A world without religion.

Prispeval RaulPB, 16.05.2017 at 14:13

Prispeval Acquiesce, 16.05.2017 at 13:46

It makes perfect sense because I'm making a distinction. Some rules society teaches us are socially constructed (like football's); some are rules that exist outside society (like maths). You believe morality falls in with the former; I believe the latter. My purpose was not to prove that morality is objective by pointing this out, it was only to show that it's a fallacy to assume that just because society teaches something then it must therefore be entirely socially constructed.

That's precisely the whole concept of being subjective........... something socially constructed as morality, taught by society and agreed upon by society is inmediatelly subjective. Maths was not constructed by society, it was observed in nature, everywhere. We just had to learn to communicate in mathematical language. Moral is no where to be seen, we developed it ourselves since the time we started being conscious about our acts.

Prispeval Acquiesce, 16.05.2017 at 13:46

Once again my point seems entirely lost on you so here's a clarifying quote-

The moment you say that one set of moral ideas can be better than another, you are, in fact, measuring them both by a standard, saying that one of them conforms to that standard more nearly than the other. But the standard that measures two things is something different from either. You are, in fact, comparing them both with some Real Morality, admitting that there is such a thing as a real Right, independent of what people think, and that some people's ideas get nearer to that real Right than others. Or put it this way. If your moral ideas can be truer, and those of the Nazis less true, there must be something-some Real Morality-for them to be true about.

Nope, you're actually comparing it with what one could consider his own moral or the set of rules that adapt better to ones perspective of life. You've never compared anything to that so called "real morality", you're subjectively implicating that the morals you're using are the best there could be with no proof of that being true. Those simply suit you (individually or collectively as a community) better.

By that you're basically saying that there's just one perspective to life, to actions, to thoughts, etc. When in reality we've got a very wide variety of shades of every kind of perspective to judge everything that goes on. You've got a very simplistic way of understanding human psychology if I may say. Things are not always black and white, simply good or bad, better or worse.

Your moral is just what the society you were raised in agrees apon
A human baby unlike animals is born like a clean slate and anything you imprint on it is what it will come to belive.
Take the child soldiers in africa as an example
Or jews believing its ok to cut their babys peckers when they are 8 days old...

Prispeval Valetorious, 15.05.2017 at 21:17

and watch basic scientific shows such as bill nye or in this case neil degrasse tyson's show cosmos. It's like it forms them into some weird pseudo-intellectual being.

So i guess being completely scientific illiterate is better? Do you even listen to what the fuck you are saying. I guess its better to be ignorant and read 4chan right? Who the fuck cares how atoms and cells work fuck that, either get a physics PHD or stop reading that pathetic "basic science". American logic.

Prispeval Acquiesce, 15.05.2017 at 22:18

I'm aware, I know many of these "I fucking love science" meme types that love pop science and being on the "side of science" whatever that means.

It's a shame though because Sagan's original 80s Cosmos was actually a great show, very quotable! Bill Nye and his cohort on the other hand care more about advancing a political agenda than promoting actual science. But hey that's just my opinion >:)

As i said above its a tragicomedy whats going on in america im telling you. That jealousy and spite, its unbelievable. Do you know what the job and responsibility of Neil degrasse tyson, Bill nye, Michio Kaku, Dawkins, Lawrence Kraus and others, is? They are educators, they use videos, podcasts, articles, shows and lectures to educate, inspire people to learn about the various fields of science that up until now were mostly unreachable by the masses. They purposely dumb it down a notch so normal people can learn about science without having to go through 10 years of college. Do you think you are better, what i presume you only read hardcore quantum theory with the math and all right?

But no you have to make it political. You dont like it when liberals smoke weed and go to parties every day, but when they watch science shows you still have to judge them. So do you want your people to be scientifically literate or watch cartoons, just decide already. Do you want them to know the basics atleast about the world we live in? If yes, then shut the fuck up and stop being a classic miserable republican

Prispeval RaulPB, 15.05.2017 at 19:03

what a mess.

How can you write so many words and say so little. That really takes skill honestly. It took aqui 2 lines to attack my main argument and it took you a book to not. Rather you lecture me about what science is. Busy schedule here, if you try again with a post of essence i will reply properly.

Prispeval 1GodofWar1, 16.05.2017 at 14:23

Your moral is just what the society you were raised in agrees apon

That's if you're not critical about that moral you're usually told about or if you actually believe it is suitable for you...

Prispeval Khal.eesi, 16.05.2017 at 14:59

How can you write so many words and say so little. That really takes skill honestly. It took aqui 2 lines to attack my main argument and it took you a book to not. Rather you lecture me about what science is. Busy schedule here, if you try again with a post of essence i will reply properly.

I didn't attack your argument, I solely tried to explain you the difference between morals and science. Wether you want to understand it or not is in your hands, but don't act like I tried to attack you in any way

Prispeval Khal.eesi, 16.05.2017 at 16:12

Prispeval RaulPB, 16.05.2017 at 16:08

Prispeval Khal.eesi, 16.05.2017 at 14:59

How can you write so many words and say so little. That really takes skill honestly. It took aqui 2 lines to attack my main argument and it took you a book to not. Rather you lecture me about what science is. Busy schedule here, if you try again with a post of essence i will reply properly.

