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?

[William]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #40]

Look I've been around for quite a while and I'm well aware of these moaning minnies who complain about how hard their life is, and they have no idea what an easy and safe life we live compared to how it once was.

How is that because of atheisms doing, is what I continue to ask and currently have still not been provided any reasonable answer.

I've looked over the cliff of existence when I was in my teens and decided I didn't want to jump, for reasons I understand better now.

This is fundamentally a reaction to the human experience. I see no evidence that this emotion derives from what personal positions humans take on the question of life.
We all understand - even if only on an unconscious level - eventually we are going over that cliff, whether by jumping or being pushed, over we are going.

Since then I knew that existence which offers us (naturally) nothing but extinction, unless we concentrate our minds wonderfully has, thanks to our own efforts (1) we have so much to be thankful for.

As I pointed out, those with $money$ are paying scientists to find ways in which to make the human experience less temporary and what we each have to be thankful for is a matter of perspective.

There exist those who have seen no reason to be thankful for the science that those with $money$ support, and it is reasonable to accept that if they are to find anything to be thankful for, that they may do so in being thankful to a God-Concept for whatever reason they feel is appropriate to be so.

I am unsure of what use it is to moan about these.

I have little patience with the constant moaners.

Unless they are constantly *moaning about religion, yes?

This life, today and now is a lottery win, and they want to kick it into the gutter because they are too dumb to recognise the value.

Who are you *complaining about here? Who are "they"?

That's without the religious scammers who teach us that this life is terrible and awful but there is hope in the poke they swear has a pig in it, though we have to wait until we die before we get to look inside.

And those with the $money$ are looking for ways in which to avoid/postpone that inevitable, and teach us that getting to the moon, or mars is the best way forward for "humanity" and you grumble about the solace poor folk embrace in their human necessity for hopefulness - those who are forced to go along with the visualizations of the rich - the rich who have consistently shown throughout history that they reach for the stars on the broken backs of the moaning masses.

Indeed, we each await what is coming - our death...and what is your hope? That you will become extinct as a result?

According to the information available, (to the open minded) it is unlikely you or anyone else are going to fade into oblivion, no matter what it is you or anyone else might hope for, to the contrary.

But, assuming you could pay for it, if you (the consciousness) were given the choice to be integrated into machinery so that you might live for a very long - perhaps even indefinite period, would you buy into that?

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #40]

Look I've been around for quite a while and I'm well aware of these moaning minnies who complain about how hard their life is, and they have no idea what an easy and safe life we live compared to how it once was.

How is that because of atheisms doing, is what I continue to ask and currently have still not been provided any reasonable answer.

I've looked over the cliff of existence when I was in my teens and decided I didn't want to jump, for reasons I understand better now.

This is fundamentally a reaction to the human experience. I see no evidence that this emotion derives from what personal positions humans take on the question of life.
We all understand - even if only on an unconscious level - eventually we are going over that cliff, whether by jumping or being pushed, over we are going.

Since then I knew that existence which offers us (naturally) nothing but extinction, unless we concentrate our minds wonderfully has, thanks to our own efforts (1) we have so much to be thankful for.

As I pointed out, those with $money$ are paying scientists to find ways in which to make the human experience less temporary and what we each have to be thankful for is a matter of perspective.

There exist those who have seen no reason to be thankful for the science that those with $money$ support, and it is reasonable to accept that if they are to find anything to be thankful for, that they may do so in being thankful to a God-Concept for whatever reason they feel is appropriate to be so.

I am unsure of what use it is to moan about these.

I have little patience with the constant moaners.

Unless they are constantly *moaning about religion, yes?

This life, today and now is a lottery win, and they want to kick it into the gutter because they are too dumb to recognise the value.

Who are you *complaining about here? Who are "they"?

That's without the religious scammers who teach us that this life is terrible and awful but there is hope in the poke they swear has a pig in it, though we have to wait until we die before we get to look inside.

