The end of faith.

Originally Posted by Ayos

"Faith is, in a nutshell, the largest hindrance we've had to peace and justice in this world."

Faith, in itself, is by no means a hinderance. That's absolutely ludicrous.

I think faith is an extremely valuable thing to humanity as it gives us drive and motivation, sight and inspiration.

I think the major flaw in religion is that it encourages us to put faith in something other than ourselves. We are very easy to be swayed into this position.

If faith is put in good motion in the right direction, it is an asset. If it is used against each other or to create literally a "holy mess," then we're doing something wrong.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

I agree totally, Sass. That's why I said I disagreed with that original statement.

To further illustrate my point, I'll use a personal experience. My trust was betrayed in one of the worst ways by someone I thought would never betray it. Because of that, I've lost faith not only in people, but also in God AND in myself. That last being the biggest one, and a catalyst for the lost faith in everything else. Without faith in myself, I'm more susceptible to fear, and that fear has made me do some things I'm very ashamed of - not even necessarily big things, but I'm lashing out at people more frequently, and not caring how they feel. I was so focused on myself, because I was afraid to put any part of my life or my choices in others' hands. And then there were negative consequences. It's easy to see how the absence of faith can destroy us.

But yes. Faith in anything other than ourselves can also be destructive. I would disagree that faith in God is destructive, because God is greater than ourselves, in my opinion, but for me it's not blind faith motivated from fear. I'm sure you can see the difference, and the connection there. Blind faith in anything can very probably become destructive.

How ya doing, buddy?

Originally Posted by FallDragon

There are pluses to Religion, such as establishing a community, goodwill services, etc, but these can all be accomplished just as easily through secular mechanisms instead of religious ones.

The only problem I see with this is the fact that if the things you stated were to be accomplished by secular institutions, such institutions would have to take the role of a god.
Part of what keeps a persons behavior in check is the thought that a God that seeks justice could be watching. If there is no metaphysical god then a government run by people just as falty as the common citizen has to keep watch and be in the citizens mind when someone wants to misbehave. I dont like the idea of such a merciless lack of privacy or the standards that faulty people deal out to meet justice in the name of their own authority.

Originally Posted by FallDragon

Faith is, in a nutshell, the largest hindrance we've had to peace and justice in this world. If we look at the different Religions, the ones we consider most moral are the ones most closely tied to secular rationality, not faith based rationality.

I disagree. In a world that is just plain miserable for most folks historically and now, faith in a higher power has proven its self to be the biggest life saver for humanity.
When human stregnth and brain power has failed you will always find people huddled together with the common bond of faith.
When deaths hand draws near, for many faith is the one thing that eases the passage from life.

How ya doing, buddy?

Originally Posted by LordsSword

Part of what keeps a persons behavior in check is the thought that a God that seeks justice could be watching.

I don't believe for a second that this is universally true. Even in the cases where it is true I'm sure that it's far more prominent in the mind of someone contemplating rape or murder that he could receive punishment in the here and now rather than that he may be judged by God.

There ya go, I can make unsupported statements too. You can't assume that.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Also, that depends on what kind of behavious people think their god expects from them.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Faith seems like a bad scapegoat for humanity's stupidity. The decline of faith in the 20th century has been accompanied by two of the biggest, bloodiest wars in history. I'm not saying that there is a causal relationship from the former to the latter. It's just that if faith and religions were such major causes of carnage as some folks would have us believe, we should expect to see a decline of violence following a major decline in religion and faith. That has not been the case. People don't need extra help from religion or any other abstract aid in order to justify screwing each other over.

I don't see much value in putting faith in ourselves, either. I see billions of people out there who are brutalizing each other, and yet no one thinks that they themselves are part of the problem. I doubt anyone claims that they are part of problem. Similarly, no one thinks that they are a roadblock to the solution to our world's problems. And yet, there is a whole lot of evil stuff going on in the world. Obviously, a lot of people must have misjudged themselves. No one ever really stops and asks if he himself is part of the problem.

Quote:

Ayos:
To further illustrate my point, I'll use a personal experience. My trust was betrayed in one of the worst ways by someone I thought would never betray it. Because of that, I've lost faith not only in people, but also in God AND in myself.

I'm sorry to hear that. Let me give some of my own personal experience, though. I was hurt in a very attrocious way back when I was in the eighth grade, and I did something very similar to what you describe: I shut myself off from others. If I don't go far outside of myself, I don't get hurt as much. But you know what I discovered? Loving someone else requires you to open yourself up to getting hurt. The more you love someone, the harder it hurts if they reject you. And yet, I think human experience agrees with me when I say that love is worth it. Love assures us that we are not alone in the world, and it makes life worth living. I know that doesn't get rid of the pain. I don't think deep wounds completely heal in our lifetimes. But don't let that stop you from learning to love. Learning to forgive, especially in the most attrocious cases, is helpful, too. Very difficult, but worth it.

I'd argue that having faith in ourselves is not the solution. No matter how we define 'having faith in oneself', I guarantee that we can find at least one premium example of such a person that fit the definition that was also a monster. Having faith in oneself seems to relate too closely with self-love. There is no shortage of self-love in the universe, and most if not all of the world's problems can be traced back to one person/people seeking only after their own narrow self interests.

IMHO, it seems the only solution there is to this mess we're in is to stop pursuing our own self-interests and start seeking after the common good. It's only when we ditch our own self-love and care enough about all people that people will stop trying to screw each other over. Not that I think humanity as a whole is capable of such a thing on its own, but I don't think it is impossible for some people to overcome their narrow self-interests. Think Mother Theresa.

FELIPE NO

Mother Theresa's interests were tied into aiding the Untouchables, who she felt compelled in part by her faith to aid as best as she could.

"Self-interests" are ultimately subjective, and there's no such thing as a "common good." Anybody's vision of a common good is going to end up disadvantaging one group in favor of another, and as hard as ideologues have tried to create unstratified societies, they've never pulled it off.

I'd also say that nobody has the right to dictate what is the "common good," because perceptions of the common good will vary according to culture.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

It's an interesting point that someone brought up, earlier, that they believe people only do things because they think a supreme being might be watching over them. I find that to be a ridiculous notion.

Brady, I think the common good can be ratified by values common to all or a vast majority of peoples. For example, the greater good could be something simple as ensuring survivability (i.e. necessary provisions such as food, shelter, at least something resembling healthcare whether holistic or western medicine) for all those within the society. As far as I know, it is recognized amongst all cultures that humans need to eat to survive, they also require some sort of shelter, and healing.

I do not need religion or faith to make utilitarian decisions. Hedonistic calculus, man, whatever produces the greatest good for the largest number of people.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Quote:

Bradylama:
"Self-interests" are ultimately subjective, and there's no such thing as a "common good." Anybody's vision of a common good is going to end up disadvantaging one group in favor of another, and as hard as ideologues have tried to create unstratified societies, they've never pulled it off.

Who said anything about unstratified societies? 'Common good' does not refer to a state of being where everyone is treated "equally," whatever that may mean. 'Common good' refers to a state of affairs where the group of people is more important than the individuals that compose it. The mentality that I am describing is not theoretical. It was a mentality that existed until the Enlightenment, when the individual gained unrivaled precedence over society.

At any rate, you are reading much more into my words than I said. I said nothing about stratified or unstratified societies, or anything along those lines. All I said is that narrow self-interests create more problems than it solves. I don't have to think long before I can come up with an example of needless death and destruction just because President Joe wanted better materials to make his yacht.

Quote:

I'd also say that nobody has the right to dictate what is the "common good," because perceptions of the common good will vary according to culture.

The lack of agreement about what the common good is does not demonstrate that there is no such thing as the common good. Nor does it prove that there can never be such agreement. Is the term problematic? Sure it is. Most, if not all, philosophical questions are. The modern idea of 'freedom' is equally as problematic.

Besides, based on the second to last discussion I had with you, you don't seem to think that ethical principles are rationally discernable anyway, so what is the point of debating this with you? According to that philosophy, all we are doing is emoting, anyway.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Quote:

The mentality that I am describing is not theoretical. It was a mentality that existed until the Enlightenment,

I'm well aware of that, yet the period from the Renaissance to the Enlightenment was also marked by brutal European imperialism, and the concept of the "common good" was for the sake of common white men.

The road to Hell is paved with good intentions, and I think it wouldn't be unrealistic to find more cases where somebody tried to make the world better, and ended up making it worse than you would with "narrow self-interests."

