World without Religion: Better or Worse? page 18

656 posts

Flag Post

@ai
Like, maybe we should START “loving another like ourselves”, don’t you think?
Also, “don’t leave your brother when he’s poor, help him out”.
Also, “don’t murder”, “don’t steal”, “don’t adultere”, “don’t lie”, “don’t cheat”, “turn from evil and do good” etc.
Do YOU do all of these?
(Ok, you didn’t kill anyone, more than probably. But haven’t you stolen anything, even a candy? Or lied, when it was harmful for others – the black lie, not the white? Can you honestly say, you didn’t do this at all?)

 
Flag Post

“don’t leave your brother when he’s poor, help him out”.

Explain the GOP actively proclaiming for reducing Social Security, Welfare, Healthcare, Medicare and encouraging tax cuts.

“loving another like ourselves”

Explain this.

“don’t murder”

This.

I don’t do all of those, yes. Neither do you. I’d like to see you claim you do, seeing that you’d probably be breaking the “don’t lie”.

Whatever any religious text says about doing good is no different than a social norm. Proclaiming a religious text as a purveyor of morality despite its contradictory messages and its hate is a ridiculously narrow argument.

Anyway, enough is enough. I come back from such a long hiatus and all I see are the same people preaching about what’s good for humanity while simultaneously doing the exact inverse of what they are preaching to. Criticising aetheists for all that is wrong in the world while refusing to admit their own faults. Not all aetheists are any better, but nonetheless.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by ad_infinitatum:


As to the topic, I think a world where religion is viewed as a social construct would be perfect. People can believe whatever the hell they’d like. As long as their beliefs are not overstepping on the beliefs of others, but we all know (and can largely agree) that that will never happen.

I actually agree with you on that. (especially the part where it’s impossible, why can’t humanity be more accepting?)

 
Flag Post

@ai
Well, if WE ALL DID IT, then it would BE different.
I wasn’t saying “look at me” – I was saying “look at what WE SHOULD BE DOING”.
You purposely turn it to discussing MYSELF, to avoid discussing the WORLD.
Typical atheist crap – they confuse PEOPLE and IDEAS.
Misbehaving PEOPLE are more-than-often NOT suing the IDEAS the way they SHOULD.
This has zero discredence for the ideas themselves, though the ANTI-guys LOVE to point at bad PEOPLE, to “prove” “bad” IDEAS.
If I made my computer explode – was it a bad COMPUTER, or rather I’m a bad USER?
Same with religion.
VERY MUCH THE SAME.
Too many BAD USERS
While the COMPUTER is working on Windows 10…

 
Flag Post

I actually agree with you on that. (especially the part where it’s impossible, why can’t humanity be more accepting?)

Humanity has never been accepting. See the Colonial Wars. The Colonisations of British Colonies. See Caesar. See World War 1 and 2.

Difference is as good a reason as any to exert undue self-proclamation of power. Peace will never occur until there are people who are willing to be oppressed and others willing to be in power. There are so many in the latter, but next to nothing in the former.

Orwell’s 1984 is a good demonstration. As long as our language (and as an extension, our thinking processes) enable us to comprehend freedom, oppression and power, peace will never happen. It is no surprise that the Ministry of Peace proclaims war.

On the other hand, keep in mind the American ideal of meritocracy, where if one works hard enough one can rise through the social ranks. Power becomes the most significant motivator.

Humanity can never be accepting, because accepting differences as differences is accepting that one is not superior to someone else. And accepting this means accepting that someone will always see you as inferior even when you are trying not to see others as inferior. Human norms will never change as long as we are offered the means to perceive freedom.

This works both ways.

Conflict always stems from differences. A world without religion is no better than one with it. What we really need is just pure acceptance of each other, but we can never do that as long as we see the world in black and white, socially, culturally, religiously and economically. Everyone is guilty of this. Social differences are social constructs.


Too many BAD USERS…

A good demonstration of the content I posted above. People too unwilling to accepted differences in thought, instead proclaiming them as dichotomous ideals and incriminating anything that is disagreed upon.

There are no bad users. There are only people who label users who use things differently as “bad”. There are people who test computers and hardware to their limits. Does that make them bad users?

