Politics & Stuff

[Fulham Broadway 17,333]

This discussion should be in the Philosophy Thread

http://forum.talkchelsea.net/topic/18556-the-philosophy-thread/page-2#entry1001002

[Stingray 9,441]

There is a lot of literature and empirical data on moralist/ethics and theïsme/atheism. So far the data suggests that both categories display very comparable moral reasoning skills (Kohlberg, Gillian, Piaget) as de facto moral behaviours (Pinker, the HRAF anthropology database and many more). Even moral categories/beliefs tend to be very universal (Donald Brown's research on human universals). Also the stage development in children concerning ethics and morality clearly shows a similar path.

So if you like to offer the argument religious people are more moral/ethical, you are only claiming you think your beliefssystem is vastly superior. Enter the Deus Ex Machina.

So ....

[Fulham Broadway 17,333]

Both religion and atheism have arrogant certainty without a shred of evidence.

Agnosticism is best.....

[Stingray 9,441]

Both religion and atheism have arrogant certainty without a shred of evidence.

Agnosticism is best.....

Its an interesting question really: where lies the burden of proof? In the claim a divine superentity exists or the assumption there isn't. Because both cannot be falsified in any way (they are the 'There are no black swans type of unprovable claims), nor verified (except for God showing himself)

Some choose the probabilistic way. They believe (and it IS believing) that it is way more probable there is nothing supernatural there.

I will ask Dawkins, im seeing him next month [emoji16][emoji16][emoji16][emoji16]

[iseah100 5,612]

Have you guys heard of the controversy surrounding the movie "The Interview"? Apparently terrorists threatened theaters if they played the movie. Several major chains, AMC, Regal, Carmike, etc. have all announced they won't show it. James Franco and Seth Rogan have both decided to not do the press tours for the movie. Interesting considering it's from one of the biggest studios in the world, Sony.

[CHOULO19 24,332]

But what is bad?

How you come to a conclusion that something is bad?

"Good" and "Bad" are morale decisions that have been injected by a designer.

The hard wire into our brain I discussed that before but I will put it again.

Here's the the article I got it from, the "hard-wired:

Scientists say morality may be hardwired into our brains by evolution

http://discovermagazine.com/2004/apr/whose-life-would-you-save

This article of Discover magazine poses the question, ‘Are Right and Wrong Wired Into Our Brains?’ The article from Joshua Greene has been studying the biochemical reactions within people’s brains when they are faced with moral decisions.

As a result of his study, Greene has discovered that clusters of neurons in the brain begin to react under an MRI scan when people are making moral judgments. From his perception of this biochemical reaction, Greene hypothesizes that our moral judgments are not based solely upon reason alone but also upon emotion. Furthermore, Greene believes that such responses are the result of millions of years of evolution and that, ‘A lot of our deeply felt moral convictions may be quirks of our evolutionary history.’

Is Greene right? As the magazine asks, ‘Are right and wrong wired into our brains?’ The inquiry is a false one. Rather than questioning whether or not evolution has hardwired morality into our brains, the researcher should be questioning how the evolutionary hypothesis can claim anything is right or wrong at all like I just asked you.

For an evolutionist, life exists merely as a result of chance mutations occurring within a chemical ‘soup.’ The same primordial soup that produced human beings produced plant life, animals and all of the seemingly infinite varieties of things which we observe on earth. In such a system, there is indeed no basis for determining value for anything aside from the shifting sands of human opinion. For example, one may believe that sending airplanes into skyscrapers is evil and wrong, and another may believe that it is pleasing to God and correct. But, without a higher moral code than just one’s own beliefs, how could anyone be able to say that he or she is right and another individual is wrong? There can be no such universal principles as ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ in an evolutionary system as there is no higher authority for such principles than man himself, who is no more valuable than his own opinion would deem him to be.

Greene seems to recognize this problem within his evolutionary framework when he addresses people’s questions concerning morality by stating that it is simply another biochemical process. According to Greene, ‘People sometimes say to me, “If everyone believed what you say, the whole world would fall apart. If right and wrong are nothing more than the instinctive firing of neurons, why bother being good?”’

Disturbing as that question is, Greene still insists that this is what the research indicates. ‘Once you understand someone’s behavior on a sufficiently mechanical level, it’s very hard to look at them as evil,’ he says. ‘You can look at them as dangerous; you can pity them. But evil doesn’t exist on a neuronal level.’