Quote:

The lack of agreement about what the common good is does not demonstrate that there is no such thing as the common good. Nor does it prove that there can never be such agreement. Is the term problematic? Sure it is. Most, if not all, philosophical questions are. The modern idea of 'freedom' is equally as problematic.

Besides, based on the second to last discussion I had with you, you don't seem to think that ethical principles are rationally discernable anyway, so what is the point of debating this with you? According to that philosophy, all we are doing is emoting, anyway.

I think ethical principles are subjective and not universal, and while you can create a body which determines what is and isn't ethical, there will always be someone who disagrees.

The only people capable of determining as a group what qualifies as the common good, are nationals. Aside from the basics of law, being that murder, theft, and in some cases assault are bad, everything else is flavor determined by the dominant forces in society, irregardless of whether or not those forces represent a majority.

In order to "end injustice" and to establish a universal "common good," you would have to create a global authority and culture, and considering basic factors such as religion, ethnicity, locality, history, and other aspects of culture it simply ain't gonna happen, either in this or other lifetimes.

In order for there to be a universally established common good, humanity as a whole does have to accept it on its own. Humanity itself must change its nature, and as I believe you've implied it, if we have to rely on some type of authority to steer humanity in that direction, ultimately the only case of that ever happening, in my opinion, is if we're engaged in inter-special war with aliens, or by altering our very biology. Neither of which is a good option in my opinion.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

I think individualism is destructive and so I really do not like the idea of theories such as emotivism or subjectivism dominating ethical principles. Cultural Relativism is another theory I say we can do without. It stuns me to how any rational person would agree to use these theories as a working model for society -- any society. These are a dangerous set of ideals because it stops all cause for people to question their own actions and customs. I believe absolute moral truths do exist and the only way of discovering them is through reason. For example:

Relativism: In certain parts of the world we know young girls have their genitals mutilated. While western society tends to vehemently disagree with the practice we do however agree that different cultures follow different customs. In short, it is no way prudent of us to force our morals onto other cultures. The relativist at this point would call it a day and go for a pint. The rational person instead would ask, did the young girl agree to the procedure? One simple question and the theory shatters because in not consulting with the girl beforehand, she is simply being used as a means to an end. This blindly followed custom robs the girl of her own reason and dignity. Reason tells us there are likely very few girls and women who would agree to circumcision and so as a working ethical theory relativism collapses.

As for faith. There is no room for a personal God in my life. Religion is nothing more than a tool to rob people of free thought. Religion stifles imagination. Crushes wonder. Leaves no room for questions about the stars and heavens. Religion is the cause of many strifes, misery, pain, suffering and deaths around the world. So powerful is religion, such a corruption of the mind, people are willing to end their own life by flying an aeroplane into a building because of their faith. Their belief that God has reserved a special place in heaven for those who work in His service. Religion is fear. Fear of the unknown that awaits us. Fear of an omnipotent God who will burn us with smoke and fire for eternity if we deny Him. If science is a torch, religion is an extinguisher.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

What a bunch of self-delusional bullshit. You trounce religion yet have the gall to declare that there are absolute moral truths? It is wrong to force our morals on other cultures, because the end result is violent resistance. The end result is a people who feel as if they are no longer their own, and if we want to change foreign cultures, it should be through the demonstration of the superior qualities of our own, not some absolutist moral crusade where we go into some African backwater and make people who still can't get irrigation right understand the concept of ability to consent. We still practice ritual male circumcision in this country, but female circumcision makes so many more heads shake because it's culturally acceptable to us that women possess a clitoris or a clitoral hood, but men can't have foreskins because it's "icky." We can't even establish the right to consent in male infants, and you still insist that we should also deny the ability of an indigenous people to consent to our moral crusades?

No god encouraged the murder of millions through the totalitarianism of communist and fascist regimes.

Claiming that there are absolute moral truths is like putting a dog in a sweater vest. To reject individualism denies that people are at their base simple animals who lucked out in regards to opposable thumbs and a higher ability to reason. Individualism is no more destructive than communism, because both cases produce sociopaths, which are ultimately the greatest cause of destruction in history. Not religion, and not the value of individuality.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Religon was intended as a means of guidance for people at their wits end, but being maintained by humans has made it like anything else, anything but beyond corruption and the poor followers can be none the wiser. In worse cases it's all they know to have faith in especially if it's all they've ever known from birth, it becomes about as part of being human for them as something like the ability to talk.

I'm not going to even attempt listing examples of corruption making religon questionable to have faith in as it's a flamewar waiting to happen... (although that leaves me open to "BUT U HAVE NO EVIDENCE! >B(" but I'd rather that then going into religons facts and fictions). Let's just say we can blame the pioneer diehard fanboys/girls for many of the religous or 'holy' wars of the past and the people at the top adjusting religon values to say what they want to manipulate people and laugh their ass off while they go off and do their bidding for them.

To say it's the end of faith is impossible because it keeps so many people going, I can't see religon ever completly disappearing the only difference now is information is more available to people to know better between when it's good advice and when the guy giving advice is taking the piss... it's the year 2007 having faith in only one things set of values is to say the least pretty primitive >.>

Edit: Brady Wins this thread for the self delusional bullshit post alone

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Quote:

I'm well aware of that, yet the period from the Renaissance to the Enlightenment was also marked by brutal European imperialism, and the concept of the "common good" was for the sake of common white men.

The road to Hell is paved with good intentions, and I think it wouldn't be unrealistic to find more cases where somebody tried to make the world better, and ended up making it worse than you would with "narrow self-interests."

Sure. And thus European imperialists' actions can be judged to have been too limited in scope in whose good was being served. Notice that the principle I am putting forward of stepping out of oneself and looking after the goods of all over one's own person interests is not being contradicted by the example you are giving. All the imperialists were doing was looking after their own interests. I don't see how that is a valid counterexample.

Quote:

I think ethical principles are subjective and not universal, and while you can create a body which determines what is and isn't ethical, there will always be someone who disagrees.

And I'd argue that we don't establish moral principles. They exist whether we like them or not.

Quote:

The only people capable of determining as a group what qualifies as the common good, are nationals. Aside from the basics of law, being that murder, theft, and in some cases assault are bad, everything else is flavor determined by the dominant forces in society, irregardless of whether or not those forces represent a majority.

You're right. Theft and murder are instances of actions that are universally taboo. Few would deny the principle, even if they disagreed on the application.

Again, ethical principles are not determined by people, whether they be nationals or otherwise. Any person is capable of discovering something that already exists.

Quote:

In order to "end injustice" and to establish a universal "common good," you would have to create a global authority and culture, and considering basic factors such as religion, ethnicity, locality, history, and other aspects of culture it simply ain't gonna happen, either in this or other lifetimes.

You are missing my point entirely. This isn't some utopian program. I've said it once, and now I'm going to repeat myself. My point is a lot tamer than the one you are trying to pin on me. Let's perform a thought experiment, not an actual plan of action or a now or future state of affairs, but a world of make believe. Now image that the prevelance of narrow-self interest was reduced to a level where people took only what they needed to survive, and they had so much respect for human life that they would volutarily give what they did not need to those who had not. Why? Because they valued themselves more than they valued themselves What incentive would there be for things such as world wars, etc?

Again, this is not reality, nor do I think that such a reality can ever exist. The point of the thought experiment, and the point that I've been making all along, is that if there were no libido/ will to power for more than what was needed to satisfy, most of the incentive for the most terrible crimes of our century would not exist. Hence, I think I've discovered a cause of a lot of the evil in the world. It's not as if I'm coming up with a new idea. I think most political philosophers and ordinary men of common sense have agreed. Where they disagree is in how essential the promotion of our own self-interests is to our own natures.

Quote:

In order for there to be a universally established common good, humanity as a whole does have to accept it on its own. Humanity itself must change its nature, and as I believe you've implied it, if we have to rely on some type of authority to steer humanity in that direction, ultimately the only case of that ever happening, in my opinion, is if we're engaged in inter-special war with aliens, or by altering our very biology. Neither of which is a good option in my opinion.

I don't think humans will be able to change their natures. I'm actually quite politically conservative, if you care to know. There's a difference between isolating the causes of our species' woes in addition to what would hypothetically be needed to eliminate those causes, and claiming that such a state of affairs is actually possible. No where do I say that such a state of affairs is possible. My proposition is hypothetical: If we want to eliminate the biggest source of our world's problems, then people need to stop looking after their own narrow self-interests.

