| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/11/2011 03:30:53 PM · #151 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Strikeslip:
Guess I missed that day at Atheist school. :-( |
Don't tell Ed. He doesn't think there is a school... :D |
Just as I was about to admonish slippy for giving you ammunition too. lol. |
Cat's out of the bag now... |
|
|
|
02/11/2011 03:42:17 PM · #152 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Strikeslip:
Guess I missed that day at Atheist school. :-( |
Don't tell Ed. He doesn't think there is a school... :D |
Just as I was about to admonish slippy for giving you ammunition too. lol. |
Cat's out of the bag now... |
Nah. Slippy was using obvious sarcasm and exaggeration of course. Even in the original post, I hardly think that he's against slavery BECAUSE of atheism. lol. Plenty of atheists had slaves in the day. Plenty still would, I'd imagine, if it were still allowable. Not believing in god(s) doesn't preclude people to any kind of morality system whatsoever. That comes from other factors. Atheism in itself is devoid of morality. |
|
|
|
02/11/2011 03:45:46 PM · #153 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I know I probably deserve the expectation that I'm suddenly going to jump out of the bushes and yell, "AHA! See! You need religion!" |
You are correct, you deserve the expectation/reputation.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
but I'm actually not going down that road here. |
Yet (or at least not directly), but you certainly are deliberately attempting to herd us onto the philosophical interchange from which that road is accessible.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
This is the atheist thread and so I want to explore this space and let the chips fall where they may. |
Yes, the old "I'm just asking questions" gambit.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Certainly I may find some of the system to be lacking, but I'm trying to give people the chance to defend their position. That way, I can judge whether my view of their system is grounded in a rational argument or not. (that's why I made the "this isn't sarcastic" statement. It really wasn't sarcastic. I was pointing out the flexibility of the system.) |
A more telling slip of the rhetorical tongue I have yet to see. So it's "your view" of our "system" that you will be judging, is it. Well then, what need have you for our responses?
Indeed, this is where a lot of the frustration comes from when debating you. You continuously and consistently misrepresent the arguments of those on the "other side." Whenever you start a comment with something along the lines of "So what you guys are really saying is . . . ." I start to get a twitch in my left eyebrow, because invariably what follows is fundamentally NOT what "us guys" are really saying.
Then when you get called on it, or you receive an answer that you can't sufficiently pick apart, instead of addressing (or sometimes even acknowledging) the critique, you do a little side-step to shift focus by positing some other "gotcha" hypothetical just to "move the conversation a bit." Case in point:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Let me move the conversation a bit, assuming that we have roughly described how the system works, and directly apply it. We all know one side of the fence loves to rub slavery in the face of relgious people. They consider the religious position to be broken at worst or hypocriticial at best. But on the surface it appears slavery is no more easily explained in moral terms in the system at hand.
What part of our universal/relative system informs us about slavery? Certainly slavery is abhored to the last man on this thread. We can all agree about that. But is it merely because our society says so? or are there universal/genetic truths? But if that is the case, how do we explain the undeniable fact that in the span of human history, both by time and culture, slavery has been overwhelmingly accepted as reasonable behavior. When seen in that light, our position against is really a small island in a sea of acceptance.
What do we make of this? |
What we make of it, is that over time the definition of the "tribe" has been consistently adjusted to include more and more individuals and groups that were historically excluded. The shared moral norms are generally only applicable to those inside the tribe, those outside are fair game. Thus, to be granted acceptance into the tribe results in being granted the protections afforded by the socially constructed, shared moral norms.
The "why?" of this shift probably has a lot to do with the fact that as it becomes easier and easier to find out about those outside your particular geographic in group it becomes harder and harder to credibly maintain arguments that exclude them from consideration in the broader "tribe" of full humanity. However, the exact mechanism behind this grand historical shift toward ever-increasing inclusiveness is a huge and contested area of social, anthropological and political research, so surely you aren't looking for some sort of pat answer that you can pick at around the edge, right?
|
|
|
|
02/11/2011 04:09:01 PM · #154 |
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
What we make of it, is that over time the definition of the "tribe" has been consistently adjusted to include more and more individuals and groups that were historically excluded. The shared moral norms are generally only applicable to those inside the tribe, those outside are fair game. Thus, to be granted acceptance into the tribe results in being granted the protections afforded by the socially constructed, shared moral norms.