And those with the $money$ are looking for ways in which to avoid/postpone that inevitable, and teach us that getting to the moon, or mars is the best way forward for "humanity" and you grumble about the solace poor folk embrace in their human necessity for hopefulness - those who are forced to go along with the visualizations of the rich - the rich who have consistently shown throughout history that they reach for the stars on the broken backs of the moaning masses.

Indeed, we each await what is coming - our death...and what is your hope? That you will become extinct as a result?

According to the information available, (to the open minded) it is unlikely you or anyone else are going to fade into oblivion, no matter what it is you or anyone else might hope for, to the contrary.

But, assuming you could pay for it, if you (the consciousness) were given the choice to be integrated into machinery so that you might live for a very long - perhaps even indefinite period, would you buy into that?

That's excellent Despite you apparently being or having become an irreligious theist, you are still using the old Religious apologetics jibes and religious prejudices.

Like atheism offers nothing after death. What are you offering? Hobnobbing with the cosmic mind for eternity? Absorbed into a Taoist Cosmic way as part of the whole? Where is the 'You' in that case? It is identity oblivion no different from what atheism offers.

The shabbiness, bias and wrongheaded of your arguments are shown up by asking how atheism gets the credit for our excellent lifestyle, compared to a few centuries ago. Atheism does not. It is down to science and technology and in fact the evolution of Law and ethics. Religion only takes the credit for this, when at best it hands out free bread to the starving which if developed no technology to feed.

What more? Ironically you refuse to see what is there - The evolved instinct hypothesis of fear of death as a reason Not to jump rather than any Meaning of Life' empirical or cosmic law while insisting that something is there (Cosmic mind) when there is nothing to see. Stars, gas, nebulae. No Cosmic mind.

And what a grubby trick to accuse atheism of moaning - which is quite remote from the moaning about how bad life is when they have no idea how well off they really are.

Atheist 'moaning' is about religion, not just that it is believed as true, rather than valued as cultural relics, but it is constantly interfering in society, education and politics. If there was no Theism, there would be no atheists.

What more bad and indeed crafty (1) have you? The thing about money and science. I can hardly get your drift here. But it seems to be a curtailed grope towards what I sussed as a teenage kid when I'd gone to the edge of existence and (instinctively) decided not to jump. What do i do, then? The cosmic answer came: 'Whatever you like'. It was a revelation. I had no cosmic plan imposed on me, no divine demands. I had the whole of an excellent life to choose from, and more and more fantastic discoveries have been made from DNA to what Pluto looks like, to landing on Mars and taking samples of asteroids. And btw, science/technology now has the means to avoid an asteroid strike. Religion with all the praying it can do could not do that.

So I have no patience with those who moan about life - not to propose improvements, no, that's positive, but the ones who do not realise what they have and - worse - try to make us despise life in the hopes to sell us an imaginary afterlife. Because nobody really knows, and it doesn't matter because no one religion if s selling the entry tickets.

What more, in your valuable as a lesson in valueless apologetics, have you? Well, only the recognition that death is inevitable, but I (as an atheist) offer something beyond either despair or a faked afterlife. While a bespoke afterlife with everything we ever wanted and never having to taste death seems attractive, after a billion years? Ten billion? And no end ever. No opt out? It is terrifying. But people seem to think no further than 'instinctive fear of death' and buying any afterlife peddled by fake religions. Atheism offers Nirvana except you don't have waste your life trying to addle the brain with what you can experience by smoking a joint (so i gather, I have never done anything more than booze and baccy). Atheism offers stepping off the wheel of rebirth for free.

But..If there is an afterlife, atheism gives you that for free, too. It has to be for all, as no one religion has the concession. Those are all instinctive tribal claims with no empirical value. Whatever comes after death, we all get it, so there is no point in fretting but just enjoy the life you have which ain't too bad at all. And most important - if there are problems, do a little bit to get rid of them for the ones to live after. That is the meaning of life.

Fanfare.



i had to check a dozen vids before i found one that sounded ok. Because this music is the feel of atheism. If there was an atheist TV or online channel, I'd want that as the intro. music, though they'd probably have a heavy metal band bawling about Satan.