Not that I deny that people can put aside their own narrow self-interests on an individual basis. Mother Theresa is an obvious example of virtue, even if virtue to that degree is rare. But even if the state of affairs will never exist on a global level, that shouldn't stop me as an individual from practicing self-denial. If people hate you, and despise you, and utter every slander against you, love them anyway. It's not a matter of good intentions; I can have good intentions while committing murder. It's about establishing the rightness of actions along with the right intentions, aimed at the good of all rather than of the ego.

FELIPE NO

Quote:

Sure. And thus European imperialists' actions can be judged to have been too limited in scope in whose good was being served. Notice that the principle I am putting forward of stepping out of oneself and looking after the goods of all over one's own person interests is not being contradicted by the example you are giving. All the imperialists were doing was looking after their own interests. I don't see how that is a valid counterexample.

It's not just that. The fundamental fault of communalism is that by forcing unity, it generally means that those which are incapable of conforming, or don't want to conform end up being shunned. Conformity in European society became racial during and after the Age of Exploration, therefore their perception of the "communal good" was hardly limited in any reasonable scope. That's why I don't like this idea of a common good, because historically it's always been used by a central authority, whether a totalitarian or populist one, to force conformity and persecute the "others."

Is it possible that we'll come to a genuinely just "communal good?" Maybe, but we'd have to come to the conclusion as a race naturally, and consentually, or else forcing the situation only exacerbates the problem.

Quote:

And I'd argue that we don't establish moral principles. They exist whether we like them or not.

And yet, those moral principles exist because of causal reasons. As I've mentioned before, the only absolutes involving morals throughout all cultures is that murder is wrong, theft is wrong, and assault is wrong. Everything else is flavor, and usually many moral, ethical, and legal codes attempt to justify some cases of theft, murder, and assault by establishing a sympathetic circumstance. Dueling, for instance, was considered an honor killing, and practically nobody was sentenced for it in its heydey. In Arab culture, rape is sometimes acceptable. In some African tribes, cannibalism is a natural result of warfare.

All of these codes are subjectively determined based on circumstance and other causal criteria.

Quote:

Again, ethical principles are not determined by people, whether they be nationals or otherwise. Any person is capable of discovering something that already exists.

Yet Ethical principles are determined by people. Ethical codes wouldn't even exist if it weren't for controversies surrounding an event, and the end result of those codes is usually caused by a certain amount of debate and consent among a body, whether it be communal, societal, or governmental. Because no two cultures have the exact same ethical principles is enough to establish that they are subjective, and aren't merely "found."

Quote:

You are missing my point entirely. This isn't some utopian program. I've said it once, and now I'm going to repeat myself. My point is a lot tamer than the one you are trying to pin on me. Let's perform a thought experiment, not an actual plan of action or a now or future state of affairs, but a world of make believe. Now image that the prevelance of narrow-self interest was reduced to a level where people took only what they needed to survive, and they had so much respect for human life that they would volutarily give what they did not need to those who had not. Why? Because they valued themselves more than they valued themselves What incentive would there be for things such as world wars, etc?

It sounds like a brutal, albeit socially gratifying life of subsistance farming.

Quote:

Again, this is not reality, nor do I think that such a reality can ever exist. The point of the thought experiment, and the point that I've been making all along, is that if there were no libido/ will to power for more than what was needed to satisfy, most of the incentive for the most terrible crimes of our century would not exist. Hence, I think I've discovered a cause of a lot of the evil in the world. It's not as if I'm coming up with a new idea. I think most political philosophers and ordinary men of common sense have agreed. Where they disagree is in how essential the promotion of our own self-interests is to our own natures.

And as you've said, it's all based on an if. The reason people want more is because what they have doesn't satisfy them. How much it takes to get to a point of satisfaction is dependent on the individual. Some of them are never satisfied, yet that's also ok depending on the cultural climate. Individualism has nothing to do with the pursuit of "narrow self-interest" because the individual is still a social animal, and helping others whether through charity or the bonds of friendship and family, ultimately ties back into one's own self-interest. "Narrow self-interest," I think, is a buzzword used to attempt to refute the notion of individualism by associating an individualistic term to sociopathy.

Quote:

I don't think humans will be able to change their natures. I'm actually quite politically conservative, if you care to know.

Well, I do, and no I don't care.

Claiming that righteousness doesn't serve the ego is a horrifying case of denial. If helping the outcasts didn't make Mother Theresa feel good about herself, she would've never done it. Using terms like "narrow self-interest" itself appeals to the ego, because it entices people to give up behaviors which may not necessarily actually be destructive in order to inflate their own egoes.

I do think people can change their natures, but only through ideologies and the embracing of fundamental truths, such as the needs of the ego. If people truly understood why they do things, and why others commit harm I believe we'd then be on the track to something legitimately resembling a "greater good;" and no, applying buzzwords to social disorders isn't going to get us there.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Is it purely coincidental that male circumcision is viewed as acceptable to western cultures and at the same time shows up in scripture? I can only wonder, if God asked for the removal of the labia how many millions of women in North America would undergo the procedure without consent in the same manner as their male counterpart. I am willing to bet quite a few. Although male circumcision is accepted it is still widely debated simply because the child has no say in the matter.

Brady, I want to be clear on your position so correct me if I have misunderstood. You're saying that because certain societies are less fortunate, moral truths ought not to apply to them and more, do not exist at all? This is the equivalent of suggesting that 2 + 2 only equals 4 in certain societies with higher education. Moral truths are no different than logical truths. Also, in calling it the moral crusade, you seem concerned that moral truths are nothing more than an iron curtain. This isn't the case. Moral truths are not forced onto people. It is not like the ten commandments. The rational person only has to think about murder to know it's wrong. There is no need to look it up in the criminal code or scripture.

It's interesting that you reject moral truths because the study of ethics is to do just that. Ethics is the attempt to derive our values from facts. You are free to believe that we are forever hopeless in ever finding moral truths but I just happen to think of them as quite real and obtainable.

Last thing, I want to clarify the contradiction you believe I have made. My view on morality and religion are very much separate. Moral truths are discoverable through reason. These are not rules codified by the elite and forced onto others. All humans have the ability to discover the same moral truth. In the same manner that all humans have the ability to understand that 2 objects when added to another 2 objects equals 4 total objects. And so I have not contradicted myself because while religion is an iron curtain, moral truths are not.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Apologies for the scatterbrained post.

Originally Posted by Will

No, that's only one side of the coin. Technically the "religious" atheists are a subset of atheists in general, who simply lack the belief in God. I stopped calling myself an atheist a while ago, because like you, most people assume the more extreme case.

That's because there is no moderate case of atheism. Lacking a belief in God can be both agnostic and atheist. However, when getting more specific, atheism is that you have faith there is no God, and agnostic is you believe there's no current evidence supporting God. Maybe you should check up on definitions before you start using labels.

Originally Posted by Ayos

Faith, as I've come to find, often results in an absence or at least a quieting of fear, and therefore cannot possibly be a hindrance to peace and justice.

Yes, it leads to a quieting of fear for some people who are fearful. However, fear is not the enemy. Example: Germans became much less fearful of the state of their country due to their faith in Hitler. Their faith in Hitler and his message even led them to consider Jews non-human - quite the feat for faith. Muslim extremists have much less fear from dying in suicide bombs if they have faith they go to heaven and meet Allah. Christian fundies have no fear of ruining the lives of homosexuals because they have faith that God is on their side. If you remove faith in each case, each group would've had enough fear that they were doing the wrong thing to prevent injustices. Fear of doing the wrong thing is a very good emotion, indeed. Faith, on the other hand, is the main cause of these atrocities. Faith can also lead people to do wonderful, caring things, but there is no need for our dependency on it anymore. The US is slowly evolving into a purely secular society as is many other first world countries, and we no longer need faith as a catalyst in producing love or care for each other.

Originally Posted by Sassafrass

I think the major flaw in religion is that it encourages us to put faith in something other than ourselves. We are very easy to be swayed into this position.

Agreed, Sass. Harris goes on into a conclusion part of his book that he included with the reprint with questions or criticisms people had against his argument. One such criticism was that having faith in each other is necessary and useful, and he agreed. His statements against faith were primarily statements against believing the irrational over the rational, and justice verses injustice. A better word to use for this personal faith in others would be "confidence." Faith for me, at this point, is defined as belief in the irrational.

Originally Posted by Ayos

It's easy to see how the absence of faith can destroy us.

