put in place a balance. Gifted us with wisdom, the sense to think and elect to follow a superior moral code.


Subjective. You see good, whilst someone else may not agree. You praise and love someone and someone else hates that person and wants to kill them.


Millions thought it a horrendous crime against humanity, Millions more saw nothing wrong with it. From a naturalistic view point, it's objectivity again.


America sat on the sidelines not initially wanting to get involved. Subjectivity again.


But it's ok to impose sanctions on innocent people? It's ok to tell democratically elected people, they are not allowed to rule? It's ok to invade other Nations for their resources? Sounds quite subjective to me.


Doesn't that same God warn people who oppress and kill, they will be held accountable, will pay for eternity? The Nazis would have to show God commanded them to kill the innocent Jews.

Yes great, and people waved banners in protest during the Korean war, Vietnam war, Arab Israeli wars, Angolan war, Momzambican civil war etc etc

I'm sure the victims would find your words comforting.


Ask 100 people and get 100 opinions. How do you decide?




The Christians in their Millions were killed by non believers like Stalin. He used his moral subjectivity and decided Religious people had to go in their Tens of Millions.

As we can see, this is why mankind needs morale guidance from outside, from someone who knows best, otherwise you can not move forward. Indeed you have no right to tell animal what to eat, when, how etc

Without God's guidance, everything is subjective. Just because you might not like something, doesn't mean it will stop it from happening. Look at the conflicts of the last 100 years. Were they the result of collective understanding and approval from mankind or were they decided by individual Countries driven by greed, disagreements and a sense to dictate to weaker nations?

Yet, the best that can be said for so-called religious morality is that it is ineffective. Consider islam: muslims make a lot of noise about morality, yet muslim societies are cesspits of corruption, bigotry, oppression, torture, and general backwardness. Not impressive.

On the other hand, the most civilized societies are the least religious.

I don't think your view withstands inspection.

 

[Muslim-UK]

Yet, the best that can be said for so-called religious morality is that it is ineffective. Consider islam: muslims make a lot of noise about morality, yet muslim societies are cesspits of corruption, bigotry, oppression, torture, and general backwardness. Not impressive.

On the other hand, the most civilized societies are the least religious.

I don't think your view withstands inspection.

We're taking God out of the equation and seeing where morality comes from. At the end we can look to see if the Laws given in the Qur'an are a better foundation for guidance or not. I'm not interested in Muslim Countries that do not follow the Qur'an.

Which Country is the most civilised yet irreligious?

 

[Looncall]

We're taking God out of the equation and seeing where morality comes from. At the end we can look to see if the Laws given in the Qur'an are a better foundation for guidance or not. I'm not interested in Muslim Countries that do not follow the Qur'an.

Which Country is the most civilised yet irreligious?

Given that the problems of muslim societies are common across differing cultures, the koran must have something to do with them. Extremist groups such as ISIS and Boko Haram are explicitly islamic.

The Nordic countries are generally regarded as having especially well-functioning cultures and as being particularly low in religiosity.

 

[Muslim-UK]

The Nordic countries are generally regarded as having especially well-functioning cultures and as being particularly low in religiosity.

Name a specific Country for me to examine.

 

[Looncall]

Name a specific Country for me to examine.

How about Sweden? I have personally visited Denmark and was impressed. You might like to check out that country too.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Yes and I'm sure animals ...

Let's flip it around: You believe Earth was created deliberately by your god.

But, being a god, anything is possible-- creation could have been done in an infinite number of ways.

Including a 100% passive, nothing-is-killed kind of existence. All life could be photosynthetic, including animals and people.

100% of our nutrition could be had, by being in direct sunlight, and perhaps absorbing elements through our skin or feet (or even ingesting simple dirt) and breathing.

Like plants do, currently.

But noooo! Your god created the world such that Things Have To Die, so that Other Things Can Live.

Especially people. People absolutely cannot live without killing something. Plants, if you are a vegetarian. Plants and animals if you are not.

Humans must live by killing other life-- there is absolutely no choice.

