Moral Bigotry Without Religion

[Purple Knight]

Question for Debate: Does moral bigotry without religion exist? If so, how does it exist?

Example #1: Moral bigotry with religion. One man eats a pig. Or he serves one for dinner. Another man says, no, whoever eats that will go to Hell. He thinks the first man is trying to send him to Hell, so he kills him. Now, if he's right, this is legitimately self-defence. If the first man will commit one atrocity, he may very well lie and try to do it again. If eating a pig is really an atrocity, then you don't even need to justify that he may send you to Hell. He's done something beyond terrible so he gets punished and most people accept that if you do something horrible enough, death might be a suitable punishment.

Example #2: Morality, without bigotry. One population thinks scams and lies are perfectly fine, but violence is never okay, while the other side thinks violence is fine if it's against dishonesty and scams which are never justified. The honest people agree not to kill the scammers, and the scammers agree to at least display in their businesses that they are lie- and scam-allowed. Now, with this compromise, both sides can live in the same society in a way that is fair to both, though each side has had to make a sacrifice: The honesty-enforced side cannot use violence against the scammer side even if they are deceived, as they would with their own, and the scammer side cannot completely pretend they are honest, as they think they have every right to do. Since each compromise requires sacrifices on both sides, theoretically, with enough compromises, everyone becomes unhappy.

I used to think there was no overlap, and a religious society must have moral bigotry, while two nonreligious people would simply have to work it out like they did in example 2, or simply not live together if they can't mutually agree on a compromise. This is because the religious person believes he (or his god) has a higher moral authority, and the nonreligious person does not believe that. I've learned there can be religious morality without bigotry, if a higher authority exists but didn't decide every nuance. Or if a higher authority exists but two people who both believe something different, can never quite be sure they're right about what it wants, so compromise has to be done in practice. But I don't see how there can be nonreligious moral bigotry.

If the nonreligious person believes he has a higher moral authority, and doesn't have to compromise because he is simply righteous and the other person isn't, how could he possibly come to this belief? I've always been very fair to the religious, assuming every rational motive I possibly can, and I ask for likewise in return: Please assume this nonreligious person is not simply insane. How can he possibly believe as he does?

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #49]

'More to experience after living this life' is a faithclaim without any validation.

Validation would be in the "IF" part. A claim that it is or isn't going to happen would be a "faith-claim".

IF
There is more to experience after living this life,

THEN
How does atheism explain the insistent belief of certain atheists, that mindfulness was not involved in the creation of this universe?

or will it just be a case that such atheists will shrug and say that they got that part wrong and maybe admit that Theism wasn't a bad as they claimed it to being?

You answered that IF there is an afterlife, there is no credible reason to think any man made religion owns it, which implies that you think Theism and religion are the same.
Obviously Theism would "own" that in the sense that it is Theists who have it that there is possibly more to experience after this experience.

The question examines the idea re how those who believed there was nothing more to experience after this experience would think about the claim that mindfulness was not involved in the creation of this universe IF, they then experience (get validation of) a continuation of their existence after they depart this one.

Yes, n but 'If' means agnosticism, and agnosticism is 'don't know' and 'don't know' means don't believe (any claim) until you do know. This is very eary logic to graps but Theists seem unable to grasp it.

You are totally wrong in supposing that atheism (or even my take of o it) equates theism with religion.

Theism does NOT necessarily imply an afterlife of any kind, whereas religions often not only make a big, fat, deal about an afterlife, but one where the conscious identity of ourselves still exists. It is this aspect that I claim is not credibly in the hands of any one religion and atheism (at least as I argue it) just shrugs and says 'whatever', but whatever it is or is not, no one religion holds the entry - tickets, so you may as well do atheism as, if an afterlife is true, you don't gain anything from not being atheist, and if there is no afterlife, you had a better life than the one wasted on the restrictive, closed - minded and denialist thought of religion.

Or that's what's on my doorstep and pavement atheist handout.

[William]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #51]

atheism (at least as I argue it) just shrugs and says 'whatever',

So the belief that mindfulness was not involved in the creation of this universe would simply be "shrugged off" as some type of minor misinterpretation of one's overall life experience as a human being? Not even the consideration to admitting that Theism wasn't as bad as one claimed it to being?