The "why?" of this shift probably has a lot to do with the fact that as it becomes easier and easier to find out about those outside your particular geographic in group it becomes harder and harder to credibly maintain arguments that exclude them from consideration in the broader "tribe" of full humanity. However, the exact mechanism behind this grand historical shift toward ever-increasing inclusiveness is a huge and contested area of social, anthropological and political research, so surely you aren't looking for some sort of pat answer that you can pick at around the edge, right? |
Now, now. Be nice. I appreciate this answer. It actually means something and I think you have a good feel for things. You don't have to give me a pat answer to the "why" question, but it's an important question to answer for yourself. If you suddenly found yourself on a humanitarian mission and you met a man who explained that they exploit sex-slaves because they are just "poor, thai girls" (thus not part of his "tribe"), you'd best have a line of argument to explain that the girl actually is part of his tribe and that such activity is not acceptable no matter who he is or who she is.
I find (and I'll officially say the following is opinion) that moral systems like this are good at helping an individual navigate moral questions, but poor at persuasion when it comes to convincing others to change their course of action. And while many people will quickly reply, "why would I want to change anybody's course of action?", I think there are times and situations where such a task is quite important to humanity. (Again, that's just my opinion and I'm just laying it out to keep my cards on the table.)
If we keep drilling down into the epistemology of your system and ask very basic, fundamental questions that seem obvious, what informs you that we are all the same "tribe"? In other words, what tells us that any one human being is "equal" to another?
Message edited by author 2011-02-11 16:11:48. |
|
|
|
02/11/2011 04:14:41 PM · #155 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
What we make of it, is that over time the definition of the "tribe" has been consistently adjusted to include more and more individuals and groups that were historically excluded. The shared moral norms are generally only applicable to those inside the tribe, those outside are fair game. Thus, to be granted acceptance into the tribe results in being granted the protections afforded by the socially constructed, shared moral norms.
The "why?" of this shift probably has a lot to do with the fact that as it becomes easier and easier to find out about those outside your particular geographic in group it becomes harder and harder to credibly maintain arguments that exclude them from consideration in the broader "tribe" of full humanity. However, the exact mechanism behind this grand historical shift toward ever-increasing inclusiveness is a huge and contested area of social, anthropological and political research, so surely you aren't looking for some sort of pat answer that you can pick at around the edge, right? |
Now, now. Be nice. I appreciate this answer. It actually means something and I think you have a good feel for things. You don't have to give me a pat answer to the "why" question, but it's an important question to answer for yourself. If you suddenly found yourself on a humanitarian mission and you met a man who explained that they exploit sex-slaves because they are just "poor, thai girls" (thus not part of his "tribe"), you'd best have a line of argument to explain that the girl actually is part of his tribe and that such activity is not acceptable no matter who he is or who she is.I find (and I'll officially say the following is opinion) that moral systems like this are good at helping an individual navigate moral questions, but poor at persuasion when it comes to convincing others to change their course of action. And while many people will quickly reply, "why would I want to change anybody's course of action?", I think there are times and situations where such a task is quite important to humanity. (Again, that's just my opinion and I'm just laying it out to keep my cards on the table.)
If we keep drilling down into the epistemology of your system and ask very basic, fundamental questions that seem obvious, what informs you that we are all the same "tribe"? In other words, what tells us that any one human being is "equal" to another? |
I honestly think that a reply such as "it's illegal and I'll make sure you go to prison" will work better in this case than "God says it's wrong". |
|
|
|
02/11/2011 04:21:23 PM · #156 |
| This thread got disappointing fast. If I wanted to read/listen to a morals debate I would go back to my college classes. Maybe the thread "?s about morals but were afraid to ask" should be created |
|
|
|
02/11/2011 04:22:28 PM · #157 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
If we keep drilling down into the epistemology of your system and ask very basic, fundamental questions that seem obvious, what informs you that we are all the same "tribe"? In other words, what tells us that any one human being is "equal" to another? |
Empathy and an awareness of shared, collective experience. (And here I shall refer you again to Richard Rorty's "sad stories, told properly and listened to with respect." There is a lot in his philosophy that I do not agree with, but I think he has this just right.)
You say "drilling down," I say semantic sniping from the sideline. (But I say it nicely. ;)
|
|
|
|
02/11/2011 04:25:17 PM · #158 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
morals are generally informed by a "system". That's what we're talking about... |
Kelli explained it best. I'll add, experiences (collectively) leads to knowledge, which in turn leads to wisdom, which eventually leads to a set of codes free of irrational beliefs. If this process is allowed to run indefinitely and unabated, it naturally becomes a stable foundation for future generations. It's a system of constant refinement where falseholds and the unsubstantiated fall by the wayside. This is in direct contrast to closed systems like religion, which has no such drainage system in place. As a result the smell of the garbage begins to stink more and more as time goes on.