You can't use the word "faith" in such a general context and actually believe it to be true. You know why the middle east is in complete turmoil? Faith. If you suddenly made them a faithless, godless society, there would be no violence, because they would be forced to depend on rationality to resolve disputes. You take away faith in Allah, what have you to fight about? Nothing. If you take away faith that one race is superior than another, what have you to fight about? Nothing. One may claim "oh they'll find something to fight about" - but this is hardly true. People don't enjoy killing others unless they think they're fighting for a cause, whether it be religious or secular. In America's case, many of the reasons why we fight are based on premises of freedom and individual liberty which can certainly be grounded rationally, unlike belief in Allah. Not to say we haven't committed atrocities, but you must look at the intent of the aggressor, not simply the outcome.

Originally Posted by LordsSword

Part of what keeps a persons behavior in check is the thought that a God that seeks justice could be watching. If there is no metaphysical god then a government run by people just as falty as the common citizen has to keep watch and be in the citizens mind when someone wants to misbehave.

Incorrect. There are millions of Atheists and Agnostics who could care less about God yet live moral lives. This implies there is an inherent morality in us that isn't restricted to religious doctrines. We can establish moral foundations without needing a God.

Originally Posted by Thomas

The decline of faith in the 20th century has been accompanied by two of the biggest, bloodiest wars in history.

Perhaps faith was declining in the 20th century to a degree, but guess what happens when war starts? It's the CHRISTIAN USA verses the heathen godless communists, or heathen godless nazis! The US feels justified in destroying atheist/communist regimes not strictly because of humanitarian reasons, which it should be, but because we're fighting the good fight on God's side! That's how it was marketed to the masses of the US, and it worked.

Originally Posted by Thomas

All I said is that narrow self-interests create more problems than it solves.

But categorizing faith in ourselves is not simply a self-interest. It is faith in each other as well, as a community, a nation, a world. It is not simply confidence in yourself, but confidence in others.

Originally Posted by Bradylama

In order to "end injustice" and to establish a universal "common good," you would have to create a global authority and culture, and considering basic factors such as religion, ethnicity, locality, history, and other aspects of culture it simply ain't gonna happen, either in this or other lifetimes.

But the premise is, once you get rid of faith itself, that will remove the religious/historical/local/ethnic barriers blocking us from a common moral ground. We can say with honesty that we all want happiness for ourselves and for each other in general. Only when faith, belief in the irrational, enters that picture will people's views on happiness end up distorted in some hate/bias against others happiness.

Originally Posted by Bradylama

It is wrong to force our morals on other cultures, because the end result is violent resistance.

Are you going to tell me that the middle east tradition of beating women for exposing 3 inches of skin is up to subjective morality? You're saying that it isn't inherently wrong to beat someone for showing a bit of the stomach? What kind bullshit morality does this lead to?

Originally Posted by Bradylama

We can't even establish the right to consent in male infants, and you still insist that we should also deny the ability of an indigenous people to consent to our moral crusades?

Using our views on circumcision as the crux for this argument is laughable. Get a new line. We're talking human rights, not cleaning up genitalia skin.

Originally Posted by Bradylama

No god encouraged the murder of millions through the totalitarianism of communist and fascist regimes.

No, but undeniable FAITH did. I think this topic is getting too religious in general. Harris' argument is against FAITH. Hitler called for faith from his followers, as do all great leaders. They call for their masses to follow their hearts, not their head - this is faith in the most absolute sense, following your heart. And when it comes to human justice and injustice, faith should never be a factor.

Originally Posted by Thomas

Now image that the prevalence of narrow-self interest was reduced to a level where people took only what they needed to survive, and they had so much respect for human life that they would voluntarily give what they did not need to those who had not. Why? Because they valued themselves more than they valued themselves What incentive would there be for things such as world wars, etc?

Your argument for self-interest fails, because it is in our self interest that the people around us are happy as well.

Originally Posted by Bradylama

That's why I don't like this idea of a common good, because historically it's always been used by a central authority, whether a totalitarian or populist one, to force conformity and persecute the "others."

Conformity, no doubt, to faith based principles such as: jews are evil, russians are evil, God is evil, Islam is evil, Christianity is evil, blah blah etc. Persecution of others always has it's roots in faith: the population who persecutes has faith in their doctrine or their leader that some group is evil, regardless of rationality.

Originally Posted by Bradylama

And yet, those moral principles exist because of causal reasons. As I've mentioned before, the only absolutes involving morals throughout all cultures is that murder is wrong, theft is wrong, and assault is wrong. Everything else is flavor, and usually many moral, ethical, and legal codes attempt to justify some cases of theft, murder, and assault by establishing a sympathetic circumstance. Dueling, for instance, was considered an honor killing, and practically nobody was sentenced for it in its heydey. In Arab culture, rape is sometimes acceptable. In some African tribes, cannibalism is a natural result of warfare.

Are you saying rape is sometimes acceptable? Are you saying cannibalism, in this day an age, is acceptable? They probably thought they'd gain magical powers from eating each other, and they probably still do. Honor, back in it's heyday, was almost as grand a concept as faith, aka bullshit. No rational basis. Honor is an imaginary concept, and if it produces unwarranted unnecessary death, what's the use of it? None, which is why it faded into the past in light of secular rationality. Your argument that there's no universal morals beyond murder theft and assault is true, but that doesn't make it right. Letting cultures beat and rape women just because they're a "different culture" is NOT legitimate. Just because a culture is different doesn't mean they're equally rational or justified in their systems of justice. Why hell, why don't we just send all our rapists and abusers into these cultures??? That way they can do whatever the fuck they want and not get in trouble for it! That's justice in your eyes, right? Bullshit. God forbid we step on Allah's toes and tell them to respect women as equal intelligent individuals.

The bottom line is that the more faith-centered a culture/group is, the more irrational and unjust it tends to be. This includes Hitler. This includes most of Christianity's past and some of it's present. This includes almost all of Islam's past and present, with the exception of those Muslims in the minority now adopted to modern day secular culture. Secular rationality will lead to universal moral standards, but unfortunately there is too much faith clouding the world for this to happen anytime soon.

Murder someone for being taller than 4'0", and the world will agree you're immoral.
Murder someone for faith-based reasons, and Bradylama the world will say you're from a different culture.
Murder someone for faith-based reasons in a purely secular world, and the world will agree you're immoral.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Quote:

But the premise is, once you get rid of faith itself, that will remove the religious/historical/local/ethnic barriers blocking us from a common moral ground. We can say with honesty that we all want happiness for ourselves and for each other in general. Only when faith, belief in the irrational, enters that picture will people's views on happiness end up distorted in some hate/bias against others happiness.

Religion is about as important in Europe as good hygiene, yet people still identify themselves based on ethnic backgrounds, and what religion they were born into, irregardless of whether or not they have faith in it, or even go to churches, synagogues, or mosques.

The absence of faith doesn't get rid of cliques, it doesn't get rid of history, location, or skin color. It doesn't get rid of income, social position, or class. It doesn't distribute resources evenly (nothing really can).

Even in the absence of faith, people will find a way to preserve their identities, and it'll be based on the simplest of things.

Hell, it doesn't even get rid of subcultures. Especially not the really weird ones. You know what I mean...

Quote:

Are you going to tell me that the middle east tradition of beating women for exposing 3 inches of skin is up to subjective morality? You're saying that it isn't inherently wrong to beat someone for showing a bit of the stomach? What kind bullshit morality does this lead to?

Yeah, if Arabs think beating women is ok within the right context (to us, very silly ones) then morality is subjective. I prefer to think that understanding subjective perspectives of morality would lead people to understand what aspects are truly beneficial to the greatest amount of people possible, and the answer I believe lies in individuality and self-determination. Because it's ok for Arabs to keep beating their women doesn't mean that it's ok for us to do it, because it isn't culturally kosher. If you think that somebody could effectively convince enough guys to beat women (ladder theorists), well, the law and social norms would have something to say about it.

This is not an endorsement of Arab behavior. We think beating women is horrible, and through the virtues of our own society, hopefully they'll end up coming to the same conclusion. Attempting to force our morality on them, however, hasn't come to any good whatsoever. There's a war going on which proves my point.

Quote:

Using our views on circumcision as the crux for this argument is laughable. Get a new line. We're talking human rights, not cleaning up genitalia skin.

Is the ability to offer consent to mutilation not a human right? Removing the foreskin is relatively analogous to removing the clitoral hood, so how many of you ladies would be ok without it?

My point is that there are underlying hippocracies in the argument which are based upon our own societal norms. What right do we have to tell other people to stop committing genital mutilation when we continue to perform it ritualistically? Infants can't even offer consent.

Quote:

No, but undeniable FAITH did. I think this topic is getting too religious in general. Harris' argument is against FAITH. Hitler called for faith from his followers, as do all great leaders. They call for their masses to follow their hearts, not their head - this is faith in the most absolute sense, following your heart. And when it comes to human justice and injustice, faith should never be a factor.