[William]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #51]

'If' means agnosticism, and agnosticism is 'don't know' and 'don't know' means don't believe (any claim) until you do know.

I understand things differently.

"If" is a placeholder.

My asking "If" is not necessarily me being ignorant of the answer. I use the "if" in relation one who believes there is no more experience to be had after one expires this human experience.

An agnostic is someone who understands that they don't know if there is more to experience after the death of this one, but does not shrug and declare otherwise.
An agnostic goes about examining the data available and building up a picture which will give clues as to likelihood and continues in this fashion throughout their human experience.

Belief is also a placeholder, as it is what folk hold when they are agnostic (don't know) but also inclined toward either theism or atheism.

Once something is known, then belief is no longer held. It is replaced with knowing.

Once something is known, one is gnostic. One who is gnostic is not atheist, theist or agnostic (re any given subject involving those positions).

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #51]

'If' means agnosticism, and agnosticism is 'don't know' and 'don't know' means don't believe (any claim) until you do know.

I understand things differently.

"If" is a placeholder.

My asking "If" is not necessarily me being ignorant of the answer. I use the "if" in relation one who believes there is no more experience to be had after one expires this human experience.

An agnostic is someone who understands that they don't know if there is more to experience after the death of this one, but does not shrug and declare otherwise.
An agnostic goes about examining the data available and building up a picture which will give clues as to likelihood and continues in this fashion throughout their human experience.

Belief is also a placeholder, as it is what folk hold when they are agnostic (don't know) but also inclined toward either theism or atheism.

Once something is known, then belief is no longer held. It is replaced with knowing.

Once something is known, one is gnostic. One who is gnostic is not atheist, theist or agnostic (re any given subject involving those positions).

No. The theist mindset is still messing with your logic. your 'if' as a placeholder is for the putative atheist denialist who makes positive claims that there is no afterlife (no more experience to be had after one expires this human experience) and you smothered that in pink theist goo, allright . Your next bit repeats the theist logical fallacy of the agnostic as a more reasonable alternative to what they suppose the denialist position of atheism is. It is actually agnosticism as a knowledge position (which everyone had as nobody really knows - though theists claim they on Faith and fiddled evidence to support it) and the belief position that logically depends on that 'I do not know whether there is a god, or afterlife, so I will not believe the claim until; I do know' (that is are given compelling evidence for it".

As said before this is a very simple logical position, but is one that Theist apologists seem incapable of remembering.

I know I've explained it before - you tell me, why can't you remember and apply it

It is clear that 'agnotic' in more than a logical position on information. it is like an alternative to science, and of a quasi religioous - cultish kind, rummaging around for an alternative to dispelief in supernatural claims that isn't actually a religion.

It seems that 'agnostic means someone who is trying to find reasons to believe in a theist - type supernatural claim which is quietly tacitly assumed to be real.

Youir picture of an agnostic also covers an agnostic who builds up a picture of a world that works without any good evidence for a god or Cosmic Mind involved. But I'm sure you have in mind a person fooling themselves into belief in something based on faithclaims and misinterpreted human experiences.

Belief is not the placeholder here but wanting to believe. I've been there. Admitting the possibility that mysticism was a link to the Cosmic. My doubts have grown as I see it as just stuff the human mind does, not a hotline to the cosmic ineffable. Belief or wanting belief, is what is driving your agnostic, not reason, logic or evidence.

[William]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #54]

This appears to be the source of our inability to integrate our mindfulness.

We differ significantly re our definitions of belief and knowledge. This difference appears to be sourced at our differences in how we understand the four positions (three of which you mentioned in your reply)

Until we can agree to those positions (and the definitions) I see no way in which we can make headway together.

To clarify my understanding of the positions being discussed.

There is no requirement for the agnostic to ever hold beliefs on any unknown. The agnostic doesn’t hold the atheist or theist positions because these are both positions of belief (rather than knowledge – which is the gnostic position).

The agnostic acknowledges they don’t know while getting about trying to find out.
Re the subject of “afterlife” an agnostic remains agnostic until experience presents – either personally or through reports and study made on these reports.

Through those, knowledge is gained and the agnostic transitions to being gnostic re that subject.
In this sense, there is no clear distinction between agnostic and gnostic (as there is between atheist and theist) because the transition from one to the other happens as gradually as knowledge and understanding present, and so effectively is an ongoing process (due to the default position of ignorance and the nature of nature.)

