To all Bahai's, Muslims, Christians, Jews etc...

ashtar

National Team Player
Aug 17, 2003
5,448
19
again, how does religion claim to know what god says and then have people follow it?
How? What? It's a claim. I'm not here to provide proof for their claim. I already said I'm not here to prove or disprove the existence of God. If you're not willing to extend the courtesy of reading the earlier posts before jumping in don't expect the courtesy of a lot more response.


not evolutionary theory but in specific evolutionary game theory explains exactly that. why are we nice to each other? why do we follow same moral values?

No disrespect but I feel like I'm talking to a wall. I said I don't care why individuals may follow what they follow. I'm asking how would you convince others to act ethically and follow certain moral codes?
 

Ardesheer

Bench Warmer
Jun 30, 2005
1,580
1
How? What? It's a claim. I'm not here to provide proof for their claim. I already said I'm not here to prove or disprove the existence of God. If you're not willing to extend the courtesy of reading the earlier posts before jumping in don't expect the courtesy of a lot more response.
I think he has a valid point. You say Religion says, and his point is that Religion does not talk, it's still a person that tells you what religion is and says. In effect, your argument against athiests fails, because you say that they follow a person. You are also following a person because neither God nor religion has talked to you, and you are following a person who claimed that God talked to him (because he was very special.)
 

Behrooz_C

Elite Member
Dec 10, 2005
16,650
1,566
A small island west of Africa
I think he has a valid point. You say Religion says, and his point is that Religion does not talk, it's still a person that tells you what religion is and says. In effect, your argument against athiests fails, because you say that they follow a person. You are also following a person because neither God nor religion has talked to you, and you are following a person who claimed that God talked to him (because he was very special.)
Indeed. And this is the most absurd and illogical thing about religion which is often ignored.
 

BijanD

Bench Warmer
Oct 9, 2004
1,027
0
Vancouver
How? What? It's a claim. I'm not here to provide proof for their claim. I already said I'm not here to prove or disprove the existence of God. If you're not willing to extend the courtesy of reading the earlier posts before jumping in don't expect the courtesy of a lot more response.




No disrespect but I feel like I'm talking to a wall. I said I don't care why individuals may follow what they follow. I'm asking how would you convince others to act ethically and follow certain moral codes?
1. how did you try to prove god? by mentioning his name?
2. if you'd be so kind and read up on evolutionary game theory, you could notice that it doesn't try to convince anybody. it explains certain behaviors and observations. It doesn't try to convince people to be nice to each other. it explains why we behave the way we do.
3. please don't fume. we are having a discussion. i'm not trying to convince you. just saying why i think we don't need anybody telling us how to follow certain moral values.
 

Ardesheer

Bench Warmer
Jun 30, 2005
1,580
1


As far as Khomeini or any other self or public proclaimed religious leader is concerned I think my personal views about them is irrelevant to this general discussion
.
It is not irrelevant. Tell us your opinion, and we will be the judge if it is relevant or not. You are not shy to talk about other things that are totally irrelevant, but when it comes to this, you do not want to answer. If you know more about Islam than Khomeini, let us know. As far as I care, Khomeini was a real Muslim, unless your position is that he was not a Muslim. He has a book and it is open to everyone to read how a real Muslim thinks and behaves. Also, Khomeini was not a self or public proclaimed religious leader, he was chosen by almost all religious figures in Iran (Qom) to be THE leader.
 

Behrooz_C

Elite Member
Dec 10, 2005
16,650
1,566
A small island west of Africa
It is not irrelevant. Tell us your opinion, and we will be the judge if it is relevant or not. You are not shy to talk about other things that are totally irrelevant, but when it comes to this, you do not want to answer. If you know more about Islam than Khomeini, let us know. As far as I care, Khomeini was a real Muslim, unless your position is that he was not a Muslim. He has a book and it is open to everyone to read how a real Muslim thinks and behaves. Also, Khomeini was not a self or public proclaimed religious leader, he was chosen by almost all religious figures in Iran (Qom) to be THE leader.
Dear Ardesheer and also Behrou,
You see, this is why people like ashtar can not be respected and do not deserve having a respectable conversation with.
They constantly dodge and escape issues that they know will expose them as hypocrites and leaves them deep in mud. You never get an honest answer. They constantly give personal views when they want, but when it gets a little sticky they decide that their personal opinion doesn't matter.

And once again we are exposed to their religious morals, because let's not beat around the bush, this is dishonesty.
 
