Part 2:

Debating people without an intellectual curiosity is probably the most frustrating endeavor of life.

These videos kill me, because it's so clear the guys on the show want to have an intelligent discussion with equally intelligent (yet open-minded) religious individuals, but just end up getting mindless sheep.

I think I can count on one hand the number of times the show has actually received a caller that was able to put together a constructive argument, whether for or against.

The callers on this show make me have many a lawlz. To argue with a standard Christian is (to use a Stephen Colbert analogy) like boxing a glacier.

I do believe...u got owned lady.

Ahhhhhhhh!!!

I'd like to see some scientific data on self-hypnosis. It's self-hypnosis which makes us fall in "love" with something; consistently thinking about, and then self-affirming that what you believe about that individual or idea is true. This is what leads to the unshaking belief structures that we all hold. It'd be interesting to see some research into that, as well as what causes it and why.

Faith it seems is for those that don't want to be burdened to think.

>> ^blankfist:
Debating people without an intellectual curiosity is probably the most frustrating endeavor of life.

I've never seen a statement that has made me want to shout "AMEN" more than that.

^I have my moments.

It's like a train wreck I gotta watch it even if the callers are so god damn annoying!

>> ^HaricotVert:
equally intelligent (yet open-minded) religious individuals


That's the rub. In a population, as intelligence and mental development increase the likelihood of strong religious beliefs decreases.

I've said it before, but THIS IS what it's like to argue with a stone wall. Maybe he should have started over with her with finger paintings, counting to one hundred, and getting your name right on the paper.

When religion enters peoples lives there never seems to be much room left for logic and reason.

Hey, I can respect those that think holy books and places of worship should should be emblazoned with "Important If True". "What if?" is a fine motivation for being religious. Just as long as they keep it to themselves.

Christian debating competitions are regularly decided by the answers "God did it." and "God said so." combined with the fastest hand on the buzzer.

Holy upvote jesus, that sentence epitomizes my entire intellectual life.

>> ^blankfist:
Debating people without an intellectual curiosity is probably the most frustrating endeavor of life.

I love those guys.
My answer to the "so if you have no god, you can just do what you want?" is always a resounding "YES!"
I always think to myself "why is that so astonishing? If you knew God wasn't looking would you run over and kill someone because that's what you really want to do?"

The thing is, we're all doing whatever we want to do. A lot of people really like to play pretend, it makes them feel good like this martini makes me feel good...the difference is I don't need anyone to save me from myself, I'm just that stable.

Yeah but my imaginary friend is better than yours!

Salvation belongs to the Lord.

I used to try to debate the silliness that is religion, until I realized there was no actual debate going on, since the other person was willing to accept the argument "God did it" as a valid point.

Ever since then I just smile and try hard to refrain from resorting to physical violence. Works so far.

To impress me, they need to have a discussion with a religious intellectual, not run roughshod over a bunch of children. any of us could do that.

I always hate the "Moral Compass" argument the most with these people.

People like her honestly think that since people don't believe in eternal damnation (even though your god is all-forgiving anyway) is in the cards if they do something wrong, that everything you're going to do is "Wrong"

Truly the moral compass isn't what's going to get you punished, it's what's proper for the betterment of society on the whole.

If your actions are going to harm society, you're obviously negative on the scale, same with the opposite if you do things for the betterment of society, you're higher on the scale.

A lot of people I know, athiest or agnostic, they may not believe in god, but they still believe in society, spend time worrying about what's going to happen to others here and now, and not what's supposedly happening to you once you die.

^ I don't get the moral compass for a different reason.

For Catholics (as I understand it), if you have in fact committed a sin, all you really have to do is repent, seek absolution, confess, etc, and you're forgiven.

Now, even if they will say "but, your repentance has to be genuine, and if you fake it, you're still going to hell", it still leaves about 90% of Catholics with the feeling they have a loophole that can get their priest to absolve them from anything they do wrong, so long as they can convince him they didn't mean it afterwards.

Isn't that a far greater danger to their supposed moral compass?

The moral compass isnt wgars going to get you punished, its what proper for the betterment of society as a whole

The bible was written by a group of men, not a god, whose intent was likely to shape the moral compass of society in thier own image - for the betterment of society. What you do when you trade god's compass for a modern version of "the betterment of society" is trade one imaginary friend for another; your compass is still a phantom.

