It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
But since you all seem to think we have no cards where does moralism come from?
What makes an act good or Bad?
What defines good or bad?
After all since you believe there is no god where does moral fabric come from?
So then murder and rape is acceptable in certain cultures there for they are good?
To most other cultures obviously they are not good. But good and bad are not universal.
You're excluding some Islamic cultures I'm taking it?
Vatican covering up of paedo priests?
Female circumcision?
Lot's daughter?
Islamic subjugation of women?
The rampant spread of AIDS in Africa due to religious doctrine on condoms?
The general attitude of the religious towards homosexuality?
And on and on....
I'd be very careful before I started preaching from the moral high ground if I were a believer.
It's OK for the God of the Bible.So is slavery, the subversion of women, the killing of a disobedient child... But don't have consensual sex with a person of the same gender, masturbate or worse: don't you dare to not worship God and defy him in any way. Because THAT'S immoral.
No but seriously I always find it funny when theists bring up morality. Devotion is not moral. Worshipping is not moral. Acting out of fear is most definitely not moral. Actions that will benefit others and allow them to live freely, in security and pursuit happiness... now THAT'S moral. And neither your God nor any god worshipped by man cared much about that. Still waiting for the evidences.
@bondjames Consistent with preconceptions? What good does it do? If a plesiosaur is consistent with my belief in the Loch Ness monster does that make the monster real or even plausible? And how closer am I to find out if God exists if I refuse any definition of god even in the widest sense? Sorry to come back to it I'm not having a go but you cannot defend a concept you refuse to conceptualize. If God is beyond human perception and understanding... He's just as good as dead. And pretty pointless.
My educational background is in economics (the dismal science) and finance. I know many smart people (including former professors) who cling to outdated theories and models. Some of these (including disproven financial concepts of efficient markets, rational decision making and so on and so forth) arguably were responsible for the financial crisis. Even models around the EU have flawed reasoning baked in. Some of us had commented on that prior to it coming into effect (before hard evidence existed of their flaws), but were ignored on account of politics. Now these fallacies have become accepted reality.
So delusions are not just something which afflict the religious. They affect anyone who is too rigid in their ideology or thinking, whatever that may be.
One has to be ideologically flexible and open to new ways of thinking and evidence.
Yes, and you even had a thread on it. Didn't do quite as well as this one, mind. I wonder why...
Now unlike you however I do not think the existence of something or its inexistence are both equally valid possibilities especially if you refuse to define what that thing is (or would be if it existed). So I think it's very unlikely that the invisible dragon in the garage of @patb exists and unless more evidence is brought forward I'd say there's probably no dragon there. That doesn't make me close minded or dogmatic, that makes me sceptical and I'm ok with that.
What makes murder evil? Why are certain acts good or bad?
I think we pretty much answered it: the intended effect, positive or negative, towards other persons (and I'd even add animals to that, who can also express empathy and have moral behaviors).
If you're going to say a higher power that makes such moral arbitrary. But the Euthyphro dilemma pretty much answered this question a while ago.
Are you trying to say what is it inside us that recognises these acts as being evil?
I can't answer that but equally you have no proof that it is due to a soul or God so we're back at square one again.
It's unacceptable for religion to have a preferred or outsize place at the table of rule setting and policy decision making. They are but one party, & must be deferential to logic, evidence and common sense. Religion can certainly bring moral clarity in some cases, but it is not a requirement for morality in my mind.
There is a fundamental difference between the dragon in a garage and belief in god however. That is simply the fact that the latter belief is indeed quite wide spread, even among intellectuals, scientists and educated folks globally. Ignoring that is willful blindness. We have to acknowledge, respect and work with that fact.
As Gandhi said, it's the universal beliefs among all religions which are worth preserving and respecting. Not specific dogma inherent in any one religion.
And it's not like everybody believing in god had the same definition of God, who as you said escapes mere human concepts. For all we know some might see God as an invisible dragon.
There are enough people in the world who have had experiences which defy conventional logic. Experiences which play into their preconceived notions of a superior being. We can dismiss them or we can work to understand and explain the phenomena they have experienced. If the scientific explanation is convincing enough, minds will change, one small step at a time. It's a wrenching process. It starts with understanding, trying to see the other side's point of view and working towards what we can agree on. After all, very few people still believe the earth is flat.
I'm glad to learn that most scientists are atheists. I should hope so!
No
Would it make the topic more legitimate and worthy of debate?
No
Would we have to invent a word for non dragon believers and agree to "live and let live"
No
Would those people who beleived in the dragon (due to their new massive numbers numbers) deserve respect?
No.
Because, despite all of these variables, there is NO evidence of the dragon and whatever changes in terms of our perceptions and the popularity of the belief, it doesn't change the facts.