Jun 9, 2004
13,753
1
Canada
Behrou jan, I don't mean to insult religious people, or anyone with any level of faith.
The only reason I jumped into the discussion Behrooz jaan was the following comment you made:

Anyone who reads the Qoran and finds anything meaningful in it is an illiterate idiot who probably has never read anything meaningful in his life.
Even I, as a non-religous person who has read the Quran and found some useful things in it, found it mildly insulting - I'm sure that sentiment would be stronger in someone religous. Of course you're entitled to your opinions and expressing them and I respect those opinions, but if your didn't mean to insult anyone, I was just letting you know that you did! ;)

-------------------------------------

1st, of all thank you for your civil and unbiased remarks...
As far as Khomeini or any other self or public proclaimed religious leader is concerned I think my personal views about them is irrelevant to this general discussion...
But why should I not do to others what I don't want done to me? Religion says you shouldn't do it because God says so.


It's always a pleasure to carry out a civilized discussion, especially with people whose opinions are different than mine... I believe that to be the very foundation of higher learning.

As far as Khomeini et. al., I don't think your personal views are as irrelevant as you think. If we had more religous people in Iran standing up and speaking against these twisted personal interpretations of Islam (or misinterpretations if you will), I don't think we would be seeing the type of religous backlash that we see on this board. Again, my belief is that in order to become a successful nation, the people on the opposite ends of the spectrum do need to reach out to one another in a civilized manner to establish a more inclusive centrist movement. What many people fail to realize is that any successful path to democracy for Iran, would involve embracing, not alientating moderate muslims like yourself. I don't believe in reversing or re-inventing a 3000 year old wheel of divinity in Iran, but I do think that it needs to be directed on the right path.

As for the 2nd part of your post, I understand the point that you are making - that the philosophy of not doing to others, what you don't want done onto you, still requires some sort of personal deterrent, or belief in a higher order that enforces that philosophy. I suppose all spiritiual people believe in some sort of Karma which does validate that argument. :cheers:
 

Behrooz_C

Elite Member
Dec 10, 2005
16,650
1,566
A small island west of Africa
The only reason I jumped into the discussion Behrooz jaan was the following comment you made:

Even I, as a non-religous person who has read the Quran and found some useful things in it, found it mildly insulting - I'm sure that sentiment would be stronger in someone religous. Of course you're entitled to your opinions and expressing them and I respect those opinions, but if your didn't mean to insult anyone, I was just letting you know that you did! ;)
Behrou jan, admittedly, that line was in direct reference to GP and ashtar. There is noway I believe many of my own relatives are idiots :) maybe they are for different reasons, but not for their religious beliefs.
Regarding meaningful things out of Qoran, well, I haven't found anything meaningful in it that I haven't found or couldn't find anywhere else. I could perfectly live a fulfilling life without Qoran's teachings.

As for Descartes, his reasonings for the existence of god are based on entirely dubious grounds and does not "prove" in any shape or form the existence of a god.
I studied Descartes a long time ago but admittedly I don't remember much other than thinking his reasoning is a little flawed in that respect.
 
Jun 9, 2004
13,753
1
Canada
As for Descartes, his reasonings for the existence of god are based on entirely dubious grounds and does not "prove" in any shape or form the existence of a god. I studied Descartes a long time ago but admittedly I don't remember much other than thinking his reasoning is a little flawed in that respect.
Well, just drawing attention to the fact that if it was flawed, there's no point quoting him. If it's not flawed, then the conclusions he drew were the exact opposite. The important part of that sentence IMHO which is attributed to him in some literature and often ommitted is the "Dubito" before the Cogito argument. Hence, the full sentence is Dubito ergo Cogito ergo Sum... I doubt, therefore I think, therefore I am. The reason that first part is so important IMHO is that doubt goes both ways. You can doubt an initial position to come to a conclusion, but you have to equally doubt that conclusion to find yourself somehwere in between. This is the reason Descartes asked other scholars to critique his work and also the reason he places man in between what he calls the perfection of God and the nothingness of evil. It is the doubt that leads to the thought that leaves man somewhere in between those extremes. In other words, the certainty of any position, removes doubt as to the validity of that position and therefore does not lead to any further thought.
 

ashtar

National Team Player
Aug 17, 2003
5,448
19
1. how did you try to prove god? by mentioning his name?
I didn't try to prove god. I don't want to try to prove god. I can not prove god. Forget about god.