Message edited by author 2011-02-11 16:30:19.
|
|
|
|
02/11/2011 04:30:44 PM · #159 |
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
If we keep drilling down into the epistemology of your system and ask very basic, fundamental questions that seem obvious, what informs you that we are all the same "tribe"? In other words, what tells us that any one human being is "equal" to another? |
Empathy and an awareness of shared, collective experience. (And here I shall refer you again to Richard Rorty's "sad stories, told properly and listened to with respect." There is a lot in his philosophy that I do not agree with, but I think he has this just right.)
You say "drilling down," I say semantic sniping from the sideline. (But I say it nicely. ;) |
I'm sure you're a big enough boy to take it. I'm not sniping. I'm asking questions. Don't be the "pastor" seemingly everybody here had when they went to church who shut people down. Bear with me and be patient with my questions...
If "empathy and an awareness of shared, collective experience" is the basis for human rights, why do you think it's so non-intuitive for us humans?
Message edited by author 2011-02-11 16:33:53. |
|
|
|
02/11/2011 04:34:01 PM · #160 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
If we keep drilling down into the epistemology of your system and ask very basic, fundamental questions that seem obvious, what informs you that we are all the same "tribe"? In other words, what tells us that any one human being is "equal" to another? |
Empathy and an awareness of shared, collective experience. (And here I shall refer you again to Richard Rorty's "sad stories, told properly and listened to with respect." There is a lot in his philosophy that I do not agree with, but I think he has this just right.)
You say "drilling down," I say semantic sniping from the sideline. (But I say it nicely. ;) |
I'm sure you're a big enough boy to take it. I'm not sniping. I'm asking questions. Don't be the "pastor" seemingly everybody here had when they went to church who shut people down. Bear with me and be patient with my questions... |
Ooo, now you're assuming that everyone went to a church and became an atheist because of, what, bad experiences? lol. |
|
|
|
02/11/2011 04:38:09 PM · #161 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Ooo, now you're assuming that everyone went to a church and became an atheist because of, what, bad experiences? lol. |
I know for a fact that there is more than one person on this thread where this is the case or at least played its part. They told me so.
Message edited by author 2011-02-11 16:39:37. |
|
|
|
02/11/2011 04:39:18 PM · #162 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Ooo, now you're assuming that everyone went to a church and became an atheist because of, what, bad experiences? lol. |
I know for a fact that there is more than one person on this thread where this is the case. They told me so. |
Maybe, but you used the term "everybody".
ETA: okay, "seemingly" everybody. That's a little more ambiguous, but still.
Message edited by author 2011-02-11 16:40:01. |
|
|
|
02/11/2011 04:39:44 PM · #163 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
...If "empathy and an awareness of shared, collective experience" is the basis for human rights, why do you think it's so non-intuitive for us humans? |
I don't think it's non-intuitive. Even Bill and Ted figured it out, "Be excellent to each other." |
|
|
|
02/11/2011 04:40:19 PM · #164 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Maybe, but you used the term "everybody". |
Sigh. It's like I'm dealing with an Asperger patient... |
|
|
|
02/11/2011 04:41:35 PM · #165 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Maybe, but you used the term "everybody". |
Sigh. It's like I'm dealing with an Asperger patient... |
Hahahahaha. Riggght. YOU suggesting I have aspergers tendencies. That's rich :D
Message edited by author 2011-02-11 16:43:01. |
|
|
|
02/11/2011 04:41:36 PM · #166 |
Originally posted by Strikeslip:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
...If "empathy and an awareness of shared, collective experience" is the basis for human rights, why do you think it's so non-intuitive for us humans? |
I don't think it's non-intuitive. Even Bill and Ted figured it out, "Be excellent to each other." |
Well, Ted is a step ahead of guys like Aristotle... |
|
|
|
02/11/2011 04:42:07 PM · #167 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Maybe, but you used the term "everybody". |
Sigh. It's like I'm dealing with an Asperger patient... |
Hahahahaha. Riggght. |
Quick Ed. How many toothpicks did I drop on the floor?! :P |
|
|
|
02/11/2011 04:43:19 PM · #168 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Maybe, but you used the term "everybody". |
Sigh. It's like I'm dealing with an Asperger patient... |
I feel sorry for the Asperger patient...