(1) how often do I find that in theist and religious apologetics. Because they are faithbased rather than based on logic or evidence, which have to be fiddled to support the faith. That is why all Theist and religious apologetics are unsound at base, even if they aren't actually misrepresenting the evidence.,

[William]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #42]

What do i do, then? The cosmic answer came: 'Whatever you like'. It was a revelation.

I had no cosmic plan imposed on me, no divine demands.

You need to tidy up your use of words as presently those two statements back to back contradict each other.

I had the whole of an excellent life to choose from, and more and more fantastic discoveries have been made from DNA to what Pluto looks like, to landing on Mars and taking samples of asteroids.

Me too. What is your point? That only atheism is able to provide that?

That is just the food available - where best to dine. I am interested in The Big Picture - what is the culminating result of human consciousness in relation to these ever increasing discoveries?

I have no patience with those who moan about life

What about with those who just moan about whatever?

try to make us despise life

Nevermind "those" - what do they have to do with what I am arguing? Are you seriously claiming I am trying to make you despise your life?

Q. Assuming you could pay for it, if you (the consciousness) were given the choice to be integrated into machinery so that you might live for a very long - perhaps even indefinite period, would you buy into that?

While a bespoke afterlife with everything we ever wanted and never having to taste death seems attractive, after a billion years? Ten billion? And no end ever. No opt out? It is terrifying.

And isn't that the same in relation to what scientists are being paid to make real, here in this reality?
Is your answer therefore the same re what Elon is offering re the vision he is working toward?

If so, wouldn't that make that particular type of atheist, terrified either way?

Perhaps "life" is celebrated in that manner by that type of atheist, , because the hope of oblivion is captivating. The experience of being alive is tolerated only because it is hoped it will all end one day soon enough.

So okay - if such types of atheists would not pay for the chance to live indefinitely here in this reality - without an "opt out" clause, because "terror"...how is that interesting or even remotely valid as a mindset to buy into?

Atheism offers stepping off the wheel of rebirth for free.

Free or not, what such atheists offer is the hope that such can actually be accomplished.

Which one has to buy into, so cost is involved.

If there is an afterlife, atheism gives you that for free, too. It has to be for all, as no one religion has the concession. Those are all instinctive tribal claims with no empirical value. Whatever comes after death, we all get it, so there is no point in fretting but just enjoy the life you have which ain't too bad at all. And most important - if there are problems, do a little bit to get rid of them for the ones to live after. That is the meaning of life.

So basically we have different positions which essentially offer the same thing overall.

However, is it really true of atheism as you 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?

[TRANSPONDER]

Again, there is little to bother with here. One is simple; no I do not contradict myself. If you think so, explaon how, rather than throw out cheap accusations.

And you repeat o the mistake
f thinking I c am claiming the achievements of science and technology for atheism. I already said - if only you bothered to comprehend what you read instead of things you could use to argue about - thjat atheism values those things, as distinct from science - skeptics and 'Vale of tears' merchants.

It looks like a recurrence of a phenomenon that I have seen many times before - and which seems to be a peculiarly USA cultural thing: Former Believers who have had to come to terms with the irealisation that the Bible, Gospels and Christianity is untenable. So they become irreligious theists or Deists with the 'Cosmic Mind' idea being a big part of this. But, as it is the Only Theist argument they have, they fight fiercely for it against those (atheists) who agree with them on everything else.

Now, one would think we -=- yall could just agree to differ on a possible deist -god. But they will not come into the humanuist camp. Instead all kind of cultural, moral and political argument are mustered to debunk or discredit atheism, even though deistgod is nothing to do with it.

The clue is that it is political, and you gave yourself away is doing theist - derives and rightwing science - skepticism. Is this not the case? That you are really anti - atheist not for residual theist reasons, but political ones. I doubt you'll tell me, but I'm asking anyway.

[William]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #44]

Nevermind the tangent - if you are unable or unwilling to answer the questions put to you, just say so.

