| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/20/2007 12:02:11 AM · #101 |
Originally posted by Artyste:
I think of it more in simplistic terms.. Most people won't accept an atheist president because being brought up in a religious environment doesn't allow them to accept that an atheist *can* have a moral "code" or "center" or anything of that nature. Simple as that. It is, unfortunately, erroneous. |
Well, I'm not really disagreeing with this. It was pretty well the supposition of my original post. I did try to go on to explain another possible "why" is because atheism is not associated with a specific code of conduct and thus is to be "distrusted" by the general public, but things went to hell after that.
|
|
|
|
05/20/2007 12:08:00 AM · #102 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Artyste:
I think of it more in simplistic terms.. Most people won't accept an atheist president because being brought up in a religious environment doesn't allow them to accept that an atheist *can* have a moral "code" or "center" or anything of that nature. Simple as that. It is, unfortunately, erroneous. |
Well, I'm not really disagreeing with this. It was pretty well the supposition of my original post. I did try to go on to explain another possible "why" is because atheism is not associated with a specific code of conduct and thus is to be "distrusted" by the general public, but things went to hell after that. |
Things always go to hell on DPC ;) |
|
|
|
05/20/2007 12:09:59 AM · #103 |
Originally posted by Artyste:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Artyste:
I think of it more in simplistic terms.. Most people won't accept an atheist president because being brought up in a religious environment doesn't allow them to accept that an atheist *can* have a moral "code" or "center" or anything of that nature. Simple as that. It is, unfortunately, erroneous. |
Well, I'm not really disagreeing with this. It was pretty well the supposition of my original post. I did try to go on to explain another possible "why" is because atheism is not associated with a specific code of conduct and thus is to be "distrusted" by the general public, but things went to hell after that. |
Things always go to hell on DPC ;) |
So there is a hell?
|
|
|
|
05/20/2007 12:10:13 AM · #104 |
Originally posted by Artyste:
Things always go to hell on DPC ;) |
We're likely all going to hell for our involvement on DPC.
|
|
|
|
05/20/2007 12:10:44 AM · #105 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Originally posted by Artyste:
Things always go to hell on DPC ;) |
We're likely all going to hell for our involvement on DPC. |
If we are all going to hell surely you're going to someplace more hellish. :P
Message edited by author 2007-05-20 00:11:00.
|
|
|
|
05/20/2007 12:13:03 AM · #106 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Originally posted by Artyste:
Things always go to hell on DPC ;) |
We're likely all going to hell for our involvement on DPC. |
If we are all going to hell surely you're going to someplace more hellish. :P |
mk's torture chamber
|
|
|
|
05/20/2007 12:24:14 AM · #107 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Originally posted by Artyste:
Things always go to hell on DPC ;) |
We're likely all going to hell for our involvement on DPC. |
Well as long as you have your camera...
|
|
|
|
05/20/2007 12:36:47 AM · #108 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
If you want me to answer I would say that animals definitely show the actions you describe and it may even be that plants do. In fact, it seems clear that slime mold exhibits such traits. (These protists live as individual amoebae until starved, at which point they aggregate and form a multicellular fruiting body in which some cells sacrifice themselves to promote the survival of other cells in the fruiting body.)
So taking the answer from C), could you understand how 55% of Americans don't think an atheist is "up to snuff" to being president when he/she considers morality as much a realm of slime mold as of humans? |
Um... no, I couldn't understand that. Talk about jumping to conclusions. This was quite a fantastic leap. Not to mention that I previously stated that I specifically had no interest in talking about American presidential candidates. (Somehow I'm getting the feeling that it doesn't really matter what I say anyway.) |
|
|
|
05/20/2007 01:04:54 AM · #109 |
Come on! You gotta give me style points for bringing up the slime molds though!
So anyway, do you consider Slime Molds to be "moral"? That's a serious question. |
|
|
|
05/20/2007 01:10:55 AM · #110 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Originally posted by Artyste:
Things always go to hell on DPC ;) |
We're likely all going to hell for our involvement on DPC. |
If we are all going to hell surely you're going to someplace more hellish. :P |
mk's torture chamber |
Trust me when I say this dude - that room is booked solid. |
|
|
|
05/20/2007 01:21:18 AM · #111 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Come on! You gotta give me style points for bringing up the slime molds though!
So anyway, do you consider Slime Molds to be "moral"? That's a serious question. |
I'd consider them to be biologically reactive.
Morality tends to require more of a sentient quality. |
|
|
|
05/20/2007 01:23:14 AM · #112 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
So anyway, do you consider Slime Molds to be "moral"? That's a serious question. |
Ya'll leave my mother's coking out of this!
|
|
|
|
05/20/2007 01:26:20 AM · #113 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
So anyway, do you consider Slime Molds to be "moral"? That's a serious question. |
Ya'll leave my mother's coking out of this! |
Coking eh? That explains *everything* |
|
|
|
05/20/2007 01:30:03 AM · #114 |
|
|
|
05/20/2007 07:43:10 AM · #115 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
So taking the answer from C), could you understand how 55% of Americans don't think an atheist is "up to snuff" to being president when he/she considers morality as much a realm of slime mold as of humans? Most people's view of morality would be different and at least I can understand the results of the poll...
|
If morality is a question of whether certain behaviours are acceptable within a community, then certainly morality can be seen to act in nature. If you have dogs, you can watch one tell the other off when it does something wrong. Their moral compass is often imposed by us (eg, don't jump up at the table), but it is not hard to conceive it operating in the wild in a manner more relevant to dogs.