Like I said, I’m done talking to you. If you want to proliferate the topic, go ahead. I think your main got silenced though, and with good reason. Kudos to the moderator for acknowledging the fine line between trolling/flaming and legitimate sincerity in words.

 
Flag Post

BAD USERSSTEAL and MURDER.
Anyone calling them “GOOD”, is either retarded, too naive, or simply just lying.

 
Flag Post

Yeah, mentioning GOD is TROLLING, sure.
Cause you’re such “pharaohs”, that anything outside of your “Nile” of science and egocentricity, is of course “trolling”.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by fckyu:

BAD USERSSTEAL and MURDER.
Anyone calling them “GOOD”, is either retarded, too naive, or simply just lying.

Murderers are socially negative. Yet, when a murder plans and does the act, in his or her mind, the act is justifiable. It may not be a rational justification in our minds, but it is to them. In that moment, social truth dissolves. Social rational dissolves. Individual morality takes over.

And all of us exercise this individual morality. Each day, when we justify our actions as moral or immoral, that murderer is doing the exact same thing in his or her act of killing.

We call them “bad” because it is a social term. The word “bad” only means relatively to “good”. The sheer act of labels stigmatises and invokes stereotypes (differences).

We should prosecute murderers for ending the life of someone else. Yet, we can never persecute their morality; in whatever situation that caused them to do their acts, their minds justify it. We call it bad; they call it justice. Who are we to say that our beliefs are more important than theirs’ are, if we are to strive for a society of equality.

 
Flag Post

@ai
Read my link (you can find it in the last LOCKED thread).
It deals exactly with what you say, as one of the points.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by fckyu:

@ai
Read my link (you can find it in the last LOCKED thread).
It deals exactly with what you say, as one of the points.

I get concerned when one has to use what is written by someone else in order to voice their thoughts rather than explicitly presenting them.

In other words, if all you can say on a matter is merely “look at this link, it covers my perspective”, you are basically absorbing, full heartedly, what someone else says without carefully evaluating the content.

If you need to use the words of others as your argument, you are merely a puppet of ideological propaganda. I rather speak to myself in the mirror than talk to a puppet (and yes, responding in this manner is very hypocritical. I acknowledge that.)

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by fckyu:

@ai
Read my link (you can find it in the last LOCKED thread).

So you admit to being a troll alt?

 
Flag Post

@ai
When I voice it in MY words, I get nothing but bashing my choice of words.
Maybe if you read an EDITED (aka readable) discussion, we CAN talk about the topic, rather than MY semantics and ENGLISH.
And I consider people that CAN’T back up their words with links, empty mouthers.
Sorry, but we have an OPPOSITE opinion in this case.
Maybe you could talk on the TOPIC, rather than AGAIN (not you, but the general “you” that uses it as a way to ignore the topic-related questions I ask) talking about “how I talk”.

 
Flag Post

And I consider people that CAN’T back up their words with links, empty mouthers.

Textual evidence for an argument != Textual evidence as the argument

 
Flag Post

@ai
Evidence?
More like explanation in my case.
I just chose to use a pre-made text (which I 100% agree WITH, not BASE my opinion ON; I know the difference, do you?), rather than using “my words” that leads to bashing my English, aka total off-topic.

 
Flag Post

which I 100% agree WITH, not BASE my opinion ON; I know the difference, do you?)

> If you need to use the words of others as your argument, you are merely a puppet of ideological propaganda.

leads to bashing my English

I did not know pointing out the idiosyncrasies in one’s language choice is the equivalent of bashing. Nonetheless, you are free to do that on me too, but this holier-than-thou attitude isn’t really anything of particular importance. You don’t seem to view me as an equal anyway.

Anyway, I’m truly done. Come back to me when you look in the mirror and realise that the oxygen you breath is just as valuable as you are, and that you’re not more valuable than the molecules your body needs to survive.

 
Flag Post

Well, I’m not yet 99, so I can’t disagree with an “elder”. :DDDDD

I see, you DON’T understand what I mean by “agreeing with” vs “basing on”.
Or you just use it as a pretext, as always.
(Dude, speaking of PUPPETS… Better we should not, cause you wouldn’t win THAT one…)

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by ad_infinitatum:
Originally posted by fckyu:

BAD USERSSTEAL and MURDER.
Anyone calling them “GOOD”, is either retarded, too naive, or simply just lying.