Greene is right. Good and evil cannot possibly exist within a world that defines everything by chance. In his evolutionary belief system, only (fallible) human preference can determine ideals of right and wrong, and such preferences may shift from society to society.

Example: Goering actually said at the Nuremburg trials that the Nazis did nothing wrong according to their own laws, and were on trial only because they lost. Rebutting this, Prosecutor Jackson invoked a universal law. But this only has meaning if there is a Creator/Lawgiver!

Biblical Christians have a much more satisfying and rational point of view.

In the beginning, a holy and immutable (unchanging) God created human beings with a sense of right and wrong built into their very being. This sense of right and wrong is known as God’s moral law. God, the moral lawgiver, also revealed His moral standards more perfectly and directly following creation, by way of the Ten Commandments revealed to the children of Israel and subsequently in the New Testament through Jesus Christ.

Satisfying maybe, but with zero evidence. It would be satisfying if every straight male got to marry a girl like Emma Watson, but it would be deludedly optimistic to believe that everyone will

[Fernando 6,585]

Satisfying maybe, but with zero evidence. It would be satisfying if every straight male got to marry a girl like Emma Watson, but it would be deludedly optimistic to believe that everyone will

Zero evidence about god right?

So you rather believe that everything came from nothing....poof things fly away, here and there and magically get arranged in a particular spot?

Earth is put in the right place, the sun is not too big or too small.

The moon is not too big or too small, for that matter not too far or too close.

Then from nothing life came about and helped us formed morale guideline.....

You do realize how that sounds?

And why it baffles me is that someone who believes in this can sit there and tell me what's "right" and "wrong".

If you where made by accident, then your nothing. Your life means nothing.

No, no that's just not right at all, If anything these are evidence of an highly intelligent designer, just like a watch is made by a designer.

That designer made you very complex, made this complex universe into being.

Intelligent design.

Cause if this all happened from nothing, then I wonder if in a few billion years my IWatch will slowly evolved into a Emma Watson look a like...

[iseah100 5,612]

Satisfying maybe, but with zero evidence. It would be satisfying if every straight male got to marry a girl like Emma Watson, but it would be deludedly optimistic to believe that everyone will

Only I get to marry Emma Watson. :heart:

[Fulham Broadway 17,333]

Evolution theory disproved, heres the bible

[CHOULO19 24,332]

If you where made by accident, then your nothing. Your life means nothing.

And hence god exists because you want to mean something?

Evolution is not even debatable anymore. The evidence is overwhelming and all your questions and more are answered by countless science books. Evolution is as common a scientific fact as the round shape of the earth or how the sun works..

No, I was talking about zero evidence for morals coming 'from above'. In fact there are plenty of evidence to the contrary. The fact that we now know that morals are physical aspects of the brain and are the work of neurons, the historically global moral values, the fact that morals exits long before any organized religion mentions them, the fact that people of varying beliefs have similar morals...etc. I can go on and on. That's another scientific and historical fact: Morals were not invented by religion. There are no two ways about it.

[Fernando 6,585]

And hence god exists because you want to mean something?

Evolution is not even debatable anymore. The evidence is overwhelming and all your questions and more are answered by countless science books. Evolution is as common a scientific fact as the round shape of the earth or how the sun works..

No, I was talking about zero evidence for morals coming 'from above'. In fact there are plenty of evidence to the contrary. The fact that we now know that morals are physical aspects of the brain and are the work of neurons, the historically global moral values, the fact that morals exits long before any organized religion mentions them, the fact that people of varying beliefs have similar morals...etc. I can go on and on. That's another scientific and historical fact: Morals were not invented by religion. There are no two ways about it.

No god exists because the creation declares his glory just like a watch declares the glory from it's maker.

As per evolution evidence overwhelming, you mean the evidence that is being thought at school in the textbooks that are full of lies?

You mean the evidence that has to rely on circular reason?

A lot of your so called "evidence" has been debunked and yet still remains in text book.

And morals do come from above as mentioned many many times. A bi product of evolution has no sense of this, of what's right or wrong. Those are design implanted by a higher cause.

Let me ask you, where the "historically global moral values" came from? Who gave it to them? Who told them what was right and wrong?