However, with decreasing levels of mental sophistication, the morality exhibited by animals becomes increasingly unsophisticated. Because we use the word morality to refer to a sophisticated system of rules and behaviour, it becomes hard to identify in lower life forms. The basic behaviours are there - but they do not combine in a fashion that we would recognise as morality.
Slime mould is one of the most primitive of organisms, with apparent intelligence only arising out of emergence. It is not a good place to look for sophisticated morality, but it does exhibit rule based behaviour.
Incidentally, slime mould is also a good example of how intelligence emerges from a collection of cells together following combinations of primitive rule based behaviour. It should come as no surprise that our brains operate on large scale but simple rule based behaviour within the environment of our body and the consequence is intelligence as we recognise it.
Message edited by author 2007-05-20 07:51:55.
|
|
|
|
05/20/2007 09:58:30 AM · #116 |
On the issue of attitudes toward atheists, in the United States at least, I found an interesting summary article of a study conducted in 2006 on this very topic:
Atheists Identified as America's Most Distrusted Minority
|
|
|
|
05/20/2007 11:25:10 AM · #117 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
Slime mould is one of the most primitive of organisms, with apparent intelligence only arising out of emergence. It is not a good place to look for sophisticated morality, but it does exhibit rule based behaviour. |
I guess my point is that while Slime Mold apparently exhibits altruistic behavior, it is unconventional to call such behavior "morality". You don't think it counts. Artyste doesn't think it counts. The dictionary doesn't think it counts (see below). Louis can weigh in here, but I believe did (by declaring all altruistic behavior as being part of darwinian morality). I'm sure he'll change his mind now.
Going back, once again, to common definitions, morality is defined as...
mo·ral·i·ty n. pl. mo·ral·i·ties
1. The quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct.
2. A system of ideas of right and wrong conduct: religious morality; Christian morality.
3. Virtuous conduct.
4. A rule or lesson in moral conduct.
Message edited by author 2007-05-20 11:25:28. |
|
|
|
05/20/2007 11:27:45 AM · #118 |
From the article:
"Many of the study̢۪s respondents associated atheism with an array of moral indiscretions ranging from criminal behavior to rampant materialism and cultural elitism."
Exactly the kind of childish nonsense that the article originally posted by Matthew refutes. |
|
|
|
05/20/2007 11:29:11 AM · #119 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
[The dictionary doesn't think it counts (see below). Louis can weigh in here, but I believe did (by declaring all altruistic behavior as being part of darwinian morality). I'm sure he'll change his mind now. |
I really do prefer you not to speak for me, or draw conclusions on my behalf. You do it quite often, and it's kind of annoying. |
|
|
|
05/20/2007 02:58:19 PM · #120 |
It's probably a result of debating outside realtime. You mean I have to wait hours before hearing from my opponent?
We don't have to continue debating if you don't want. I originally just came over here to see what was going on and made a comment on the atheist poll. Anyway, I will challenge you to let go of Dawkins' venemous cynicism concerning religion. Nobody is arguing that religion has had its share of atrocities and actions which led to more harm than good. However, likewise, nobody can argue that religion can be a strong force for good. One only need look at organizations such as the YMCA, Salvation Army, and Missionaries of Charity (Mother Theresa's organization) or to people such as Martin Luther King Jr. or Desmond Tutu to see this is true. (I only mentioned Christian organizations because I am most familiar with them.) The Catholic Church, for all its shortcomings, was also a stabilizing influence in the Middle Ages and we would likely be missing the vast majority of what the Western World considers "art" (painting, sculpture, music) were it not for the Catholic Church.
Anyway, I think you are doing yourself a disservice and even doing your argument a disservice to merely see religion as "illogical cruelty and absurdity".
I've said my peace.
Message edited by author 2007-05-20 14:59:28. |
|
|
|
05/20/2007 03:47:13 PM · #121 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The Catholic Church, for all its shortcomings, was also a stabilizing influence in the Middle Ages and we would likely be missing the vast majority of what the Western World considers "art" (painting, sculpture, music) were it not for the Catholic Church. |
Interestingly, during this same period, much of what we now consider "science" and "philosophy" were only preserved by their translation into Arabic by Islamic scholars, while the flat-earthers prevailed in Europe .... |
|
|
|
05/20/2007 04:16:59 PM · #122 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The Catholic Church, for all its shortcomings, was also a stabilizing influence in the Middle Ages and we would likely be missing the vast majority of what the Western World considers "art" (painting, sculpture, music) were it not for the Catholic Church. |
Interestingly, during this same period, much of what we now consider "science" and "philosophy" were only preserved by their translation into Arabic by Islamic scholars, while the flat-earthers prevailed in Europe .... |
Originally posted by Jason:
Nobody is arguing that religion has had its share of atrocities and actions which led to more harm than good. |
There is, however, another side to your coin...