2. if you'd be so kind and read up on evolutionary game theory, you could notice that it doesn't try to convince anybody. it explains certain behaviors and observations. It doesn't try to convince people to be nice to each other. it explains why we behave the way we do.
For the last time, if you be so kind as to read to the other posts first.

3. please don't fume. we are having a discussion. i'm not trying to convince you. just saying why i think we don't need anybody telling us how to follow certain moral values.
You think we don't need anybody telling us how to follow certain moral values? I say that's great. In fact I will grant you that there is no god and all religions are man-made and completely bad and should be forgotten. Now please explain to me whose moral values should different individuals follow and practice?
 

ashtar

National Team Player
Aug 17, 2003
5,448
19
As far as Khomeini et. al., I don't think your personal views are as irrelevant as you think. If we had more religous people in Iran standing up and speaking against these twisted personal interpretations of Islam (or misinterpretations if you will), I don't think we would be seeing the type of religous backlash that we see on this board. Again, my belief is that in order to become a successful nation, the people on the opposite ends of the spectrum do need to reach out to one another in a civilized manner to establish a more inclusive centrist movement. What many people fail to realize is that any successful path to democracy for Iran, would involve embracing, not alientating moderate muslims like yourself. I don't believe in reversing or re-inventing a 3000 year old wheel of divinity in Iran, but I do think that it needs to be directed on the right path.

My personal opinion may not be irrelevant to the topic of Iran and politics but it is irrelevant to the broad topic of religion discussed here.


As for the 2nd part of your post, I understand the point that you are making - that the philosophy of not doing to others, what you don't want done onto you, still requires some sort of personal deterrent, or belief in a higher order that enforces that philosophy. I suppose all spiritiual people believe in some sort of Karma which does validate that argument. :cheers:

Thank you for understanding my point. Once anyone starts talking about spirituality, Karma, and such then he/she is exiting the realm of science and entering the realm of supernatural, and pseudo-science at best (at least at the present time and with our current knowledge and understandings of science and the cosmos). Thus if an atheist is going to refute the idea of god or religion for the lack of evidence and science behind it then why not apply the same rigors and expectations to spirituality and Karma?
 

ashtar

National Team Player
Aug 17, 2003
5,448
19
It is not irrelevant. Tell us your opinion, and we will be the judge if it is relevant or not.
You will decide? Why can't I decide? You think you're smarter than me? Why should I listen to you? We just had a two page discussion about how people should think for themselves and make judgements for themselves and not follow others like slaves and sheep and now you want me to let you decide? No thank you. I'm quite capable of deciding if a personal opinion is relevant to a general topic that is being discussed or not.

If you know more about Islam than Khomeini, let us know.
Lets assume I tell you. How will that change the general argument for or against religion and morality being discussed here? My personal beliefs and character should have absolutely no bearing on your analysis and consideration of my general argument here. Lets assume I am the most hypocrite, rotten, immoral, illiterate SOB on the face of this planet. As I also said before lets assume there is no god and all religions are bullshit. Now that we stablished those ground rules explain to me why I should adhere to your any other standard of morality and ethics. If you can do that I'm all ears otherwise lets keep our politics for other numerous political threads out there.


As far as I care, Khomeini was a real Muslim, unless your position is that he was not a Muslim. He has a book and it is open to everyone to read how a real Muslim thinks and behaves.
You think he is the only one who has a book?
Prophet Mohammad also has a book.
Molana also has a book.
Sadi also has a book.
Hafez also has a book.
Montazeri also has a book.
Ahsa Al-Misri also has a book.
Tariq Ramadan also has a book.
Thousands of other people who claim or claimed to be Muslims also have a book and they are all open for people to read as well. If you choose to read only one of those books and accept it as the only and true interpretation of "how a real Muslim thinks and behaves" then that is your prerogative.


Also, Khomeini was not a self or public proclaimed religious leader, he was chosen by almost all religious figures in Iran (Qom) to be THE leader.
pas to Iran faghat ammeyeh bandeh bood keh beh "velayat e faghigh" va "ghaanoon e asasi" ray daad?
 

BijanD

Bench Warmer
Oct 9, 2004
1,027
0
Vancouver
I didn't try to prove god. I don't want to try to prove god. I can not prove god. Forget about god.



For the last time, if you be so kind as to read to the other posts first.