The role of evidence moves us from uncertainty to knowledge without involving any belief.
As an example of the difference between belief and knowledge, we each are having a human experience. Do we each know we are having a human experience or are we simply believing that we are having a human experience?

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #54]

This appears to be the source of our inability to integrate our mindfulness.

We differ significantly re our definitions of belief and knowledge. This difference appears to be sourced at our differences in how we understand the four positions (three of which you mentioned in your reply)

Until we can agree to those positions (and the definitions) I see no way in which we can make headway together.

To clarify my understanding of the positions being discussed.

There is no requirement for the agnostic to ever hold beliefs on any unknown. The agnostic doesn’t hold the atheist or theist positions because these are both positions of belief (rather than knowledge – which is the gnostic position).

The agnostic acknowledges they don’t know while getting about trying to find out.
Re the subject of “afterlife” an agnostic remains agnostic until experience presents – either personally or through reports and study made on these reports.

Through those, knowledge is gained and the agnostic transitions to being gnostic re that subject.
In this sense, there is no clear distinction between agnostic and gnostic (as there is between atheist and theist) because the transition from one to the other happens as gradually as knowledge and understanding present, and so effectively is an ongoing process (due to the default position of ignorance and the nature of nature.)

The role of evidence moves us from uncertainty to knowledge without involving any belief.
As an example of the difference between belief and knowledge, we each are having a human experience. Do we each know we are having a human experience or are we simply believing that we are having a human experience?

From what I can see, your four options are invalid, so your post seems to be no more than 'agree to my false proposition, or I shall run away claiming that I won'. A Theist rhetorical trick which is not worthy of you as I know you can do better - if you give up trying to cling to the shreds of theist delusion.

Oh...I'll do it again as you are eiuther still mixed up or are trying to mic x it up.

Of course theist and atheist are distinct, because one either believes a proposition or they don't. Knowledge is more of a sliding scale of credibility. That is why 'agnostic' cannot act as a placeholder between belief and non - belief.

[AgnosticBoy]

Question for Debate: Does moral bigotry without religion exist? If so, how does it exist?

If the nonreligious person believes he has a higher moral authority, and doesn't have to compromise because he is simply righteous and the other person isn't, how could he possibly come to this belief? I've always been very fair to the religious, assuming every rational motive I possibly can, and I ask for likewise in return: Please assume this nonreligious person is not simply insane. How can he possibly believe as he does?

For the purposes of the thread, a moral bigot is somebody who believes his way is inherently the more righteous one, and the other guy who disagrees, is simply wrong. It seems like there are these people amoung the ranks of the nonreligious. Though I don't understand how it's possible for someone to simply conjure up moral authority from nothing and vest it in themselves, it seems they do.

I agree that moral bigotry can exist among the non-religious, and the clearest example is in politics. How do they justify it? I think people can make value out of anything. Religionists tend to view their standards as coming from God, while the non-religious can just put something else in place of God, like Democracy, or whatever else they choose to look up to or assign some high value to. I don't think the non-religious have in mind that their views are nothing more than just socio-cultural standards, otherwise some of them may start to accept the full implications of that, like realizing their views are no more valid than those of other societies.

But given all this, I will say that someone should not consider the alternatives of their own moral standard beyond just theorizing about it. In a most extreme case, someone may say that it's wrong to rape a baby, and is intolerant of those who would say otherwise. The person who is against raping babies can consider an opposing position, especially if it's in a debate about objective morals, but to be practical, we shouldn't allow that to go beyond theorizing or debate unless there is good logic and evidence for it.

[AgnosticBoy]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #25]

Good News is not to be found in religion, let alone one particular one, but in undertanding ourselves and the instincts that drive us, not in being suckered by the scam of religion claiming to have the solution.

My point was that the Great Scam isn't restricted to only religion - or politics - It is sourced in culture...which isn't interested in any "solution" ...

Agreed. There are just too many ulterior motives going around to say that people really care to fix things as opposed to just wanting to have power (control over everyone) and money.

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #27]

But reason and philosophy has enabled us to beat instinct as it has enabled us to adapt the world to us rather than adapt to it.

Hows that working out for everyone?



It is a common perception among atheists, but is it really true, or simply an empty boast/a con in itself.