From wiki...
Historians of science, including non-Catholics such as J.L. Heilbron,[90] Alistair Cameron Crombie, David C Lindberg,[91] Edward Grant, Thomas Goldstein,[92] and Ted Davis, have argued that the Church had a significant, positive influence on the development of civilization. They hold that, not only did monks save and cultivate the remnants of ancient civilization during the barbarian invasions, but that the Church promoted learning and science through its sponsorship of many universities which, under its leadership, grew rapidly in Europe in the 11th and 12th centuries. St. Thomas Aquinas, the Church's "model theologian," not only argued that reason is in harmony with faith, he even recognized that reason can contribute to understanding revelation, and so encouraged intellectual development. [93] The Church's priest-scientists, many of whom were Jesuits, were the leading lights in astronomy, genetics, geomagnetism, meteorology, seismology, and solar physics, becoming the "fathers" of these sciences. It is important to remark names of important churchmen such as the Augustinian abbot Gregor Mendel (pioneer in the study of genetics), Roger Bacon (a Franciscan monk who was one of the early advocates of the scientific method), and Belgian priest Georges Lemaître (the first to propose the Big Bang theory). Even more numerous are Catholic laity involved in science: Henri Becquerel who discovered radioactivity; Galvani, Volta, Ampere, Marconi, pioneers in electricity and telecommunications; Lavoisier, "father of modern chemistry"; Vesalius, founder of modern human anatomy; Cauchy one of the mathematicians who laid the rigorous foundations of calculus.
Message edited by author 2007-05-20 16:19:35. |
|
|
|
05/20/2007 05:42:21 PM · #123 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
It's probably a result of debating outside realtime. You mean I have to wait hours before hearing from my opponent? |
Certainly not, but one should probably have the courtesy to let people speak for themselves.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
We don't have to continue debating if you don't want. |
Oh, you misunderstand, I love debating this topic. But I actually mean debating, and not what, in my view, happened here, where I feel you drew conclusions based on your opinion, rather than any true dialogue, even before I had a chance to correct misinterpretations that may have occurred during online translation.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Anyway, I will challenge you to let go of Dawkins' venemous cynicism concerning religion. |
Certainly not. Why? Because they're threatening to your beliefs? Have you actually read any of his books? It doesn't seem so, though I'm sure you've read largely one-sided reviews. His "venomous cynism" actually comes down to this, paraphrased from the article that started this thread: If you have some claim to make, please prove it using analytical scientific theory. If you cannot do that, I will reject what you say as groundless.
Hm. So much for venom.
I challenge you to read "The God Delusion" from cover to cover with an open mind and objectively. Try to subdue what appears to be your personal dislike for the man. Then make your judgements concerning the arguments in the text, and not what you perceive him to be as an individual.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
However, likewise, nobody can argue that religion can be a strong force for good. |
I'm sure this is not what you meant to write, but I agree anyway. :P
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Anyway, I think you are doing yourself a disservice and even doing your argument a disservice to merely see religion as "illogical cruelty and absurdity". |
I don't think so. For the first eighteen years of my life, I was a devout Catholic and considered the seminary from the age of sixteen. I am intimately familiar with the history, ideology, and dogma of the church, and received my entire education in Catholic schools. I mention this to illustrate that it is not some one-off, some aberration of my intellect that leads me to such strong opinions. And for every act of charity demonstrated by some organized religious institution, not only can I show you an equal act of immoral or downright hostile or murderous or genocidal intent, I can also show you an act of selfless kindness and altruism committed by a non-religious, secular, humanist, or otherwise nothing-to-do-with-all-that organization. Religion may think it has a stranglehold on the goodness in the world, but it certainly does not.
It seems to me that those with religion simply can't abide the contrary view. As I mentioned before, one can talk about anything in our society in terms of its opposing position, and be quite vocal about it, from government and politics, to institutions like law, to education, and even, of all things, science. But when one dares offer a strong opinion against religion, the knives come out. Why is that? Surely those with religion have more faith than can be shaken by a simple contrary opinion?
edit to fix quote thing
Message edited by author 2007-05-20 17:44:08. |
|
|
|
05/20/2007 06:45:25 PM · #124 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Anyway, I think you are doing yourself a disservice and even doing your argument a disservice to merely see religion as "illogical cruelty and absurdity".
|
But religion is the most illogical absurdity mankind has ever created. It's loaded with scare tactics to make people conform. Centuries, countries were aligned with their god(s) rather than to their country. The USA is an example of a country that is not religion oriented, contrary to the desires of the Falwell and Robertson followers. Man made God in his own image. If you don't think so, look at the current accepted images of Jesus and Muhammod.
|
|
|
|
05/20/2007 07:41:04 PM · #125 |
Originally posted by Zeuss:
Man made God in his own image. If you don't think so, look at the current accepted images of Jesus and Muhammod. |
There are no "currently accepted" images of Muhammed -- that's what the Danish cartoon controversy was all about. |
|