I had an argument like this 2 weeks ago. It took every ounce of my strength not to rip my hair out from all the frustration.

I'm gonna cease and desist from anymore of these types of conversations because eventually I'll end up looking like those two guys.

>> ^imstellar28:
The moral compass isnt wgars going to get you punished, its what proper for the betterment of society as a whole
The bible was written by a group of men, not a god, whose intent was likely to shape the moral compass of society in thier own image - for the betterment of society. What you do when you trade god's compass for a modern version of "the betterment of society" is trade one imaginary friend for another; your compass is still a phantom.


They created the bible in their image, yes, but that still doesn't mean you have to believe in it to do good things.

It wouldn't be trading one phantom for another if someone wrote a book today on "How not to be a douche and help out society in the process" that doesn't include a supernatural being.

My point in my original post was that you don't NEED an imaginary friend to do good things, just do what's good for society.

I know that your point is that you dont need a supernatural being for moral guidance and I agree.

I was trying to illustrate that because it wasn't a god who wrote the bible, but rather people trying to better society, the type of morality you get from it is no different (in principal) than the alternative you are proposing.

What I'm suggesting is that the moral compass you are recommending is also invalid. If you base your morality on whats good for society, your morality will become outdated as soon as society changes. Why do you think the bible morality seems so crazy? Its not beacuse a god wrote it, its because society has changed and the men who wrote it failed to choose a timeless foundation for thier moral compass.

Think about it, if morality is based on the state of the society, and society is always changing, then historically, all men will appear immoral in the eyes of the historian. Any system you propose may seem "good" by todays standards, but what will your future peers think of it when they judge you just as you are judging those from the biblical era?

How can a moral system be good if it dooms every follower to immorality?

^ That an absolutely crucial element to creating your own moral code. You must understand that anything you decide could be wrong, or could change. In order to not go insane, you must accept that you are imperfect, and that you can only strive to do your best in any given situation. Sometimes you will fail, and sometimes you will see that you made the wrong choice in hindsight, but there simply is no way to be perfect. That is not an excuse, however, for choosing the easy way out or the route that is most beneficial to yourself in the short term.

In conclusion, it is never immoral to do what you think is right at the time, and it is never justifiable to judge someones actions outside of their context.

"In conclusion, it is never immoral to do what you think is right at the time, and it is never justifiable to judge someones actions outside of their context."

Have to disagree. Pythagoras died 2500 years ago, and I'll be damned if a hypotenuse isn't the sum of the square of the other two sides...

The argument sounds dangerously familiar to the fallacy of irreducible complexity.

Furthermore, the resulting hypothesis reads "there exists no morality which can stand the test of time" or "there exists no absolute morality" which I have to say, is an awfully lofty claim to be making without any evidence

Whatever unites mankind is better than what divides us.

Full truth our God. Half-truth our Enemy. Hard work our Salvation. Unity our Goal. Free speech our Weapon.


lol i love Dr. Bronners Castile Soap!! Read all the labels in PDF form here:

http://www.drbronner.com/dr_bronners_philosophy.html

I'm surprised at the seeming lack of faith defenders in this post. Or perhaps they fell it would be like sticking their hand in a hornet's nest.

>> ^longde:
To impress me, they need to have a discussion with a religious intellectual, not run roughshod over a bunch of children. any of us could do that.


There actually is one where he debates with someone who's come up with a scientific proof for God's existence. And while it was somewhat creative, and the guy clearly was intelligent once the flaw in the proof was shown the guy basically resorted to sticking his fingers in his ears and tried to trip the Atheist up in a word game that was kinda pathetic.

Still it's a good debate, search around and you'll find it. It's a two parter on youtube if I remember correctly.

>> ^laura:
I love those guys.
My answer to the "so if you have no god, you can just do what you want?" is always a resounding "YES!"
I always think to myself "why is that so astonishing? If you knew God wasn't looking would you run over and kill someone because that's what you really want to do?"
The thing is, we're all doing whatever we want to do. A lot of people really like to play pretend, it makes them feel good like this martini makes me feel good...the difference is I don't need anyone to save me from myself, I'm just that stable.


Ray, when someone asks if you can do anything you want, because God doesn't exist, you say YES!!!