Granted. Consequently, the very reason Hitler came to power was by playing off of the fears of Germans for Jews and Communists, and by making false promisses to industrialists and workers. People "had faith" that Hitler would lead Germany into great nation status, which he did. The side effect, of course, was a world war and the systematic murder of millions.

It's essentially not much of a leap from voting for any politician in a democracy. You cast a vote for the representative or party that you believe will act in your best interests.

The end result I'm getting from this argument is that the inevitable solution to the politics problem is no politics, and social or market anarchies.

Quote:

Conformity, no doubt, to faith based principles such as: jews are evil, russians are evil, God is evil, Islam is evil, Christianity is evil, blah blah etc. Persecution of others always has it's roots in faith: the population who persecutes has faith in their doctrine or their leader that some group is evil, regardless of rationality.

... Capitalists are evil, the nobility is evil, the white man is evil. The persecution of others does not require faith, because it can be as simple as the extraction of resources.

It didn't require faith when Colombus committed genocide against the Arawaks, although it did help him sleep at night. Cognitive dissonance has as much to do with, or may even function independantly of faith.

"It's ok to kill Jews, they destroyed Germany."

"These niggers deserve slavery, they can't even carry the hoes in."

Cognitive dissonance, of course, is highly irrational, yet it has no real basis on faith.

European Imperialism subjugated millions, and slaughtered hundreds of thousands (millions when you count plagues in the Americas), yet it wasn't based on faith, but real political interests, such as the spice trade and gold production.

Quote:

Are you saying rape is sometimes acceptable? Are you saying cannibalism, in this day an age, is acceptable? They probably thought they'd gain magical powers from eating each other.

Acceptable? I never claimed we should embrace rape or cannibalism, but at the same point we have to be willing to tolerate it within cultural and societal bounds. If we don't allow people to determine for themselves what is right and wrong, then we deny them the very self-determination that we supposedly value, as well as end up with bloody messes.

Quote:

Honor, back in it's heyday, was almost as grand a concept as faith, aka bullshit. No rational basis. Honor is an imaginary concept, and if it produces unwarranted unnecessary death, what's the use of it? None, which is why it faded into the past in light of secular rationality.

Honor has its use in posturing. By establishing that one possesses honor, one makes oneself more marketable to those that are interested in egaging with or doing business with one. The concept of honor hasn't gone away, dueling has, because it was perceived that fights to the death were counterproductive.

Quote:

Your argument that there's no universal morals beyond murder theft and assault is true, but that doesn't make it right. Letting cultures beat and rape women just because they're a "different culture" is unjust. Just because a culture is different doesn't mean they're equally rational or justified in their systems of justice. Why hell, why don't we just send all our rapists and abusers into these cultures??? That way they can do whatever the fuck they want and not get in trouble for it! That's justice, right? God forbid we step on Allah's toes and tell them to respect women as equal individuals.

Yeah, I'm sure they'll listen.

I never said it was right, and you're coming up with an end which I never implied. Obviously shipping off rapists to the middle east doesn't fit with our concept of justice, because we prefer punitive sentences to exile.

You're applying the misconception that subjective perspective is equal perspective. What I'm saying is that forcing people to come to the "right conclusion" creates more problems than it solves. If that conclusion is self-evident, let them figure it out.

Quote:

The bottom line is that the more faith-centered a culture is, the more irrational and unjust it tends to be. This includes Hitler. This includes most of Christianity's past and some of it's present. This includes almost all of Islam's past and present, with the exception of those Muslims now adopted to modern day secular culture. Secular rationality will lead to universal moral standards, but unfortunately there is too much faith clouding the world for this to happen anytime soon.

Don't you mean the entirety of human history, written and uknown? Secular rationality may lead to universal moral standards, but I don't buy that it'd make the world a better place. No matter what, the ability to use force always exists, and it's not that hard to get enough people to support you by appealing to their greed.

If you're going to tell me that no faith will eliminate greed, then get the fuck out of here.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by Bradylama

The absence of faith doesn't get rid of cliques, it doesn't get rid of history, location, or skin color. It doesn't get rid of income, social position, or class. It doesn't distribute resources evenly (nothing really can).

Many of those things you listed are intertwined to such a degree that there's basically two subjects. One is ethnic/historical background, and while the end of faith will not erase these, it will cause the irrational prejudice caused by these systems to cease. You can no longer hate someone for being black because he's dumber than white people. You have to hate him simply for being black. As you can see, racism of this kind would be based simply on hatred, not faith-based hatred that your race is better.

As for SES, it's true it will remain in faithless societies as well as possible injustices caused by them, but the playing field will be greatly leveled when equality is truly reached through non-discrimination of the previous category.

Originally Posted by Bradylama

This is not an endorsement of Arab behavior. We think beating women is horrible, and through the virtues of our own society, hopefully they'll end up coming to the same conclusion. Attempting to force our morality on them, however, hasn't come to any good whatsoever. There's a war going on which proves my point.

Well, in my opinion I don't care what society you come from or what culture you come from. If you beat other human beings for irrational religions reasons, you are immoral. That's simply a matter of fact in a rational world.

As for your view on how to convert their society, their faith blinds them to virtues of our society. Their faith says men are in control of all aspects of life and women are not. That's how it's always been, and it's worked for thousands of years, why change now? Giving women equal rights doesn't necessarily improve a society's wealth, a society's military, or most importantly a society's faith, so what virtues could possibly be found in it?

Originally Posted by Bradylama

Is the ability to offer consent to mutilation not a human right? Removing the foreskin is relatively analogous to removing the clitoral hood, so how many of you ladies would be ok without it?

This is where your argument falls flat on it's face. Are you saying Iraqi women consent to be treated like dogs? That's because they know of no other life. Their acceptance is based on irrational faith-based doctrine. Make no mistake, these religious beliefs hold no credible weight whatsoever in the real world, yet we accept them as realities? This is unacceptable. If a parent in today's society raises a child that expects abuse, does that make it OK? Certainly not. And it doesn't matter if the Parents are following a magical guide book created by an elf in their closet, it is unacceptable period.

Originally Posted by Bradylama

What right do we have to tell other people to stop committing genital mutilation when we continue to perform it ritualistically?

And that's exactly my point. It's a faith-based ideology. If this practice is to remain in our society it should be wholly based on rational scientific data showing pros and cons. If there are neither pros nor cons, it can be left up to the individual since it becomes purely a visual decision, if you know what I mean. This foreskin argument, however, has no impact on non-faith-based ideologies such as individual freedoms, which I feel need to be spread to all cultures.

Originally Posted by Bradylama

... Capitalists are evil, the nobility is evil, the white man is evil. The persecution of others does not require faith, because it can be as simple as the extraction of resources.

Oh but I think it does. If a communist tells you all capitalists are money grubbing whores, does he give you a fact sheet listing corporations that have done such things? That you can corroborate on your own? Getting unbiased sources, making an informed decision? I think not. All hate such as this is dependent on faith in your information source. And when it comes to things like hating groups of people, we should never take someone else's word for it. We can see how it is indeed faith that leads us to make uninformed hateful conclusions.

Originally Posted by Bradylama

It didn't require faith when Colombus committed genocide against the Arawaks, although it did help him sleep at night. Cognitive dissonance has as much to do with, or may even function independantly of faith.

We can sit here and list the legitimate reasons he did it, but that's not the point. What did he tell his fellow officers when he tried to convince them to help him kill all these people? Did he say "well, they really bother me and I think we should kill them"? I think not. It was most likely an impassioned speech about the godless natives who want to destroy their holy christian doctrine of Jesus, and their holy country etc etc. You can't just rally people up to kill a bunch of other people unjustly without a faith-based justification.

Originally Posted by Bradylama

Cognitive dissonance, of course, is highly irrational, yet it has no real basis on faith.

I disagree. You can't make a group look guilty unless you label them - and these labels are always faith-based issues, such as one race being better than the other, or one religion being better than the other.

Originally Posted by Bradylama

European Imperialism subjugated millions, and slaughtered hundreds of thousands (millions when you count plagues in the Americas), yet it wasn't based on faith, but real political interests, such as the spice trade and gold production.

But to get the backing of your fellow officers and population who do the actually killing, you can't say "we need more spice so the King can get more money, so you're going to have to kill these people." Humans HAVE to label others in order to separate themselves from that person, and faith-based labels are always at the forefront. Faith in your race being better, faith in your country being better, faith in anything without rational unbiased evidence. Your arguments would be better supported if you could show me actual lectures or speeches that were given at the time to rally people up.