What sort of GOOD "god" created it in such an ugly way?

Can you explain this, without insulting our intelligence?

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Doesn't that same God warn people who oppress and kill, they will be held accountable, will pay for eternity? The Nazis would have to show God commanded them to kill the innocent Jews.

No. You have exactly zero communication from any god(s). The various "holey" books do not count-- they are too shoddy of manufacture. Too many logical errors. Way-way too many examples of out right wrong information about the world.

No actual GOD would allow such poor workmanship in a set of Godly Instructions.

So no, you cannot make such a claim as this.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

If we take our morality from nature, then why blame a herd of people who decide for themselves what is morally acceptable and not. For example on the issue of the Holocaust:

It becomes impossible to condemn Genocide, war, oppression, or crime as evil. Nor can one praise brotherhood, equality, or love as good. It does not matter what values you choose, for there is no right and wrong; good and evil do not exist.

That means that an atrocity like the Holocaust was really morally indifferent. You may think that it was wrong, but your opinion has no more validity than that of the Nazi war criminal who thought it was good.

In his book Morality after Auschwitz, Peter Haas asks how an entire society could have willingly participated in a state-sponsored program of mass torture and genocide for over a decade without any serious opposition.

He argues that far from being contemptuous of ethics, the perpetrators acted in strict conformity with an ethic which held that, however difficult and unpleasant the task might have been, mass extermination of the Jews and Gypsies was entirely justified. . . . the Holocaust as a sustained effort was possible only because a new ethic was in place that did not define the arrest and deportation of Jews as wrong and in fact defined it as ethically tolerable and ever good.

Remember morality is purely subjective according to you. Can you prove Peter Haas wrong using a naturalistic approach?

Theists are in the same boat. They have a subjective morality that they claim without support is more than that, which is also a subjective judgment. Calling moral values written down by men in antiquity objective is an empty claim that fails to elevate those values above the status that they would enjoy if it were agreed that they were just made up by people.

The problem with Nazi values is that the Nazis were principally Christian, where good is defined as that which it is believed God does or commands. All you need to do to convince a nation of Christians that genocide is good is to convince them that their god approves. That was apparently quite easy to do. They were called Christ killers and the enemy of God. If you were a condemned Jew awaiting whatever horrors the Nazis had in mind for you, and you were waiting for such people to stand up and say, "Herr Hitler, that is wrong," you were a dead Jew.

Atheists have no problem condemning that method of making moral judgments. We see great danger in calling ancient commandments objectively moral. There is no place for compassion in such a moral calculus, just blind obedience to whatever one is told a god commands. It can lead to holocausts.

Incidentally, as you use the term, evil is a religious concept. If the word doesn't mean the same as what the atheists calls immoral, then it is a useless redundancy. As you can see, we atheists condemn and praise much without the concept need of the concept of evil or a god.

 

[Muslim-UK]

How about Sweden? I have personally visited Denmark and was impressed. You might like to check out that country too.

Sweden a Country of approx 9 Million records 6 Million belonging to Christianity. I thought you said there was a link with low religiosity and prosperity.

2012 Eurobarometer, 71% of Danish people are Christians (64% are Protestant), 25% are non-religious and 3% are members of other religions.

"On the other hand, the most civilized societies are the least religious."

Let's assume no one bothers going to Church in Sweden and Denmark. They have the highest taxes, high rates of violence against women:
Equality minister: Sweden is uncivilised

Are Danish women the most abused women in Europe? | Kvinfo.dk

Denmark has some of the highest taxes in the World Denmark isn't the utopian fantasy it is made out to be - here's why

What exactly is your measurement for being 'civilised'? Clean streets, good education system, healthcare, not going to war?

 

[Skwim]

Sweden a Country of approx 9 Million records 6 Million belonging to Christianity. I thought you said there was a link with low religiosity and prosperity.