Perhaps you should give some examples of evidence to back your belief-claim...

I can agree that reason has helped us become more active in setting up our lives as opposed to just living passively like non-human animals. But reason alone is not enough. I think religion or having some transcendent perspective also helps. That can be spiritual instead of just theistic-based. It would be naive to think that having a belief that you are more than your bodily existence wouldn't have some impact on your perspective in life and how you live it out.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #25]

Good News is not to be found in religion, let alone one particular one, but in undertanding ourselves and the instincts that drive us, not in being suckered by the scam of religion claiming to have the solution.

My point was that the Great Scam isn't restricted to only religion - or politics - It is sourced in culture...which isn't interested in any "solution" ...

Agreed. There are just too many ulterior motives going around to say that people really care to fix things as opposed to just wanting to have power (control over everyone) and money.

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #27]

But reason and philosophy has enabled us to beat instinct as it has enabled us to adapt the world to us rather than adapt to it.

Hows that working out for everyone?



It is a common perception among atheists, but is it really true, or simply an empty boast/a con in itself.

Perhaps you should give some examples of evidence to back your belief-claim...

I can agree that reason has helped us become more active in setting up our lives as opposed to just living passively like non-human animals. But reason alone is not enough. I think religion or having some transcendent perspective also helps. That can be spiritual instead of just theistic-based. It would be naive to think that having a belief that you are more than your bodily existence wouldn't have some impact on your perspective in life and how you live it out.

No. It would be naive to think that the feelings we have are some transcendental quality of rocks, gas and physics rather than our own aspirations, out of our own heads, especially when we see the basics in animals.

Sure, we can live with irreligious theists, Deists and even irreligious theists, as we may all agree that Humanism, not religious Authority is the better way, but I won't let 'em get away with the bad old habit of passing snobby superiority over the atheists because they/we require a decent case for a fanciful interpretation of the data. but the sortagoddist still think they are superior to those poor naive atheists because they don't have those ineffable feeling of the Cosmic Divine.

It is a human thing, to be sure and we find it coming out in those snobby and elitists Elves and Vulcans who richly deserve a poke in the eye (and date their women, much to their disgust,



Well, I couldn't find a shorter clip, but you can skip to the utterly awkward dinner with the icily sniffy Vulcan commander before he snaps at Jolene Blalock, who looks more scrumptious as a Vulcan than she ever did as a glamour model.

"Shan sha'tuhllar ak ko-mesh." ("Transfer yourself or you'll soon be a shamed-woman.")

And since we are on the First Enterprise, allow me to observe that I liked this series better than many despite a number of faults. And it was far better than the Kelvin and Kurtzman trash that is presented as Star Trek now.

[AgnosticBoy]

Sure, we can live with irreligious theists, Deists and even irreligious theists, as we may all agree that Humanism, not religious Authority is the better way, but I won't let 'em get away with the bad old habit of passing snobby superiority over the atheists because they/we require a decent case for a fanciful interpretation of the data. but the sortagoddist still think they are superior to those poor naive atheists because they don't have those ineffable feeling of the Cosmic Divine.

It is a human thing, to be sure and we find it coming out in those snobby and elitists Elves and Vulcans who richly deserve a poke in the eye (and date their women, much to their disgust,

You are creating an unnecessary divide. I don't elevate one over the other because I'm open to using both reason and religion (or spirituality). I see benefits in relying on both as much as possible.

Also, from my years as an agnostic dealing with atheists, I can say that atheists can be just as overconfident/dogmatic about reason and science as religionists are on their views on morality and other related matters. Reason and science have their inherent limits so they can't possibly be used to formulate a comprehensive guide for morality and life, overall. Religion and spirituality also have their limitations and drawbacks.

No. It would be naive to think that the feelings we have are some transcendental quality of rocks, gas and physics rather than our own aspirations, out of our own heads, especially when we see the basics in animals.

The main point is that it works - it has a proven track record whether it ultimately is an illusion or delusion. If you want to look at it from a validity standpoint (as opposed to just its practicality), then I've seen William give a defense of that perspective plenty of times. I agree with his views to a degree in that the brain does not account for consciousness, and that we may need to look beyond. But it's difficult for that to happen when lots of atheists/materialists dismiss this perspective a priori, or misrepresent such views in a ridiculous way.