Originally Posted by Bradylama

If we don't allow people to determine for themselves what is right and wrong, then we deny them the very self-determination that we supposedly value, as well as end up with bloody messes.

But in these societies people aren't allowed to determine for themselves what is right and wrong in the first place, because they don't have that individual freedom to do so! The middle east has been the same situation religiously for the past how many thousands of years? Yet now they're really rich because of oil, with big weapons and lots of followers. See how the situation has changed for the worse? How do you expect them to dig themselves out of a hole when we keep on pilling dirt into it by accepting their lifestyle?

Originally Posted by Bradylama

By establishing that one possesses honor, one makes oneself more marketable to those that are interested in engaging with or doing business with one. The concept of honor hasn't gone away, dueling has, because it was perceived that fights to the death were counterproductive.

It may survive in very remedial ways, but it's power has lessened tremendously. Now we have rational terms like dependability, efficiency, friendliness, customer support, etc. Honor, as an idea and a word, died a long time ago.

Originally Posted by Bradylama

You're applying the misconception that subjective perspective is equal perspective. What I'm saying is that forcing people to come to the "right conclusion" creates more problems than it solves. If that conclusion is self-evident, let them figure it out.

I never said we need to force them to our way of life. However, accepting that they can beat women as long as the women don't complain is a vicious circle. The women don't complain because then they'll be beaten. They don't run away because they'll be hunted down and killed, and what of the children? Do you really think us sitting here being accepting of their way of life is going to encourage them to change??

Originally Posted by Bradylama

If you're going to tell me that no faith will eliminate greed, then get the fuck out of here.

Hahah, no it won't eliminate violence in the name of greed. But if greed would become the new major sin of the world instead of faith, I'd be fine with that. At least the people who were committing crimes would all KNOW they were doing wrong, instead of thinking they're fighting some glorious battle.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Quote:

Many of those things you listed are intertwined to such a degree that there's basically two subjects. One is ethnic/historical background, and while the end of faith will not erase these, it will cause the irrational prejudice caused by these systems to cease. You can no longer hate someone for being black because he's dumber than white people. You have to hate him simply for being black. As you can see, racism of this kind would be based simply on hatred, not faith-based hatred that your race is better.

As for SES, it's true it will remain in faithless societies as well as possible injustices caused by them, but the playing field will be greatly leveled when equality is truly reached through non-discrimination of the previous category.

I don't really think there can ever be a true equality. People are always able to find ways to stratisfy their societies, and while the frequency of "injustice" may be lowered, it'll never be eliminated. It's also possible to hate blacks because of "black culture."

Quote:

Well, in my opinion I don't care what society you come from or what culture you come from. If you beat other human beings for irrational religions reasons, you are immoral. That simply a matter of fact in a rational world.

No it isn't. Reason itself is subjective. The only form of thought that is objective is logic, yet logical conclusions may still not be right.

What you're creating here is a cultural conflict, in which one culture, presumably ours, cannot accept the existance of another culture, Arab ones, on the same planet. This creates problems because it implies to Arabs that we consider them an enemy, meaning that we are their enemy. You may not feel that way, but carried to its extreme through interventionist relations (essentially what is happening now) you end up with a clash of civilizations, if not at the least terrorism.

Quote:

As for your view on how to convert their society, their faith blinds them to virtues of our society. Their faith says men are in control of all aspects of life and women are not. That's how it's always been, and it's worked for thousands of years, why change now? Giving women equal rights doesn't necessarily improve a society's wealth, a society's military, or most importantly a society's faith, so what virtues could possibly be found in it?

Uh, why did Renaissance and Enlightenment thinkers have to become secular rationalists? Use what God gave you. :P

Quote:

blah blah rape bad yaddy-yadda unnacceptable

I really don't think you're getting any of my points. Granted, doing this like a quote-war probably isn't helping your concentration, but these things are like Pringles. Pay some fucking attention.

Quote:

And that's exactly my point. It's a faith-based ideology. If this practice is to remain in our society it should be wholly based on rational scientific data showing pros and cons. If there are neither pros nor cons, it can be left up to the individual since it becomes purely a visual decision, if you know what I mean. This foreskin argument, however, has no impact on non-faith-based ideologies such as individual freedoms, which I feel need to be spread to all cultures.

Genital mutilation isn't practiced based on faith in this country. If anything, it's practiced because of a doctor's recommendation, or as a fashion statement. One case is illogical, the other unreasonable. Which one is based on faith?

Quote:

Oh but I think it does. If a communist tells you all capitalists are money grubbing whores, does he give you a fact sheet listing corporations that have done such things? That you can corroborate on your own? Getting unbiased sources, making an informed decision? I think not. All hate such as this is dependent on faith in your information source. And when it comes to things like hating groups of people, we should never take someone else's word for it. We can see how it is indeed faith that leads us to make uninformed hateful conclusions.

Communism only provided a theory and alternative for what people already felt, that they were being screwed over by industrialists, and that an exhorbitant amount of wealth was being distributed to them and away from the working class. Ultimately, communism is about forced equality and socialistic brotherhood. That brotherhood just comes at the price of everything looking like a government housing project and a post office, and in the case of the actual attempt at communism, almost always ends up being headed by sociopaths, because they tend to be drawn to movements of violent revolution.

Faith is also a matter of trust. You can't trust anybody without placing a reasonable amount of faith in them. The Germans trusted Hitler, the Cubans trusted Che Guevera, etc., etc., yet if we denied ourselves the ability to trust, how would we ever develop meaningful interpersonal relationships?

Quote:

We can sit here and list the legitimate reasons he did it, but that's not the point. What did he tell his fellow officers when he tried to convince them to help him kill all these people? Did he say "well, they really bother me and I think we should kill them"? I think not. It was most likely an impassioned speech about the godless natives who want to destroy their holy christian doctrine of Jesus, and their holy country etc etc. You can't just rally people up to kill a bunch of other people unjustly without a faith-based justification.

None of the Conquistadores bought that. Everybody in Columbus's first voyage new that the Arawaks were technologically primitive militarily, and could never pose any kind of threat to Christian Europe. What was simple, however, was convincing them that there were gold and women there for the taking. Religion was a factor, of course, but it was mostly to ease their consciences and justify their actions while establishing the means to convert the primitives. In the absence of religion and faith, I doubt faith would have been a factor, and they still would've gone ahead with it.

Cognitive Dissonance, in case you didn't know, is the behavior associated with demonizing a demographic in order to justify your intent to persecute them. On his first voyage, Columbus had a lot of praise for the Arawak people in his journal, yet when he returned with Spain's military might he described them as stupid and warlike whereas before he considered them beautiful and inquisitive. Would he have made these claims if he didn't think the Arawaks had gold? I doubt it.

Quote:

But to get the backing of your fellow officers and population who do the actually killing, you can't say "we need more spice so the King can get more money, so you're going to have to kill these people." Humans HAVE to label others in order to separate themselves from that person, and faith-based labels are always at the forefront. Faith in your race being better, faith in your country being better, faith in anything without rational unbiased evidence. Your arguments would be better supported if you could show me actual lectures or speeches that were given at the time to rally people up.

Jingoism itself is a real political ideology which justifies the actions of one's nation, because one's nation should be at the forefront of the world stage. If one is a national, why shouldn't one want his nation to be the best? While Imperialism may have been justified by racism and ethnocentricity (you know a lot about that don't you?) ultimately it could never exist without the desire to consume and to live in a great nation. The appeal was to the ego and didn't require faith. Jingoism died as an ideology, because the effects of constant warfare took their toll, and encouraged people to seek alternatives in regard to foreign diplomacy.

Quote:

But in these societies people aren't allowed to determine for themselves what is right and wrong in the first place, because they don't have that individual freedom to do so! The middle east has been the same situation religiously for the past how many thousands of years? Yet now they're really rich because of oil, with big weapons and lots of followers. See how the situation has changed for the worse? How do you expect them to dig themselves out of a hole when we keep on pilling dirt into it by accepting their lifestyle?

They've only been dominated by Islam since the 8th century, so it's only been slightly more than a thousand. Arab tribal culture, however, goes back a considerably farther timeframe, and in many respects is based on the same nomadic cultures which birthed Abraham and the Jews, and as legend has it due to Ishmael, the Arabs themselves.