According to the Eurobarometer Poll 2010,

18% of Swedish citizens responded that "they believe there is a god".
45% answered that "they believe there is some sort of spirit or life force".
34% answered that "they do not believe there is any sort of spirit, god, or life force".
Source: Wikipedia (Religion in Sweden)

2012 Eurobarometer 71% of Danish people are Christians (64% are Protestant), 25% are non-religious and 3% are members of other religions.

According to a Eurobarometer Poll conducted in 2010,

28% of Danish citizens responded that "they believe there is a God",
47% responded that "they believe there is some sort of spirit or life force"
24% responded that "they do not believe there is any sort of spirit, God or life force"​

Source: Wikipedia (Religion in Denmark)

.

 

[Looncall]

Sweden a Country of approx 9 Million records 6 Million belonging to Christianity. I thought you said there was a link with low religiosity and prosperity.

2012 Eurobarometer, 71% of Danish people are Christians (64% are Protestant), 25% are non-religious and 3% are members of other religions.



Let's assume no one bothers going to Church in Sweden and Denmark. They have the highest taxes, high rates of violence against women:
Equality minister: Sweden is uncivilised

Are Danish women the most abused women in Europe? | Kvinfo.dk

Denmark has some of the highest taxes in the World Denmark isn't the utopian fantasy it is made out to be - here's why

What exactly is your measurement for being 'civilised'? Clean streets, good education system, healthcare, not going to war?

Those measures sound good to me. Not to be found among muslims, by the way.

High taxes are not necessarily that bad if they support good services.

I gather that those countries have experienced an upsurge in sexual abuse after permitting immigration by muslims.

 

[Skwim]

Those measures sound good to me. Not to be found among muslims, by the way.

High taxes are not necessarily that bad if they support good services.

And many of them do.
The Swedish health care system is mainly government-funded---there is an annual cap on pharmaceutical expense---and Sweden offers free college education to all its citizens.

.

 

[Muslim-UK]

Theists are in the same boat. They have a subjective morality that they claim without support is more than that, which is also a subjective judgment. Calling moral values written down by men in antiquity objective is an empty claim that fails to elevate those values above the status that they would enjoy if it were agreed that they were just made up by people.

I have provided verses showing these people:

Could Thirteen Centuries earlier, have never ever have hoped to know the following:

Universe started from a single point.
Is expanding
Stars formed out of Gasses
Will eventually become the Big Crunch
Could not have known there is a huge amount of Iron in the middle of the Earth
Could not have known Earthquakes would be much more severe if Mountains were not placed on the Earth as pegs
Could not have known a fluid emitted from the abdomen region helps in procreation
Could not have known people would one day shop from home
Would compete with each other to build tall buildings
Would one day clone animals

etc etc etc

Clearly my guidance comes from a Being who is ALL knowledgeable and transcends Time and Space.

The problem with Nazi values is that the Nazis were principally Christian, where good is defined as that which it is believed God does or commands. All you need to do to convince a nation of Christians that genocide is good is to convince them that their god approves. That was apparently quite easy to do. They were called Christ killers and the enemy of God. If you were a condemned Jew awaiting whatever horrors the Nazis had in mind for you, and you were waiting for such people to stand up and say, "Herr Hitler, that is wrong," you were a dead Jew.

Don't use the Nazi example then, use Atheist Communist Stalin and the results of his naturalistic subjective morality.

Atheists have no problem condemning that method of making moral judgments. We see great danger in calling ancient commandments objectively moral. There is no place for compassion in such a moral calculus, just blind obedience to whatever one is told a god commands. It can lead to holocausts.

The difference is Atheists have to look at things from a naturalistic point of view, our sole purpose is to find a mate, even someone else's mate will do to reproduce, keep warm and sheltered.

As far as naturalists are concerned, there is nothing wrong with killing, as at its most basic level, it's a case of survival of the fittest. Morality is taken from the animal kingdom and is purely subjective, based on the individual's outlook or collective herd. Human progress actually shows we are less like a herd, we are less sociable, physically unfit and much more materialistic to the point we are slowly but surely killing the Planet. In many ways, we are regressing as a species.