Where is your proof that morals exists before any organized religions mentions them? Was you there?

The fact that people of varying beliefs have similar morals...doesn't that gives you a big clue? They all got it one from one same being.

Just like Noahs flood, which is not just a bible thing but many cultures around the world carry a similar story.

They have a common origin.

So I can go on and on as well.

That's another scientific and historical fact: Morals were not invented by religion.

Where's this infallible proof?

And check this out:

Richard Dawkins was asked about rape during an interview:

Justin Brierley (JB): If we had evolved into a society where rape was considered fine, would that mean that rape is fine?

Richard Dawkins (RD): I, I wouldn’t, I don’t want to answer that question. It, it, it’s enough for me to say that we live in a society where it’s not considered fine. We live in a society where uhm, selfishness, where failure to pay your debts, failure to reciprocate favors is, is, is regarded askance. That is the society in which we live. I’m very glad, that’s a value judgment, I’m very glad that I live in such a society.

JB: When you make a value judgment don’t you immediately step yourself outside of this evolutionary process and say that the reason this is good is that it’s good. And you don’t have any way to stand on that statement.

RD: My value judgment itself could come from my evolutionary past.

JB: So therefore it’s just as random in a sense as any product of evolution.

RD: You could say that, it doesn’t in any case, nothing about it makes it more probable that there is anything supernatural.

JB: Ultimately, your belief that rape is wrong is as arbitrary as the fact that we’ve evolved five fingers rather than six.

RD: You could say that, yeah.

[Strike 7,493]

To see the kids sent away in coffins rather than in uniforms...Just terrible. Condolences to those affected

[CHOULO19 24,332]

Coincidentally, this is almost identical to the "Global Political Power and Influence" chart...

[CHOULO19 24,332]

The race to save Peter Kassig

This is a very sad but excellent and incredibly insightful piece in the Guardian. It's not a political opinion, just a very interesting revealing story. If you have 15 free minutes today, make sure you read this.

[EBH 283]

Just because we know evolution to be true, doesn't mean that we only exist because of a series of extremely unlikely coincidences. You seem to be of the opinion that any acknowledgement of scientific proof and any argument against creationism automatically means that all of those people who argue these things are morons like Richard Dawkins, completely bankrupt of any spirituality in their lives and convinced that we're an accident.

We aren't an accident of evolution. But that doesn't legitimise religion. Oh no. Fuck all religions. They're institutions of control and slavery. They are violent and are stained with the blood of billions. Every religion in the world boils down to "Obey what my god says otherwise I'll kill you, filthy infidel/you'll go to hell, filthy sinner".

Obey.

I have a problem doing that. Fuck you and your rules, Jehovah/Allah/Jesus.

That doesn't mean I'm Richard Dawkins, who is as much an odious cretin as any imam or rabbi or priest. Yes, there is a god. But that doesn't mean for a second that I will worship it or obey it. I'm not afraid of a posthumous 'hell'. What could possibly be worse than human life? Only one thing: living it in perpetual fear, a fear of breaking a set of thousands of year old commandments, given to us by paranoid schizophrenics, who 'saw' angels and 'heard' their voices. You cannot allow this hell that is earthly existence to be made worse for you by placing limits on yourself based on the delusional ravings of long dead schizophrenics.

I am my own God, and I damn sure will do a better job of running my own universe, than the god that created this universe has. I think this is a very important realisation for people to come to. Just as a mental exercise if nothing else. Challenge yourself. Create a better universe than this one. I'm sure all of us can imagine of a better world than that which we inhabit. And it is in doing so that we can all come to the realisation as to how false religion is and how false our creator god is; because if we mere mortals can conceive of a fairer, juster, better planet than what we have, then it is proof of our superiority to our creator! Ideas are worth as much as actual physical results in this sense, because all of our religious texts indicate that our creator planned out every single last detail of its creation and executed the plan to perfection. I.e. what we live in is, according to our god, as good a job as possible. It cannot be improved upon at all.

Therefore if the individual can put together a better plan, then they've won even before they start executing the details of the plan in real physical existence.

The creator should not be worshipped as a perfect being. How can it be perfect if its creations are way smarter than it is? How can it be perfect if its creation is so obviously imperfect? How can it be perfect if I can conceive of something better than what it has created?