The Western World has been Christian dominated since the Edict of Milan in 313. It took us 500 years after a dark age and subsequent enlightenments before we've even started to toy with the idea of faithless societies. The Arab world is currently in their own dark age, and they have to come out of it naturally, otherwise we end up with collapsed towers and dead soldiers, in addition to all of the other innocent Arabs who end up being killed, all so that we can impose our own values on their society and still fail, because they can't accept a system of government which doesn't adhere to Sharia law.

You still think this is just?

The Soviets understood that Chinese communism was different from Vietnamese communism, was different from Soviet communism, yet right now we've made a mistake in regards to considering how Democracy would work in the Middle East. As one blogger put it, it's as if we all thought that Arabs were just "Americans in funny outfits."

In our own society, men had to be convinced to give up their power in order to foment equality for women and minorities. We still have a lot of problems regarding race relations in this country, and you think that we should be imposing our values on a foreign culture?

Not dictating what is right and wrong to Arabs is no more an acceptance of wife beating than prosecuting "curb stompers" is an acceptance of homosexuality. Stop being an idiot.

Quote:

It may survive in very remedial ways, but it's power has lessened tremendously. Now we have rational terms like dependability, efficiency, friendliness, customer support, etc. Honor, as an idea and a word, died a long time ago.

So you've just entrapped a concept in business-friendly buzzwords in order to try and somehow establish that the concept of honor is dead, as if anybody who doesn't have their head up their ass would believe you.

Quote:

I never said we need to force them to our way of life. However, accepting that they can beat women as long as the women don't complain is a vicious circle. The women don't complain because then they'll be beaten. They don't run away because they'll be hunted down and killed, and what of the children? Do you really think us sitting here being accepting of their way of life is going to encourage them to change??

We possess the greatest technology and have the most powerful economy in the world. We live in a society which produces so much wealth that obesity is an epidemic. This alone is the primary catalyst for reformers in the Arab world, and it's what Wahhabists fear the most. No moral posturing will get us anywhere that observable phenomenon can't.

I never said that we should accept cultures which don't appeal to us, only that we should tolerate them within their boundaries. Otherwise, if we attempt to impose our values on them as you suggest, either through force or posturing, we enable the forces of regression in the region to capitalize on our oppression or hypocracy.

Quote:

Hahah, no it won't eliminate violence in the name of greed. But if greed would become the new major sin of the world instead of faith, I'd be fine with that. At least the people who were committing crimes would all KNOW they were doing wrong, instead of thinking they're fighting some glorious battle.

And what if they're nihilists? What if they don't believe in right and wrong and are moral relativists? The very fact that they believe so makes it so, and that's basically the essence of "the will to power."

This also, of course, denies that some people may be legitimately justified for violating a societal norm.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by FallDragon

Well, in my opinion I don't care what society you come from or what culture you come from. If you beat other human beings for irrational religions reasons, you are immoral. That's simply a matter of fact in a rational world.

And yet here, you are exercising some faith yourself. Unless you can scientifically prove, 100%, beyond the shadow of a doubt that their religious reasons are absolutely false -- good luck with that -- you do not know that their religion is untrue. Improbable, yes, but you take the rest on faith.

Originally Posted by FallDragon

Giving women equal rights doesn't necessarily improve a society's wealth, a society's military, or most importantly a society's faith, so what virtues could possibly be found in it?

On the contrary, it opens up vast possibilities for women as consumers, women as members of the work force, and women as members of the military.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Atheism is not a religion. The atheist doesn't use faith to reject God. She uses common sense. The rejection of God is based on the absence of rational justification. You cannot prove the existence of God with logical thought. Thomas Aquinas and St. Anselm tried and their arguments, even to the church, are embarrassingly laughable in this age. 21st century philosophy is mainly dominated by logical positivists and analytic thought. Metaphysical claims about God are rejected as nonsense because there is no way to prove them.

Originally Posted by Bradylama

The only form of thought that is objective is logic, yet logical conclusions may still not be right.

That is very misleading. You can only have a false logical conclusion assuming the premises you start with are not true themselves. If the Queen is a man then pigs have wings, is a perfectly valid argument.

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by JackyBoy

Is it purely coincidental that male circumcision is viewed as acceptable to western cultures and at the same time shows up in scripture? I can only wonder, if God asked for the removal of the labia how many millions of women in North America would undergo the procedure without consent in the same manner as their male counterpart. I am willing to bet quite a few. Although male circumcision is accepted it is still widely debated simply because the child has no say in the matter.

Coincidence? No. Then again, circumcision wasn't popularized in Christian Europe, and it wasn't in America for hundreds of years. It got its start as a medical fad.

Quote:

Brady, I want to be clear on your position so correct me if I have misunderstood. You're saying that because certain societies are less fortunate, moral truths ought not to apply to them and more, do not exist at all? This is the equivalent of suggesting that 2 + 2 only equals 4 in certain societies with higher education. Moral truths are no different than logical truths. Also, in calling it the moral crusade, you seem concerned that moral truths are nothing more than an iron curtain. This isn't the case. Moral truths are not forced onto people. It is not like the ten commandments. The rational person only has to think about murder to know it's wrong. There is no need to look it up in the criminal code or scripture.

I'm saying that because all societies develop independent of each other, based on seperate criteria, that their views of morality are going to be very different. It's because this view of morality is subjective that there can never be an absolute moral truth, especially when you consider nihilists, who simply don't believe in morality. The application of reason has developed vastly different methods of philosophy, and none of them have the same take on morals or moral development. The belief in a moral truth is itself a vast leap of faith that has no real basis in history or reason.

Quote:

It's interesting that you reject moral truths because the study of ethics is to do just that. Ethics is the attempt to derive our values from facts. You are free to believe that we are forever hopeless in ever finding moral truths but I just happen to think of them as quite real and obtainable.

And yet, every ethical issue is a controversy, in which certain people are going to disagree with what ends up as the widely accepted norm. How can you declare an absolute truth over a controversy?

Quote:

Last thing, I want to clarify the contradiction you believe I have made. My view on morality and religion are very much separate. Moral truths are discoverable through reason. These are not rules codified by the elite and forced onto others. All humans have the ability to discover the same moral truth. In the same manner that all humans have the ability to understand that 2 objects when added to another 2 objects equals 4 total objects. And so I have not contradicted myself because while religion is an iron curtain, moral truths are not.

Tell yourself what you want. No amount of reasoning will get around the fact that you have to take the view of absolute morality with a bit of faith.

Quote:

That is very misleading. You can only have a false logical conclusion assuming the premises you start with are not true themselves.

No shit?

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

I have no problem with faith in general, the sort of faith I have in my family and friends. It's this blind faith that bothers me. Frankly, it makes no fucking sense.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by Bradylama

No it isn't. Reason itself is subjective. The only form of thought that is objective is logic, yet logical conclusions may still not be right.

What you're creating here is a cultural conflict, in which one culture, presumably ours, cannot accept the existance of another culture, Arab ones, on the same planet. This creates problems because it implies to Arabs that we consider them an enemy, meaning that we are their enemy. You may not feel that way, but carried to its extreme through interventionist relations (essentially what is happening now) you end up with a clash of civilizations, if not at the least terrorism.

You're basically allowing people to believe in fairy tales to justify beating other humans. If you can rationalize this into some kind of theory of relative cultures, go right ahead, but it's sad to think there are people like you who succumb to that liberal propaganda of non-action. You're the kind who will sit on their asses while Germany kills jews and say "well, they're from a different culture, we should hope they see the virtues of our society to change because war is bad."

Originally Posted by Bradylama

Uh, why did Renaissance and Enlightenment thinkers have to become secular rationalists? Use what God gave you. :P

Why did they become that way? Because there was huge amount of evidence that overwhelmed and contradicted previously held notions and people found virtue in rationality. Can we say the same will happen to the Arab community? Possibly. But how long are you willing to wait while they have nuclear bombs in their lockers? 10 years? 100? 1000 years for a revolution in their culture? You think somebody isn't going to get nuked before then?

Originally Posted by Bradylama

Genital mutilation isn't practiced based on faith in this country. If anything, it's practiced because of a doctor's recommendation, or as a fashion statement. One case is illogical, the other unreasonable. Which one is based on faith?

It's no longer practiced out of faith based reasons, no, but it's a relic of our religious past. It's where it originated from. Why do doctors still recommend it? Probably mostly due to medical reasons, since it's easier to catch diseases with the foreskin on. If you'd like to disagree and say that doctor's don't know what they're talking about, go right ahead, but your war on foreskin cutting is the most ridiculous way to argue for moral relativity so I'm going to stop responding to posts about it. It's wasted space.