Religious people on the other hand have a moral commandments from a all knowing being outside of time and space. The creator gives us stability and rules that do not change, resulting in a stable populace generation after generation. This environment largely shuns materialistic worldly gain, is much more focused on the social community, looking after parents in old age etc and most importantly making sure we are equipped for success in the life to come.

You can argue and show people of religion ignore their texts and are capable of untold horrors. I don't deny this, but is this what the guidance teaches? NO absolutely not in the case of the Qur'an, unless you can prove otherwise using authentic sources.

Incidentally, as you use the term, evil is a religious concept. If the word doesn't mean the same as what the atheists calls immoral, then it is a useless redundancy. As you can see, we atheists condemn and praise much without the concept need of the concept of evil or a god.

Yes Evil is a religious term, and without God everything would be subjective to individual whims and desires. This would lead to chaos. Even Atheists are proof God exists, you use logic and intellect to rise above the animal kingdom to make decisions that are not harmful to your fellow man.

 

[Polymath257]

We're taking God out of the equation and seeing where morality comes from. At the end we can look to see if the Laws given in the Qur'an are a better foundation for guidance or not. I'm not interested in Muslim Countries that do not follow the Qur'an.

Which Country is the most civilised yet irreligious?

Sweden?

 

[Muslim-UK]

Sweden?

Yes I was looking at Sweden and Denmark. Nice Countries, no doubt about it.

Looncall was trying to make a link between civilised societies were the least religious.

In the Muslim World I could draw parallels to Qatar, United Arab Emirates, Kuwait and Oman all with over 75% populations adhering to Islam. All with clean streets, good education system, healthcare, and not going involved in armed conflict.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Could Thirteen Centuries earlier, have never ever have hoped to know the following:

Universe started from a single point.
Is expanding
Stars formed out of Gasses
Will eventually become the Big Crunch
Could not have known there is a huge amount of Iron in the middle of the Earth
Could not have known Earthquakes would be much more severe if Mountains were not placed on the Earth as pegs
Could not have known a fluid emitted from the abdomen region helps in procreation
Could not have known people would one day shop from home
Would compete with each other to build tall buildings
Would one day clone animals

etc etc etc

Clearly my guidance comes from a Being who is ALL knowledgeable and transcends Time and Space.

Sorry, but I don't find arguments like that compelling. I've pointed out previously that the Christians can do the same trick. It goes by the name of the Texas sharpshooter fallacy - "an informal fallacy which is committed when differences in data are ignored, but similarities are stressed. From this reasoning, a false conclusion is inferred."

Add all of the quranic scripture that you sifted past to compile your list - the things that can't be used the way the items you selected can - and all of the revelations of science not covered in scripture, and instead of seeing divine prescience, you'll see that your holy book is just another stab in the dark from the past.

Here's one of my favorites from a Christian doing then what you are doing now - trying to show me how incredibly insightful his scriptures are by citing this one:

"Canst thou send lightnings, that they may go, and say unto thee, Here we are?" - Job 38:35

He claims that this is foretelling of modern telecommunications - "lightnings" to hello.

Don't use the Nazi example then, use Atheist Communist Stalin and the results of his naturalistic subjective morality.

As far as we know, all morality is derived from men.

The difference is Atheists have to look at things from a naturalistic point of view, our sole purpose is to find a mate, even someone else's mate will do to reproduce, keep warm and sheltered.

That is not how this atheist thinks. Nor do I know any other that would agree with you.

As far as naturalists are concerned, there is nothing wrong with killing, as at its most basic level, it's a case of survival of the fittest. Morality is taken from the animal kingdom and is purely subjective, based on the individual's outlook or collective herd.

Survival of the fittest is also never a motivation for me. The idea only comes up when discussing how the tree of life that we find today came to be, not when making personal moral decisions.

Furthermore, morality is not taken from the animal kingdom. Mine isn't.