The problem with mentioning a moral compass is that you can look right to the animal kingdom, including insects, to see behavior like humans. Elephants have a great society together with only specific "sins" and aggressiveness; a sample:

Each elephant troop has its own home range, but territorial fights are rare even though ranges often overlap. While several hundred elephants may roam a similar range, small "kin groups" form between female relatives. The leader of each group is a respected old female with years of accumulated knowledge. This matriarch is the mother and grandmother of other members but sometimes allows her sisters and their offspring to join the group. Once a male reaches maturity, he is forced to leave. The entire group looks to the matriarch for guidance, particularly in the face of danger. Her actions, based on her superior knowledge, will determine whether the group flees or stands its ground. Young members learn from their elders how to find water and food during drought, when to begin travel and where to go, and many other survival skills. This knowledge is passed on from generation to generation.

Once a male elephant reaches sexual maturity at 12 years or older, the matriarch no longer tolerates him in the group. He will then live mostly alone or perhaps join a small, loosely-knit group of other males. Bull elephants seldom form long-term relationships with other males, but often one or two young males accompany an old bull, perhaps to learn from him. Bulls often spar with each other to establish a dominance hierarchy. Elephants have an excellent memory; once a social hierarchy is established, the same two elephants not only recognize each other, even after many years, but know which one is dominant. This way, they avoid fighting again to reestablish dominance. After about 25 years of age, male elephants experience annual periods of heightened sexuality called "musth," which lasts about a week in younger animals and perhaps three or four months as they near their 50s. During this time they aggressively search out females and challenge other bulls, sometimes even causing more dominant males to back down. Different bulls come into musth at different times of the year; however, two well-matched bulls in musth may fight to the death.

Modern humans were almost always raised to be social and learned how to cope with societal problems; sins became sins because that behavior elicited change and no matter how small the sin was it's is still an unknown to that society. Out of fear it becomes a sin or like everything else, evolution demanded it for the betterment of the species. Fear is our main motivation it lays at the core of almost all we do.

If you use evolution, society, and their mutual affiliation and synergistic properties you might find a "moral" compass that we can use without fear. Closest rule I've seen to show this is the golden rule.

/lengthy
//really!
///*edit: Yes, whatever we come up with will be imperfect.

>> ^kceaton1:
>> ^laura:

Ray, when someone asks if you can do anything you want, because God doesn't exist, you say YES!!!


Here's something backing up her "moral compass" statement: http://www.videosift.com/video/What-If-God-Disappeared

It would seem that most monotheists have a underdeveloped sense of morality. The main reason they do things is because they are afraid of punishment, or they feel that god is watching them. This follows the first level of Kohlberg's theory of moral development (http://psychology.about.com/od/developmentalpsychology/a/kohlberg.htm). As a result I see it would be very difficult for them to be able to transcend the first level and move on to the next, because they have this constant sense that someone/thing is constantly watching them. Since atheists do not believe in a god who "looks" over them and mediates the world they are able to think about actions and evaluate them without the fear of a angry god. However, whether a real world figure i.e. the government or police influences someone's moral reasoning is the same concept, but, I propose that it is easier for an atheist to grow morally. It would be difficult for any monotheist to make moral judgments that go against their faith, or are even consistent with their faith that do not transcend the first level of kohlberg's theory; since many monotheists seem to do things simply because god told them to--or else. This is why I think the "moral compass" argument that all monotheists seem to spit out borders on hypocrisy, in the sense that according to Kohlberg's theory of moral development they are just as underdeveloped if not more underdeveloped than the person they are talking to.

>> ^imstellar28:
"In conclusion, it is never immoral to do what you think is right at the time, and it is never justifiable to judge someones actions outside of their context."
Have to disagree. Pythagoras died 2500 years ago, and I'll be damned if a hypotenuse isn't the sum of the square of the other two sides...
The argument sounds dangerously familiar to the fallacy of irreducible complexity.
Furthermore, the resulting hypothesis reads "there exists no morality which can stand the test of time" or "there exists no absolute morality" which I have to say, is an awfully lofty claim to be making without any evidence


At what point did morality become mathematical? Oh, yeah. Never.

Morality is subjective. Looking at history, we can judge the general morality of a culture as compared to our own or some ideal, but you can't judge a person's morality outside of their culture. It's just not reasonable to expect one person, and by extension every person, to exceed the expectations of the culture they live in.