|
|
|
|
02/11/2011 04:44:00 PM · #169 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Maybe, but you used the term "everybody". |
Sigh. It's like I'm dealing with an Asperger patient... |
Hahahahaha. Riggght. |
Quick Ed. How many toothpicks did I drop on the floor?! :P |
" is an autism spectrum disorder that is characterized by significant difficulties in social interaction, along with restricted and repetitive patterns of behavior and interests" Sounds more like a certain doctor I know to me. |
|
|
|
02/11/2011 04:45:44 PM · #170 |
Originally posted by Kelli:
I think when you have religion in your life, you're told what types of morals you should have. When something you know in your heart is right conficts with something you are taught to believe "must" be wrong because of your religion you run into problems. When you're freed from the constraints of religion, you tend to base your morals more on your own life experiences and those conflicts don't happen. And those morals can even change at different times in you life. Nothing is black and white, and you're never going to define a belief or non-belief system that easily. For example, I believe in assisted suicide because I have seen relatives suffer (and some still suffering) badly. I might not believe this way if I hadn't seen what happens with my own eyes. This has nothing to do with my non belief of god/gods. It has to do with life experiences. |
I'm not sure why any of this is important.
People are people, regardless of their religious beliefs (or lack thereof)
Think about it. People warp morals to fit what they want them to fit. Otherwise, there wouldn't have been crusades. Somehow those were completely moral and justified at the time, even though there were commandments against stealing, murder, coveting, false witness. etc.
So what does it matter where the morals come from? They're really not real.
|
|
|
|
02/11/2011 04:46:01 PM · #171 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Maybe, but you used the term "everybody". |
Sigh. It's like I'm dealing with an Asperger patient... |
Hahahahaha. Riggght. |
Quick Ed. How many toothpicks did I drop on the floor?! :P |
" is an autism spectrum disorder that is characterized by significant difficulties in social interaction, along with restricted and repetitive patterns of behavior and interests" Sounds more like a certain doctor I know to me. |
Oh don't rain on his parade.
|
|
|
|
02/11/2011 04:49:22 PM · #172 |
| Maybe we should just both head to Vegas... |
|
|
|
02/11/2011 05:06:12 PM · #173 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
If we keep drilling down into the epistemology of your system and ask very basic, fundamental questions that seem obvious, what informs you that we are all the same "tribe"? In other words, what tells us that any one human being is "equal" to another? |
Getting more or less back on track, I think this is a valid question, and a fascinating one, and I don't think Doc is trying to nit-pick anything when he asks it. I also don't think it's the sort of "trick question" some of you seem to, designed to somehow steer the conversation towards a Christian Godhead.
I have a lifelong fascination with questions like this; I was the one who kept asking "why" until daddy shut me up :-)
What I take from this question is: at what point did this inclusive transition begin to manifest, and what was the mechanism of it? I think it's an important question. In the very specific area being discussed now, how did humanity transition from being a slave-holding species to a relatively widespread abhorrence of slaveholding, and is there something we can take from that which will help us in other, equally necessary transitions, such as from a warlike species to a more evolved one?
R.
Message edited by author 2011-02-11 17:06:53. |
|
|
|
02/11/2011 05:14:56 PM · #174 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
If you suddenly found yourself on a humanitarian mission and you met a man who explained that they exploit sex-slaves because they are just "poor, thai girls" (thus not part of his "tribe"), you'd best have a line of argument to explain that the girl actually is part of his tribe and that such activity is not acceptable no matter who he is or who she is. |
He already answered this question quite succinctly. It's apparent that if your motive is not to convince us that your theistic morality is superior to anyone else's, and if it's not a simple game of scoring points in a game of "which moral dilemma can I upset your apple cart with fastest", then you are here only for self-validation. You don't trust your own moral construct, and so you are comparing its flimsiness with everyone else's. |
|
|
|
02/11/2011 05:33:25 PM · #175 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Bear with me and be patient with my questions...
If "empathy and an awareness of shared, collective experience" is the basis for human rights, why do you think it's so non-intuitive for us humans? |
I think it is entirely intuitive, within the identified group. What is not intuitive is that others, outside the group that we have been socialized to identify as our own, similarly share the same experience.
Empathy is intuitive, extension of that empathy beyond the defined "tribe" is not. This is not an insignificant problem. I would argue that "empathetic failure" is a root cause of most of the acute social, economic and political problems in the modern world.
The famous observation that our technology outpaces our humanity holds true and in key respects grows ever more prophetic. Further, there is no guarantee that our humanity will catch up in time.
Additionally, I would argue that the religious impulse hinders the growth of empathy and a shared sense of humanity. Religion is inherently tribal--the modern ecumenical strain is a brief, and seemingly waning, interlude in an otherwise exclusive history of fierce religious competition--and aggressively resistant to moderating evidence. This characteristic of religion is not why I am an atheist, but it is why I am a strident secularist. The modern world no longer affords us the luxury of the pettiness of these archaic myths.
|
|
