The question I get asked by religious people all the time is, without God, what's to stop me from raping all I want? And my answer is: I do rape all I want. And the amount I want is zero. And I do murder all I want, and the amount I want is zero. The fact that these people think that if they didn't have this person watching over them that they would go on killing, raping rampages is the most self-damning thing I can imagine. I don't want to do that. Right now, without any god, I don't want to jump across this table and strangle you. I have no desire to strangle you. I have no desire to flip you over and rape you. --Penn Jillette
Think of the man what you will, but this has to be the best answer for that dumb question.
Well, it is important to remember that he's a professional liar, so I don't know how true that is for him personally.
I can't remember who said it but: If you being a good person depends on the fear of eternal damnation, then you are not a good person.
That's why as an Italian I appreciate nordern countries. Luther reform fixed that and shifted the main point to the actual life.
When I moved to Sweden in a rich part of Stockholm I was not happy. Dealing with rich Italians left a disgusting feeling in me and I didn't want to live there. Then I got to meet the neighbors and they were actually really cool. Rich swedish people (normally rich, not talling about billionaires), are absolutely down on heart.
Anyway, I'm pretty sure this people would've been doing great even without religion. Luther isn't been a revolution, it's been an excaping. Not surprisingly, their modern and open Christianism is the one who's disappearing faster.
I now see why she was stupid enough to get with elmo.
Those two deserve each other.
There are plenty examples of religious leaders raping and killing children and other offenses. But I guess they are above it all then?
The same god who allows rape and murder as long as you believe in him
The entire argument is pretty stupid...
Do you believe in god? Yes
Does rape and murder happen? Yes
Can you rape and murder if you tried? Yes
So what does your god add to the situation? Is the only reason you don't do it out of fear? Yes/No?
Also do you really obey the laws of your god? Yes
So you don't ever wear both linnen and wool? Uh what?
And are you really sure you never sat where a menstruating women has been sitting?? Wait what?
How many different seeds are in your garden? ??
Saying "Without laws I wouldn't do right from wrong" is also just as much a sociopathic self report imo. Same with "money" and "The State", i'm an atheist just like them except I go one or two gods further.
also, when has religion saying raping and killing children was wrong ever stopped a religious 'person' from raping and killing children? those are like their two favorite things to do.
"Your religion isn't the same as morality." - Britta Perry
If we can kill God, then it wasn't God that we killed...
God is the all-powerful creator of the universe, all of the black holes and quasars, all of the laws of physics, the architect of the very Beginning and End of All Things... but He is in constant danger of destruction by a bunch of hippies and nerds.
This is the fact that is so often overlooked because its too goddamn inconvenient for them to acknowledge.
I think zealot answered that. It seems that people who can't manage themselves and their worst impulse want to manage others.
Grimes and musk believe the AI is God. So there’s a good chance context is missing here on purpose because she’s aware enough to not go full crazy.
Bring back God = build the AI.
TBF, an overgrown autocorrect is more real to me than god, and in my opinion it's the more sane option to worship.
they don't believe in god, so there's no belief in AI.
let me sum it up for you in a few words imagine they are the thoughts of our oppressors.
I am a god.
The archetypes, best, worst and middling, are those parts of ourselves, so I can kind of see that. I'm fairly sure that's not what they mean by it, but I could be wrong. People can agree on basic premise and have wildly varying ideas of the implications, such as regular people who hi to church, temple and mosque and basically try to be decent to everyone, and those who wield religion like a cudgel.
Eta, just saying I'm fairly sure i don't agree their implications, maybe not the actual premise. I realize it was murky.
manic nazi dream girl
When autism and fascism collide
I haven't be taught religion, but i'm lucky enoigh to have had parents...
The way i understood it was that it's a difference in organization of society. Some people can find meaning themselves, without needing somebody else to tell them what to do. Some people just need to be told what to do.
Some people find their meaning in telling others what to do.
If you need somebody watching over your shoulder + the threat of damnation to be a good person, you're not a good person.
Our society killed God and replaced with Reason. For all the things this improved, it created another set of problems nearly everyone in the West is unaware of. Check out Voltaire's Bastards.
There was just a case where a woman gave birth to a baby in the woods, left it there and left for a vacation. If it weren't for the family dog desperately trying to save the baby and getting noticed by a stranger, nobody would have ever known as even the rest of the family was defensive of the woman.
This shows morality is not only not an exclusively trait but not even an exclusively human trait.
I am not sure that I agree that the dog's behavior necessarily demonstrates "morality." You might be anthropomorphizing a bit. I am not a biologist or anything, so I could be way off base... But is it not possible that the dog was acting on instincts to protect newborn offspring? Similar to when animals "adopt" babies from other species as their own?
Morality implies that the dog did a thing because it's "the right thing to do," when in reality, it might have just been a self-preservation instinct kicking in. Dog sees newborn that's clearly the offspring of the being that takes care of it, dog tries to preserve that newborn's life in order to keep the gravy train going.
Just my (again, non-expert) thoughts.
Zealots judging by the news coming out of america do not care about such trivial details as "facts", "medical science" and "behavioral science". It is unnecessary for them to take that into consideration.
You can remove the argument from morality safely from your answer just by stating the dog acted upon instinct, based off the notion dogs are pack animals, that have a closely knit symbiotic relatioship with human, which can be used to in favour of the dog finding a newborn activated the instinct of preserving their pack.
The way you approached the subject can be easily side tracked through arguing you are atributting self interest to the animals actions, as in, it keeps the newborn alive, thus, their own preservation is assured.
If acting on true self interest, the dog should have allowed the newborn to die.
Side note: who discards a newborn in such calous way? How unbalanced is the person?
Do you have source?
Stop being pious atheists
What do you mean?
If fear of divine retribution is your only reason for being a good person, then you are not a good person.
Someone that fucked Elon should really keep ideas about morality out of their fucking mouth
Elon doesn't fuck, his dick is a bent twig. He has them fucked by mail order.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Emphasis my own. Yes there is a self evident morality, you don't need God to tell you what's right and wrong.
To be fair, they're also saying that it's self-evident that our rights are given to us by a "creator". Which isn't true.
Your mama didn't give you rights?
I think her argument was that religion offered an easy way to make moral choices.
Having a god reign over some heads is a useful tool against those who don't share the same values, but fear the existence of a higher power.
As always, it's about lacking control and the frustration that comes with.
Shame and peer pressure are outsourcing ethics and never independently developing character.
There are good things that are less intuitive about eg. Christian values such as forgiveness. You get as many chances as you need and are still worth saving no matter what you have done wrong.
I mean sure, but that's not exclusive to Christianity; forgiveness can be learned anywhere, including through lived experience. Yes Christianity features forgiveness prominently, but it also prominently features fish and certainly you don't think you can only acquire seafood from the pious.
So practically you can appreciate and accept the philosophical lessons offered by Christianity while still rejecting the Christianity of it all in the same way that you can appreciate and endorse live music by buying tickets through Ticketmaster while also criticizing Ticketmaster for all of the awfulness they unnecessarily bring into the concert-going experience.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Fish
No matter what?
Faith without works* is dead, according to James.