[Fernando 6,585]

Just because we know evolution to be true, doesn't mean that we only exist because of a series of extremely unlikely coincidences. You seem to be of the opinion that any acknowledgement of scientific proof and any argument against creationism automatically means that all of those people who argue these things are morons like Richard Dawkins, completely bankrupt of any spirituality in their lives and convinced that we're an accident.

We aren't an accident of evolution. But that doesn't legitimise religion. Oh no. Fuck all religions. They're institutions of control and slavery. They are violent and are stained with the blood of billions. Every religion in the world boils down to "Obey what my god says otherwise I'll kill you, filthy infidel/you'll go to hell, filthy sinner".

Obey.

I have a problem doing that. Fuck you and your rules, Jehovah/Allah/Jesus.

That doesn't mean I'm Richard Dawkins, who is as much an odious cretin as any imam or rabbi or priest. Yes, there is a god. But that doesn't mean for a second that I will worship it or obey it. I'm not afraid of a posthumous 'hell'. What could possibly be worse than human life? Only one thing: living it in perpetual fear, a fear of breaking a set of thousands of year old commandments, given to us by paranoid schizophrenics, who 'saw' angels and 'heard' their voices. You cannot allow this hell that is earthly existence to be made worse for you by placing limits on yourself based on the delusional ravings of long dead schizophrenics.

I am my own God, and I damn sure will do a better job of running my own universe, than the god that created this universe has.

Yes, there is a god. But that doesn't mean for a second that I will worship it or obey it.

........

No comment.

[We Hate Scouse 10,327]

Just because we know evolution to be true, doesn't mean that we only exist because of a series of extremely unlikely coincidences. You seem to be of the opinion that any acknowledgement of scientific proof and any argument against creationism automatically means that all of those people who argue these things are morons like Richard Dawkins, completely bankrupt of any spirituality in their lives and convinced that we're an accident.

We aren't an accident of evolution. But that doesn't legitimise religion. Oh no. Fuck all religions. They're institutions of control and slavery. They are violent and are stained with the blood of billions. Every religion in the world boils down to "Obey what my god says otherwise I'll kill you, filthy infidel/you'll go to hell, filthy sinner".

Obey.

I have a problem doing that. Fuck you and your rules, Jehovah/Allah/Jesus.

That doesn't mean I'm Richard Dawkins, who is as much an odious cretin as any imam or rabbi or priest. Yes, there is a god. But that doesn't mean for a second that I will worship it or obey it. I'm not afraid of a posthumous 'hell'. What could possibly be worse than human life? Only one thing: living it in perpetual fear, a fear of breaking a set of thousands of year old commandments, given to us by paranoid schizophrenics, who 'saw' angels and 'heard' their voices. You cannot allow this hell that is earthly existence to be made worse for you by placing limits on yourself based on the delusional ravings of long dead schizophrenics.

I am my own God, and I damn sure will do a better job of running my own universe, than the god that created this universe has. I think this is a very important realisation for people to come to. Just as a mental exercise if nothing else. Challenge yourself. Create a better universe than this one. I'm sure all of us can imagine of a better world than that which we inhabit. And it is in doing so that we can all come to the realisation as to how false religion is and how false our creator god is; because if we mere mortals can conceive of a fairer, juster, better planet than what we have, then it is proof of our superiority to our creator! Ideas are worth as much as actual physical results in this sense, because all of our religious texts indicate that our creator planned out every single last detail of its creation and executed the plan to perfection. Therefore if the individual can put together a better plan, then they've won even before they start executing the details of the plan in real physical existence.

The creator should not be worshipped as a perfect being. How can it be perfect if its creations are way smarter than it is? How can it be perfect if its creation is so obviously imperfect? How can it be perfect if I can conceive of something better than what it has created?

Holy fuck you're alive. I thought you died or some shit Eric. You talked to that girl you were stalking yet??

[Kieran. 6,317]

Both religion and atheism have arrogant certainty without a shred of evidence.

Agnosticism is best.....

Hit the nail on the head my friend.

[Fulham Broadway 17,333]

RIP the workers at Charlie Hebdo in Paris.

We must defend the right of freedom of speech

[Amblève. 4,995]

Pretty much the best article I've read on the Hebdo topic.

http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/blame-for-charlie-hebdo-murders