News:

If you need instructions on how to get through the hotels, check out the enclosed instruction book.

Main Menu

religulous

Farted by HeinekenClock, August 04, 2008, 10:17:03 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Blue

Quote from: Randy Pearson;1377740It is my sincere belief that people who claim that religion is the basis for morality are overestimating humans and underestimating morality.

I believe exactly the opposite. To believe that morality is based on an evolved instinct of the common good would be overestimating it's depth, and underestimating it's complexity.

My reasoning for this is that morality, and ethics in general are not constant across the gamut of human life. There are many different races (and thousands of sub-societies), each with their own ethical standards. Sure you could argue that if they are all averaged together that they are more or less the same, but one has to look at the reasons for the vast differences between neighboring ancient societies as well. The lines between ethical and moral standards are distinctly drawn on the boundaries of varied religions, and thus to argue that religion is not the basis of some moral standards would be jumping to a conclusion. Granted there are other factors, but religion is the most clearly definable (when in relation to the societies they belong to) and it directly mirrors the ethical variations.

We cannot prove that morals are a part of human evolution, but we can scientifically prove that religion is part of the evolution of morality.
[FLASH=http://files.myfrogbag.com/mupff0/snowflake.swf]width=670 height=200 quality=medium wmode=transparent[/FLASH]

RomanClock

A simple look at nations across the word reveals a lot:
America and Europe are Christian based, Middle East is Muslim based, Japan is Shinto, and the various religions of Africa. Though of course religion is not the ONLY factor, there is a clear divide between each country based on religion. This divide is most prevalent between Israel and the rest of the Middle East.
lemayo lol :soups:

FluxCapacitorClock

Quote from: HeinekenClock;1377234Jesus fucking christ if you bunch of faggots would actually look at the trailor carefully before dusting off your bible/darwin quotes, it actually looks like [SIZE=gfh3]the movie[/SIZE][SIZgfhE=4] will not[/SIZE] attack religion,[SIZE=gf6]but more like[/SIZE][SIZE=7gh] religious fundamentalists like that one redneck!!!!!111 111111111[/SIZE]

I posted a clip on page 2 where he just walks into an Islamic clothing store and metaphorically shits all over the owner for no reason, so don't even start that.

Randy Pearson

Quote from: Deep Blue;1377846My reasoning for this is that morality, and ethics in general are not constant across the gamut of human life. There are many different races (and thousands of sub-societies), each with their own ethical standards.

I was not arguing this. You are ignoring my initial concept that morality is not a specifically human trait. Animals have society and morality too (and, as you mentioned, each one is distinct).

You are right. Moral standards are not constant among any race or species, which is why they are constantly changing (racial subjugation --> equal rights), and obviously there will always be members of society that go against those moral standards.

QuoteSure you could argue that if they are all averaged together that they are more or less the same, but one has to look at the reasons for the vast differences between neighboring ancient societies as well.

Exactly. Which is why we have the word "culture" to express the variations between societies.

QuoteThe lines between ethical and moral standards are distinctly drawn on the boundaries of varied religions, and thus to argue that religion is not the basis of some moral standards would be jumping to a conclusion.

You're right, that would be. But you said that:

QuoteNo matter how you slice it, dice it, melt it down... Religion is the ancient basis of all basic forms of reinforced morality.

And it is here that I flat out disagree with you. I would be willing to concede
 that religion plays a large enough part in cultures to the point of which it defines a certain aspect of a culture or society's morality. I will not concede, however, that religion is the basis of morality, nor that it is essential for any culture to reinforce notions of morality.

QuoteGranted there are other factors, but religion is the most clearly definable (when in relation to the societies they belong to) and it directly mirrors the ethical variations.

We cannot prove that morals are a part of human evolution, but we can scientifically prove that religion is part of the evolution of morality.

I simply don't understand how people can compare human and animal societies and not come to the conclusion that social creatures at least have some sort of morality that is lacking in solitary creatures.

If we are going to talk about the ethical variations among religion, then let me just start out by saying that religion has not consistently proved to actually make people behave better towards one another and that no one religion is unique in it's subjugation and persecution of people (whether it be of a society's own people or of the people of another religion or nation). To my knowledge, there has not been a single aspect of religions, especially monotheistic ones, that has proved to me to have not been totally irrelevant, either in that it is useless or in that it is completely ignored by the same people who claim to subscribe to it.