You speak a lot for people - secular humanists - that you really don't understand. If you took your instruction about what we believe from unbelievers like me instead of our religious detractors with an agenda to malign us, you would be writing things like what I am saying rather than things such as what you think my sole purpose is, where my morals come from, and how I feel about killing. You're wrong, wrong, and wrong.

I don't get a sense that you want to be right.

Religious people on the other hand have a moral commandments from a all knowing being outside of time and space.

I have no reason to believe that, and neither do you.

Also, how can a moral code be from a god if man can improve upon it? Whoever wrote the Christian version - the one I know best - didn't realize that slavery is unjust and should be illegal.

It also praises meekness, which is a character defect, not a virtue.

And it commands submission to earthly autocrats, which it calls chosen by God.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Yes I was looking at Sweden and Denmark. Nice Countries, no doubt about it.

Looncall was trying to make a link between civilised societies were the least religious.

In the Muslim World I could draw parallels to Qatar, United Arab Emirates, Kuwait and Oman all with over 75% populations adhering to Islam. All with clean streets, good education system, healthcare, and not going involved in armed conflict.

Let's also not forget: Women are virtual slaves, forbidden to drive, to own property, to even go outside alone.

And atheists, homosexuals and other "undesirables" are routinely beaten and murdered out of hand--without a peep from the "authorities".

And if you are a girl? Forget about getting an education-- not going to happen, unless you break the law, and risk getting brutally raped and then murdered. Or as a minimum: acid tossed in your face.

Tell me again how "civilized" these places are? And why are there so many refugees from those countries to anywhere but a country run by islam's brutal rules?

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Also, how can a moral code be from a god if man can improve upon it? Whoever wrote the Christian version - the one I know best - didn't realize that slavery is unjust and should be illegal.

Indeed. Several memes from the intertnet illustrate this.

(I cannot figure out how to post from my personal library onto here, so text only)


If humans don't have their own morals, who's morals do we use to decide which bible/quoran verses to ignore?

You don't need religion to have morals. If you can't determine right and wrong, the problem is you lack empathy, not religion.

 

[Muslim-UK]

Sorry, but I don't find arguments like that compelling. I've pointed out previously that the Christians can do the same trick. It goes by the name of the Texas sharpshooter fallacy - "an informal fallacy which is committed when differences in data are ignored, but similarities are stressed. From this reasoning, a false conclusion is inferred."

Add all of the quranic scripture that you sifted past to compile your list - the things that can't be used the way the items you selected can - and all of the revelations of science not covered in scripture, and instead of seeing divine prescience, you'll see that your holy book is just another stab in the dark from the past.

Here's one of my favorites from a Christian doing then what you are doing now - trying to show me how incredibly insightful his scriptures are by citing this one:

"Canst thou send lightnings, that they may go, and say unto thee, Here we are?" - Job 38:35

He claims that this is foretelling of modern telecommunications - "lightnings" to hello.




As far as we know, all morality is derived from men.



That is not how this atheist thinks. Nor do I know any other that would agree with you.



Survival of the fittest is also never a motivation for me. The idea only comes up when discussing how the tree of life that we find today came to be, not when making personal moral decisions.

Furthermore, morality is not taken from the animal kingdom. Mine isn't.

You speak a lot for people - secular humanists - that you really don't understand. If you took your instruction about what we believe from unbelievers like me instead of our religious detractors with an agenda to malign us, you would be writing things like what I am saying rather than things such as what you think my sole purpose is, where my morals come from, and how I feel about killing. You're wrong, wrong, and wrong.

I don't get a sense that you want to be right.



I have no reason to believe that, and neither do you.

Also, how can a moral code be from a god if man can improve upon it? Whoever wrote the Christian version - the one I know best - didn't realize that slavery is unjust and should be illegal.

It also praises meekness, which is a character defect, not a virtue.

And it commands submission to earthly autocrats, which it calls chosen by God.

I had no issue with your viewpoint. I find you quite reasonable. I was responding to the SkepticThinker who has since fallen silent.

Clearly the only common ground is for us to follow what makes sense to us, whilst respecting the other's beliefs.