Murderers are socially negative. Yet, when a murder plans and does the act, in his or her mind, the act is justifiable. It may not be a rational justification in our minds, but it is to them. In that moment, social truth dissolves. Social rational dissolves. Individual morality takes over.

And all of us exercise this individual morality. Each day, when we justify our actions as moral or immoral, that murderer is doing the exact same thing in his or her act of killing.

We call them “bad” because it is a social term. The word “bad” only means relatively to “good”. The sheer act of labels stigmatises and invokes stereotypes (differences).

We should prosecute murderers for ending the life of someone else. Yet, we can never persecute their morality; in whatever situation that caused them to do their acts, their minds justify it. We call it bad; they call it justice. Who are we to say that our beliefs are more important than theirs’ are, if we are to strive for a society of equality.

I find this topic of individual morality you bring up really interesting, and I have seen it at work in day to day life even though I never categorized it as such. For instance, if a friend of mine buys something at Store A for $1, returns it at Store B for a $5 credit, they may see nothing wrong with it and justify the action on the premise that Store B is a morally bankrupt company, who makes a large profit anyway, and also that they just need the money. Another person might have an even tighter comfort zone than I do and not be comfortable with returns of any kind.

So my question to you is this, and it’s a rhetorical situation—if someone works for a corrupt company, who steals from their own employees by not paying them all of their hours, cuts in benefits, “pencil-whipping” documents, etc., do you think it’s morally “alright” or feasible for the employees to try to take money from the company, or take extra benefits where they can, such as workers compensation? Some people would have a black and white viewpoint of this, and say absolutely not, that one bad action does not justify another. Other people would perform this without a second thought, considering it evening the playing field. Since this is such a relative term, I would be interested to hear your thoughts.

Also, I do think some laws are more absolute than others, and should be followed (such as not murdering), although as demonstrated by movies like A Time To Kill, it looks like there are rare instances where even that is justified.

 
Flag Post

I find this topic of individual morality you

I have to admit, I also find it interesting. However, to be fair I think this might belong better in a new thread, don’t you think?

 
Flag Post

Probably. I just wanted to catch his attention, since he’d mentioned something I wanted to discuss at length.

 
Flag Post

So did I.
But somehow I’m not ALLOWED to take the discussion “outdoors”, to make it a separate topic.
Just thought of a bar fight – I’m quite sure, that it’s better for the BARMAN, if people take it outside, rather than crushing his tables. :DDD

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by fckyu:

Ever consider being a little more civil about it?

 
Flag Post

I sent both of you (Lax/Twilight) a whisper. I don’t feel compelled to defend my stance against anyone who disagrees with me. Not that my stance is superficially weak, but given the state of affairs here I don’t have the effort to.

 
Flag Post

Without religion it would be better, however all science would suck…

 
Flag Post

I myself am atheist, but there is no chance that the world could be without religion.
Wherever there is hope, there is religion.
Wherever there is ‘chance’, there is religion.
Wherever there is death, there is religion.

If you don’t understand what I mean, there are the religious people who always go to church, strong believers, they will always look to god for their problems, which is good for them because it gives them hope.

For us atheists we think its a load of crap.

As long as the religious don’t come knocking on our door (Like the annoying: Jahovas witness) and no religious organisations who are willing to die for their religion, then yes,

The world would be a better place.

 
Flag Post

I’m so annoyed by atheists forgetting, that the entire Western culture is BASED on Abrahamic religions values.
In other words, wanna see “world without religion”?
Imagine living with true savage barbarians, with RIFLES and LASERS.
I would NOT want to live in such a place…
Basically, a post-apocalyptic movie coming to life…
And NO, the “atheistic morals” would NOT suddenly “pop up” from nowhere.
They were based on the biblical ones much more than you wanna admit.
Wanna proof?
Would you consider the morals of an African cannibal tribe sufficient?
Well, they had it “naturally”, without (almost) any impact of biblical values.
Would YOU prefer them?
I doubt it oh so much…