- Religions all over the world continue to repress people sexually, whether it be to restrict sex before marriage or to tell them that their desires for the same sex are an abomination. Masturbation alone, if we are to trust religion's infallible moral guidance, can cause blindness, unsightly hair growth, the deterioration of the brain, and even cause the spinal column to dissolve.

- Violent and primitive morality create violent religions: most crimes and sins in the Old Testament, running the gambit from sex before marriage, to homosexuality, to simple teenage rebellion against parents can be solved with a simple stoning. I don't think I need to even bring up Islam.

- Religion has been and continues to be a perfect tool for war and mass murder. Because people end up associating cultural and religious identity with morality, religion has also been used as an excuse for racism, slavery, sexism and misogynists, and genocide. Because when people associate morality with religion, especially ignorant people (which, I don't have to remind you, there are a lot of in this world), they view anything else as amoral or morally abhorrent: polytheists enslave and slaughter Jews and Christians, Christians and Muslims subjugate and enslave American and African natives, Muslims suicide bomb Jews and other Muslims, Christians kill Jews and Muslims and subjugate just about everyone, Japanese polytheists crucify Christians; the list of atrocities goes on. And let's not get into pre-Christian times chiefly illustrated by simply a series of polytheistic nations conquering one another.

- Religion does not make people act better towards one another. Global atrocities aside, religion has not proved in general to be for the good of society. They champion themselves often as the guides to the lost and protectors of the poor, but more often then not dogma supersedes practice and the words of the clergy fall of deaf ears. One need only consider the complacency of ancient Jewish priests, whose inaction and hypocrisy encouraged the rise of many proclaimed messiahs and popular cults (one of which became the second monotheistic religion). This is what I mean when the morality of religion is irrelevant: because whatever tenants they might have are completely irrelevant except to those who truly concerned with the plight of others; and this is an argument for self-awareness and humanism, not religion.

- Religion has proved its true motives of control throughout history. And no number of apologists will ever truly right the indelible harm religion has inflicted on people. Because at the end of the day, no matter what atrocity a religion claims responsibility and apologizes for, they are still ready to be infallible all over again.

Quote from: RomanClock;1377850A simple look at nations across the word reveals a lot:
America and Europe are Christian based, Middle East is Muslim based, Japan is Shinto, and the various religions of Africa. Though of course religion is not the ONLY factor, there is a clear divide between each country based on religion. This divide is most prevalent between Israel and the rest of the Middle East.

This does not disprove the concept of essential-for-survival social norms that exist among all animals, nor does it invalidate the idea the morality comes before religion. Religious variations are simply the product of geographical and social variations (in other words variations of "culture," which is why no matter how good-intentioned they claim to be, they will always manage to betray their followers). No religion is unique enough to claim that they were the result of independent morality and more often then not, religion in all of these countries has proved to do more harm than they do good.

I'm sorry if you find my views egregious, but considering that so many people are religious and consider it a huge part of their lives, there really is no way that I could have put that that wouldn't be at least slightly offensive. That is not to say I was trying to be offensive. But if I feel that religion is irrelevant to morality, so irrelevant is the word I intend to use.

This debate is going in circles. We are officially trapped in the classic "chicken-or-egg" argument loop. There is really nothing I can say that will convince either of you that one came before the other, and vice versa. So why don't we end it right now. All things considered, this would probably be best.
[u2]hFF7jzVfSB0[/u2]
It feels good to say what I want. It feels good to knock things down. It feels good to see the disgust in their eyes. It feels good and I\'m gonna go wild. SPRAY! PAINT! THE! WALLS!

Mashed Potato Johnson

[U2]eK5bIWRWcQw[/U2]

RomanClock

Quote from: yo if your smart you;1378144RomanClock: I will dismiss this on the basis of one line.

I still read the whole thing :\
Shouldn't and didn't/won't are different words.
And I do not believe the Catholic Church has as much control on people as you think.

Quote from: Randy Pearson;1378118Religious variations are simply the product of geographical and social variations (in other words variations of "culture," which is why no matter how good-intentioned they claim to be, they will always manage to betray their followers).

Well I think this is where you have the effects backwards. Religion affects society, society doesn't suddenly come up with one that because acceptable on a mass scale. And location is basically irrelevant, how would the location of water change your religion, or if it were always cold, or if you were in a higher altitude. That doesn't make any sense. And what do you mean by "they betray their followers?" There are always people that move under the guise of religion.
lemayo lol :soups:

RomanClock

Quote from: Randy Pearson;1378118Religious variations are simply the product of geographical and social variations (in other words variations of "culture," which is why no matter how good-intentioned they claim to be, they will always manage to betray their followers).