[TRANSPONDER]

... what I'm saying is that if you believe what's in a book on faith, it counts as bigotry per your definition...

No it does not because it would require ALSO being ...obstinate, unreasonable and /or prejudice.

Believing what one reads is not by definition bigotry.

It is if all the evidence is that it is wrong.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #44]

Nevermind the tangent - if you are unable or unwilling to answer the questions put to you, just say so.

You were rather doing a tangent, strawman arguments 'are you atheists saying such and such?' Like reversing the burden of proof so atheists have to disprove a cosmic mind (burden of proof is on the claimant) and then trying to force some kind of theism on atheism as a result. You should be cringing in embarrassment at such a fraud, but you are still struggling with a faithbased Theist mindset, even if you have shed religion. And the dirty trick of 'If you can't answer. say so', which is the hoary, tatty and grubby old theist trick of the one shot win atheist - stumper.

Don't tell atheists what to say. nor loaded arguments designed to set traps. Excuse me for not obligingly walking into them and you complaining 'he evaded my trap!¬'. Just to take your irrelevance about whiners, 'moan about whatever'. What about them? Whether there is an aim to make things better is what counts, if the moaning is about that, well, ok. If it is not, it is a waste of time, never mind the old scam of making people think they are sick so as to sell them a fake cure. Like an afterlife as a cure for a life that isn't perfect.

I suppose i have to get into the atheist afterlife, though your misunderstanding or misdirection fully merited my refusal to respond. Atheism costs nothing, just what do you think it costs? One really has nothing to lose but their chains. As to how an afterlife can be natural without a god, who knows? This is irrelevant nit - picking, like creationists pointing to incidental problems with evolution. The basic is that IF there is an afterlife, there is no credible reason to think any man made religion owns it. And you can tell us whether you think that is reasonable or not.

[William]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #47]

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?

IF there is an afterlife, there is no credible reason to think any man made religion owns it.

Would there be no credible reason to think then, that Theism wasn't as bad as types of atheists such as yourself, claim?

Are you aware/do you care that your conflating religion with theism is an inaccuracy?

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #47]

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?

IF there is an afterlife, there is no credible reason to think any man made religion owns it.

Would there be no credible reason to think then, that Theism wasn't as bad as types of atheists such as yourself, claim?

Are you aware/do you care that your conflating religion with theism is an inaccuracy?

I thought I already did this, but I'll do it again.
'More to experience after living this life' is a faithclaim without any validation. You should know better.

You should know better, too, than to pull a strawman accusation, or canard, that 'certain atheists' adopt a 'gnostic' claim that 'mindfulness' was not involved in creation of the universe.

It is axiomatic but never understood by theists that atheism as a logical position (never mind what 'some atheists' may say,) that a cosmic mind can't be ruled out but belief in such a claim without good evidence is illogical.

That is the atheist/m position, which is that you make the claim so the burden of proof is on you to show that a Mind created everything, and if you can't do that, your argument is without merit, and Faith in it is irrational, and thank you and goodnight. And also to your hopeful attempt to have atheists admit they got that wrong, when it was you. Did you really think that was going to work? It's almost as bad as 1213's attempt to make me say that I denied earth's rotation.

And you are so much better than this, but Theist Faith in a cosmic mind (and apparently and afterlife) is making you pull the disreputable old Religious apologetics tricks.

What more bear - traps did you fall into? Misunderstanding or misrepresenting my point about a possible afterlife without one religion having dibs on it. That actually means that theism is merely a claim with no real evidence for it, whereas religions have a good deal of evidence to show they are all man - made and none of them is true as claimed.

Theism is (regrettably) worse than atheists say it is, because irreligious theism so often adopts a hostile position to atheism because they have Faith in a sortagod, and they seem to take it as a personal insult that atheists do not buy their Cosmic Mind - god - claim when the spirit moves them to preach their beliefs online and they get called on it.

At least your snarling at atheists and atheism seems to be purely based on residual faith and that is better (and less toxic) than agnostic anti atheism based on residual political hatred of atheism as something on the wrong side.

[William]

[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.