Originally Posted by Bradylama

Faith is also a matter of trust. You can't trust anybody without placing a reasonable amount of faith in them. The Germans trusted Hitler, the Cubans trusted Che Guevera, etc., etc., yet if we denied ourselves the ability to trust, how would we ever develop meaningful interpersonal relationships?

Incorrect. Is this some kind of magical bullshit theory you pulled out of your ass? I'm not going to respond to this point until you make some kind of legitimate claim that the concept of faith, as I've defined it, is interlinked with trust. I've defined faith as belief in the irrational how many times now, yet you're still trying to wiggle out other definitions to prove I'm "wrong". How about you start paying attention? I already addressed confidence in others with Sass. The faith I'm speaking of is faith in the irrational - which is what these societies had when following their respective leaders.

Originally Posted by Bradylama

What was simple, however, was convincing them that there were gold and women there for the taking. Religion was a factor, of course, but it was mostly to ease their consciences and justify their actions while establishing the means to convert the primitives. In the absence of religion and faith, I doubt faith would have been a factor, and they still would've gone ahead with it.

You think they would have gone ahead with it even if they had no justification for their actions? I think this is a completely bunk argument. If they wouldn't be able to degrade the natives through use of faith-based labels it would have been terribly more difficult. You're missing my point on morality. They sugar-coated their actions in faith. This sugar-coating is what makes these actions acceptable in their consciousness. There was also faith that their culture and government was superior to the natives as well. If you remove all these faith based principles and justifications and leave them simply with "we want money and women, so we're going to go rape and pillage these humans who are equally intelligent and legitimate as we are" it would've been nearly impossible. You can HARDLY convince people to attack others without lowering the other group to sub-human standards. I'd make the case you never can, not counting individual sociopaths. I'm talking group theory. You're saying you can just convince a group of people to go out to steal and murder without needing to make them impassioned for an irrational cause, and I say you're full of shit.

Originally Posted by Bradylama

Cognitive Dissonance, in case you didn't know, is the behavior associated with demonizing a demographic in order to justify your intent to persecute them. On his first voyage, Columbus had a lot of praise for the Arawak people in his journal, yet when he returned with Spain's military might he described them as stupid and warlike whereas before he considered them beautiful and inquisitive. Would he have made these claims if he didn't think the Arawaks had gold? I doubt it.

I did know Bradylama, don't patronize me. And it's the entire argument I've been making the past two posts against faith which you seem to be ignoring. Would he have made claims that they were stupid and dumb if they didn't have gold? No. Greed was the reason they fought them. However, faith was the thing which allowed them to kill others and justify their greed. Faith JUSTIFIES this.

All these examples you give of atrocities have non-faith based roots. Power, money, political gain. But all of them use FAITH to justify their actions. Once faith is removed from the picture, there are no more excuses to make you seem good and righteous, and people will see you for what you truly are; a thief, a murderer, etc.

Originally Posted by Bradylama

The Arab world is currently in their own dark age, and they have to come out of it naturally, otherwise we end up with collapsed towers and dead soldiers, in addition to all of the other innocent Arabs who end up being killed, all so that we can impose our own values on their society and still fail, because they can't accept a system of government which doesn't adhere to Sharia law.

You still think this is just?

No, they don't have to come out of it naturally. You seem to think the only options are killing and converting, or doing nothing at all. That's ridiculous. There could be many methods to turning the Arab culture into a moderate secular society by way of religious doctrine. Start with the more moderate countries to begin with, and start up religious campaigns for moderate Islam and try to work it into the core of their beliefs. Yes, this is basically hijacking their religion to turn it into a secular, rational based one, but that's fine with me. If we can twist their fairy tales into ones that don't justify murder so easily, just as we've twisted our own, all for the better.

Quote:

In our own society, men had to be convinced to give up their power in order to foment equality for women and minorities. We still have a lot of problems regarding race relations in this country, and you think that we should be imposing our values on a foreign culture?

Yes, considering we won't KILL you for being another religion and they WILL. Again you love to blame America for shit but refuse to admit that we are a more rational and thus more just system. You, for some reason, refuse to make that connection. You say that systems of irrational justice may be equally legitimate as rational ones. This is a terribly liberal argument. Beating a human causes pain. Pain is not happiness to the one being beaten. Therefore, we can draw the rational conclusion that we shouldn't BEAT people. But the Arabs do, and why? Because they sugar-coat it in their faith to make it seem like they're doing the right thing. Do you really think Arabs would continue to beat their women if they no longer held faith-based, irrational principles like inferiority of women and religious rules?

Originally Posted by Bradylama

Not dictating what is right and wrong to Arabs is no more an acceptance of wife beating than prosecuting "curb stompers" is an acceptance of homosexuality. Stop being an idiot.

And what is homosexual intolerance? A FAITH-based principle for Christ sake. Are you not fucking pay attention to what I'm saying?? I'm saying our SECULAR.RATIONAL.BELIEFS should be spread, for like the third time now. For fuck's sake, Brady. And your argument makes no sense. "Curb stompers" I assume are people who beat homosexuals? If we prosecute them, we're saying they're doing wrong. If we don't prosecute them, we're saying they're doing right. We prosecute them. Just as Arabs should prosecute wife beating, but don't, because their irrational faith-based system makes it OK.

Originally Posted by Braylama

So you've just entrapped a concept in business-friendly buzzwords in order to try and somehow establish that the concept of honor is dead, as if anybody who doesn't have their head up their ass would believe you.

Buzzwords? WTF. Dependability means they deliver a product consistently. Efficiency means they can get the job done in a short amount of time while producing a quality product. Friendliness means the welcoming of pleasant conversation, etc. Oh, and what does your magical word Honor mean in context of business? Absolute bullshit. Hmmm, I wonder why we don't see marketing campaigns based around which companies are most honorable to buy from? I suppose it's because the word is bullshit.

Originally Posted by Bradylama

And what if they're nihilists? What if they don't believe in right and wrong and are moral relativists? The very fact that they believe so makes it so, and that's basically the essence of "the will to power."

Then they're ignoring the possibilities of a rational world, and the possibilities of a rational morality. They gave up and decide to believe in nothing.

Originally Posted by StarmanDX

And yet here, you are exercising some faith yourself. Unless you can scientifically prove, 100%, beyond the shadow of a doubt that their religious reasons are absolutely false -- good luck with that -- you do not know that their religion is untrue. Improbable, yes, but you take the rest on faith.

I don't need to prove they're false, because I deny their very foundation as being legitimate in a rational world. Make no mistake, a rational world is a real, tangible, observable world. A faith-based world is an imaginary, intangible, unobservable world. The imaginary has no place in the justice system of our physical world.

Originally Posted by StarmanDX

On the contrary, it opens up vast possibilities for women as consumers, women as members of the work force, and women as members of the military.

I was speaking from an Islamic perspective. Yes there are obviously positives, but their faith will blind them to it.

Originally Posted by Jackyboy

The rejection of God is based on the absence of rational justification.

This is called agnostic. Unless you think you can rationally reject something from existing because of a lack of evidence. Example: there's a planet 5 million light years away that spins backwards at a speed of 3 miles a minute. Can we prove this right or wrong? No. Which means we can't make statements on whether it really exists or not. Without evidence one way or the other, you have no right to make claims on it's existence unless you have faith.

Originally Posted by Bradylama

I'm saying that because all societies develop independent of each other, based on seperate criteria, that their views of morality are going to be very different. It's because this view of morality is subjective that there can never be an absolute moral truth, especially when you consider nihilists, who simply don't believe in morality. The application of reason has developed vastly different methods of philosophy, and none of them have the same take on morals or moral development. The belief in a moral truth is itself a vast leap of faith that has no real basis in history or reason.

Incorrect. You're neglecting the possibilities of a rational world. Moral subjectivity exists today due to development alongside faith. Punishment of wrong doing may always be subjective, but the degree to which any given action is wrong or right is not. Remove the faith and stick in rationality, and everyone will come to the same basic conclusions. And don't bullshit me with saying moral truth requires faith. I'm talking about rational moral truth based on individual freedom. If you think individual freedom is under the category "subjective truth", I call it complete bullshit. You're denying others the right to individual freedoms because of an illusory world. That should be a crime in and of itself.

Originally Posted by Bradylama

And yet, every ethical issue is a controversy, in which certain people are going to disagree with what ends up as the widely accepted norm. How can you declare an absolute truth over a controversy?

It's a controversy because of irrationality. Because of belief in God, belief in Allah, belief that group A should have more rights than group B. All irrational.

There's nowhere I can't reach.