Group think is a dangerous thing. Humans are poor at thinking for themselves and there is a serious hearding instinct. We gravitate towards going along with the crowd rather than thinking for ourselves. Time and time again, we have had to rely on individual geniuses to show us the direction of the truth. Part of what makes them so clever is the ability to think independently rather than follow the crowd.
I already addressed in a previous post the accusation of humiliating and insulting the theists in this thread: I don't think I or any other atheist here did anything of the sort, not consciously. Some theists, however, did humiliate themselves.
I don't think anyone dismiss any experience here. However, I am sceptical of any supernatural claim. But this is why I am all in favour of investigating them. Which is often not what believers want. Miracles seldom, if ever, withstand scrutiny.
Anyone on the forum think Elvis is still alive? (from 2.30)
This thing you keep calling evidence, doesn't exist. Maybe you think you possess some waterproof evidence, when you really don't. I'm sure you mean well; perhaps someone has really convinced you of the validity of that so-called evidence. I'm also sure that what you have doesn't qualify as evidence when placed under the microscope of logic, reason, scientific scrutiny, ...
So... Morality exists, therefore a god exists? You think our notions of good and evil have magically descended upon us from the divine realm? You don’t give mankind a lot of credit, do you? You don’t understand the natural but protracted process of humans developing a conscience, learning from past, dreadful experiences, seeking out the best conditions and social parameters for their offspring etcetera? I will give you this: a lot of our moral “rules” have been perpetuated via religion. But you cannot prove that without religion, we wouldn’t have had a moral fabric.
But your point is far more upsetting. You’re not even talking about religion but about god. That non-existing cosmic superman gave me my morality? Or he gave it to my ancestors who passed it on to me? You’re telling me that I haven’t been able to figure out myself, or if you like to naturally “feel”, what separates good from evil? Even if I had a little help for my parents, teachers, peers, … I was never in any control of my own line of thought? It follows then that the various different morals from which I have had to distill my own, were but a figment of my imagination? Or that my own moral thought experiments (e.g. do I accept abortion or not?, should I commit an act of thievery if presented with the opportunity, or not?) were unfruitful or simply imaginary? You’re furthermore telling me that in this modern world, my moral stance on some very recent issues, things that weren’t even relevant in “old testament” times, was somehow already imprinted on my ancestors eons ago by the all-foreseeing god? These are outrageous claims!
Perhaps you should learn about DNA, evolutionary biology, oxytocin, … Might open your eyes a bit. Even “love” has become a scientific concept and we’re getting quite good at quantifying it. We’re rendering your god obsolete from head to toe.
But wait, since I don’t believe in god and reject religion, am I then amoral? Am I a cruel beast? Am I a monster? Or, turning things upside down, consider how many amoral individuals exist and explain to me why god let them down the way he clearly did.
Of all of the claims that the religious make, I think this is both one of the most far reaching (it applies to every human that has ever and will exist) and nasty claims.
And, as with all of the other claims, there is simply zero evidence to support this...just zero.
What do we think of the guiding morality from God here?
I presume the believers will join with the rest of us in saying Sutcliffe is utterly mental?
But why? He 'believed' that God was telling by him do these things. Who are we, who are instructed by the law to 'respect everyone's beliefs' to lock this man up for following God's instructions?
Could Sutcliffe not be a prophet fullfilling God's will to rid the world of sinful prostitutes? To be honest the whole tale sounds like something ripped straight from the pages of the Old Testament.
For atheists it's clear Sutcliffe is a nutter but if you're a believer it's a far greyer issue. Since you require zero evidence for extraordinary claims, surely you have to consider the posdibility that Sutcliffe might in fact be telling the truth as being very credible? It seems a natural progression that the God who gives babies cancer wouldn't bat an eyelid over some dead prostitutes.
2. Televangelists
Another thing that brings my blood to a boil is that we have these televangelists running around saying one thing to the congregation and when they all leave, they bask and live lavishly... Didn't the bible say something about living modestly? I don't understand why I see these pastors in Multimillion dollar homes, Mercedes Benzes and Lear Jets after promising their congregations the world and claiming that they are the "Closest Link to God"... Far from modest if you ask me.
3. Hyper-religious people
No Comment. that's all I have to say.
Another thing that brings my blood to a boil is that we have these televangelists running around saying one thing to the congregation and when they all leave, they bask and live lavishly... Didn't the bible say something about living modestly? I don't understand why I see these pastors in Multimillion dollar homes, Mercedes Benzes and Lear Jets after promising their congregations the world... Far from modest if you ask me."
Don't you mean the Pope? He has access to more cash that any USA TV guy would dream of.
I might have to agree with you there.