Well I think this is where you have the effects backwards. Religion affects society, society doesn't suddenly come up with one that because acceptable on a mass scale. And location is basically irrelevant, how would the location of water change your religion, or if it were always cold, or if you were in a higher altitude. That doesn't make any sense. And what do you mean by "they betray their followers?" There are always people that move under the guise of religion.
lemayo lol :soups:

Randy Pearson

Quote from: RomanClock;1378211Well I think this is where you have the effects backwards. Religion affects society, society doesn't suddenly come up with one that because acceptable on a mass scale. And location is basically irrelevant, how would the location of water change your religion, or if it were always cold, or if you were in a higher altitude. That doesn't make any sense. And what do you mean by "they betray their followers?" There are always people that move under the guise of religion.

When I used geography I meant in the sense that religions that are farther away from each other have more distinct features: while it can be said that Christianity and Islam are certainly different, nobody would argue that Shinto had greater similarities.

You caught me trying to shove too many ideas into one paragraph. I slipped up there.
[u2]hFF7jzVfSB0[/u2]
It feels good to say what I want. It feels good to knock things down. It feels good to see the disgust in their eyes. It feels good and I\'m gonna go wild. SPRAY! PAINT! THE! WALLS!

Randy Pearson

Quote from: Balsac the Jaws of Death;1378713This is true, Morality can be seen as a result of social interaction which was itself a result of our evolution as social creatures.

Thanks, this is basically what I said, but shorter. Much shorter.
[u2]hFF7jzVfSB0[/u2]
It feels good to say what I want. It feels good to knock things down. It feels good to see the disgust in their eyes. It feels good and I\'m gonna go wild. SPRAY! PAINT! THE! WALLS!

buttplug

Eh it was alright. The preaching at the end was annoying, and his "arguments" sucked. It was kind of funny though, and I really enjoyed the part with that "maverick priest" at the Vatican.

SnakeClock

The movie looks pretty self-serving, but it's from the guy that directed Borat, the Dilbert series, and who wrote some of the funnier episodes of Seinfeld. I'm intrigued.

Even so, it has Bill Maher parading around, pointing and laughing. This reads less like a documentary and more like farce.

GearBoxClock

Is it worth watching though>?

buttplug

Quote from: SnakeClock;1418656The movie looks pretty self-serving, but it's from the guy that directed Borat, the Dilbert series, and who wrote some of the funnier episodes of Seinfeld. I'm intrigued.

Even so, it has Bill Maher parading around, pointing and laughing. This reads less like a documentary and more like farce.
It was kind of a big circle jerk. There were a lot of "dickey aheists" (thank you munglai for that term, I use it all the time) lauging too hard at some parts. It was still entertaining though, like I said and some of the people truly were idiots. The end did suck though, and was preachy.

SnakeClock

Quote from: Mr.Satan;1418661There were a lot of "dickey aheists" (thank you munglai for that term, I use it all the time) lauging too hard at some parts.

In the movie or in the theatre?

Because if it was in the theatre, they'd probably do some really loud fake-laughing interspersed with "THAT IS SO TRUE!" so that everyone in the theatre would "overhear" them, then they'd get out of their seat and poke their head out the exit to do it to everyone outside.

GearBoxClock

IS IT WORTH WATCHING?

SnakeClock

Quote from: GearBox;1418683IS IT WORTH WATCHING?

It's got 65% at Rotten Tomatoes and 55 at Metacritic. Ultimately, it's your decision.

TremcladClock

Looks like a thinly-veiled method of capitalising on the increasingly-popular trend of picking holes in religion.


GearBoxClock

Meh, average ratings. I'll probably see it just cause of its awesome name.

Il Duce

Hooray for preaching to the choir.

buttplug

Quote from: SnakeClock;1418664Because if it was in the theatre, they'd probably do some really loud fake-laughing interspersed with "THAT IS SO TRUE!" so that everyone in the theatre would "overhear" them, then they'd get out of their seat and poke their head out the exit to do it to everyone outside.
You explained it flawlessly :)
Quote from: GearBox;1418683IS IT WORTH WATCHING?

If you are a dickey atheist, a religious person who likes to hate non-religious people, or you like humor that stems form uncomfortable situations then sure.