I didn't attack your argument, I solely tried to explain you the difference between morals and science. Wether you want to understand it or not is in your hands, but don't act like I tried to attack you in any way

Ok let me try one last time, but keep in mind if you have a problem with comprehending english posts you should work on it, we shouldnt have to write meaningless back and forths.

1. As i said in my post, which you failed to understand, again, you failed to attack my argument and that was the problem. If you are not willing to address the points specifically then save us the time and dont reply.

2. Where in my post did i confuse morals and science. What tipped you off that i needed to be lectured about the difference of morals and science? Maybe the point that morals do in fact, by definition, fall under the umbrella of neuroscience which you dismissed without offering a proper rebuttal other than your definitive opinion?

P.S.

Prispeval Acquiesce, 16.05.2017 at 11:16

-snip-

Thank you for your response.

I'm not arguing against the existence of universal morality. Far greater minds than myself have tried and failed. I am merely arguing against the rationality in believing in the existence of universal morality. My lemma is not that universal morality does not exist, but rather that it is more rational to believe in the absence of universal morality than to believe in its presence.

Let me clarify my points a bit further:

I agree that different societies arriving at different codes of ethics does not provide evidence against the existence of a universal code of morality. It does, however, cast good evidence against the relevance of universal morality, because it is a good piece of evidence against any effects that universal morality might have. Since societies have developed divergent codes of ethics, clearly universal morality, if it exists, have not made a significant impact on what codes of morality are developed. If there are no observations or experiments that can objectively distinguish between a universe in which universal morality exists and a universe in which universal morality does not, then rationally, universal morality is one of those empty phrases that don't actually mean anything.

To use your example of the multiplication table, I can distinguish between a universe where three times three is nine and a universe where three times three is not nine. If I put three bags of three oranges together ten times and get nine oranges every time, then that is decent evidence that three times three is nine. If I put three bags of three oranges together ten times and get ten oranges every time, then three times three is clearly not nine. If I put three bags of three oranges together ten times and get nine oranges half the time and ten oranges the other half, then that is convincing evidence against three times three having any fixed value. What the value of three multiplied by three is, and whether that value is fixed, has a measurable impact on observable reality. What measurable impact on observable reality does universal morality have?

One might find Christianity's code of ethics to be special because one believes that it "comes from Got through divine revelation or whatever other means," but the important part of that statement is belief. The evidence in favour of Christianity's code of ethics being special is one's belief. Now, let's examine this under two different scenarios: under the assumption that universal morality does not exist, and the assumption that universal morality does exist.

If universal morality does not exist, then morality is relative, no code of ethics is any more valid than any other, thus there is nothing special about Christianity's code of ethics, and therefore religion is unnecessary for the creation of codes of ethics.

If universal morality does indeed exist, and morality is something that is discovered rather than created, then one runs into that same question of how you discover morality. How do you "discover" something that does not have a measurable impact on observable reality? What evidence, beyond simple belief, is there that Christianity's code of ethics is indeed universal morality and Stalin's personal code of ethics isn't universal morality? Even under the assumption that universal morality exists, it is not possible to rationally determine that religious codes of ethics are more valid than nonreligious codes of ethics, and hence religion plays an irrelevant role in the discovery of ethics.

Either way, religion is unnecessary for morality.

Think about it this way: I can randomly guess the colour of your shirt is blue, but I didn't in any meaningful way discover the colour of your shirt. Even if your shirt is indeed blue and I am indeed correct, unless I have evidence that my hypothesis is more valid than somebody else's hypothesis that your shirt is red, then I cannot really be considered to have discovered the colour of your shirt.

I disagree with your statement that my lack of belief in universal morality strips me of my ability to judge codes of ethics. I can and indeed often do judge other people's codes of ethics, because I have my own to compare against. I simply maintain no illusions about the universality of my judgement.

I look forwards to your next response.

Prispeval RaulPB, 16.05.2017 at 16:05

Prispeval 1GodofWar1, 16.05.2017 at 14:23

Your moral is just what the society you were raised in agrees apon

That's if you're not critical about that moral you're usually told about or if you actually believe it is suitable for you...

Im talking about the founding stones of your "personal moral"
The reason you think the way you do
Is your subconscious that was imprinted on as an infant that scripts the ideas you have right and wrong good and bad and so on
The first experiences you had as an infant even tho you can remember them have a trivial part in the person you are today hence your. "Personal moral"
Im not talking about the small desicions you make but the actual reason you think right is righ and wrong is wrong.
There is no good or bad like i said before
There is only the norm to right and wrong
Dictated by society
If tomorrow we decided killing was ok
You would still have a problem with it and maybe your children as well but down the line a couple of generations from now it would become the new norm
And it wouldnt be conceived as a bad thing.
Just look at the many examples in history.