You think we don't need anybody telling us how to follow certain moral values? I say that's great. In fact I will grant you that there is no god and all religions are man-made and completely bad and should be forgotten. Now please explain to me whose moral values should different individuals follow and practice?
you r a piece of work man
 

Ardesheer

Bench Warmer
Jun 30, 2005
1,580
1
^^^ He certainly is a piece of work.

Sadi, Hafez, ... and their books in one sentence with Khomeni's book on religion. You really crack me up. OK, you don't want to answer, so be it. We can all read between the lines and know the reasons why.

As for listening to someone else to tell you about morality, you already are, because you are following Mohammad. Also, morality is not something that you are told or taught, but it is a byproduct of intelligence and logic. You can see when little kids play with each other who have no understanding of religion, god, etc., but they care about each other's feelings. That's a simple proof that morality does not come from religion but just intelligence and logic.
 
Jun 9, 2004
13,753
1
Canada
My personal opinion may not be irrelevant to the topic of Iran and politics but it is irrelevant to the broad topic of religion discussed here.
But as many others have said, your opinion is relevant to the discussion. The disucussion here is that religion leads to evil and control of the masses - granted, as you have argued that point is being made in a vaccum from the reality that many good people have drawn up and continue to draw up their moral groundwork from religion. But you argument that religion establishes absolute moral and ethical groundworks is also being made in a vaccum from the relaity of cases like Khomeini et. al.

The compromise here would be to say that in the cases of Khomeini et. al. evil was done and the masses have been and continue to be controlled and that we don't have to continue down that road, nor do we have to abolish religion altogether just because some people used it for evil purposes. Can we agree on that, even if you don't want to articulate your position in those exact words (I do understand you may be living or working somewhere that may not view that so kindly :insane:)?

Thank you for understanding my point. Once anyone starts talking about spirituality, Karma, and such then he/she is exiting the realm of science and entering the realm of supernatural, and pseudo-science at best (at least at the present time and with our current knowledge and understandings of science and the cosmos). Thus if an atheist is going to refute the idea of god or religion for the lack of evidence and science behind it then why not apply the same rigors and expectations to spirituality and Karma
Actually, Karma is a religous concept and that's why it would validate the argument you were making. It would not do so as a pseudo-scientific concept (which it is not). It has been widely adapted into spiritual thinking, but that does not change the fact that it originates from religion and you are correct in that the Atheist would apply the same rigors to Karma. I'm neither atheist nor-religous which leaves me in the great and beautiful position of being open to every school of thought! :)
 
May 9, 2004
15,166
179
you r a piece of work man
I didn't try to prove god. ?
جناب اشتر
دوستمان بیزن در مورد تکامل اخلاقی که داوکینز در مورد ان یک فصل کامل در کتاب پندار خدا توضیح داده است صحبت میکند
داوکینز در ان کتاب یعنی کتاب پندار خدا در فصل ششم در این مورد توضیح میدهد
در صورتی که خود داوکینز در کتاب ژن خودخواه کاملا تئوری متضاد با انچه در مورد اخلاق در این کتاب بیان میکند مطرح می سازد
جناب بیژن در اینمورد بحث میکنند

پرفسور میگوید که رفتارهای انسانها در طی سالیان سال تکامل یافته و به شکلی برنامه ریزی شده که فرد در جامعه به خویشان ژنتیکی اش نیکی کند و با این کار باعث میشود در جامعه بخت بیشتری برای تکاثر خود داشته باشد
اینجا هم بیژن خان همین مطلب را می خواهد به شما بگوید
البته نقد من در مورد ان فصل ششم طولانی بود که بنده قسمت بسیار مختصری از انرا در اینجا می نویسم و توضیح می دهم که این حتی از نظر خود داوکینز در کتاب دیگرش یعنی ژن خود خواه در تضاد است
خلاصه تکامل اخلاق از نظر داوکینز این است کار نیک در مقابل پاداش
که داوکینز گفته های کانت را به شکل جدیدی بیان کرده
نقد بر این گونه اخلاق کانت/داوکینزی و این تئوری تکامل اخلاقی این است که پس افراد می بایستی به شکلی برنامه ریزی ژنتیکی شده باشند که به افراد قوی تر ثروتمند تر و توانا تر کمک کنند
و کمک به افراد ضعیف و یا اصلا انجام نگیرد یا به مراتب کمتر باشد که ان هم می بایستی ناشی از ان باشد که شخص در میان این توده به قدرت برسد
یعنی باز منعفت مطلق
که این با انچه محسوس است حداقل در بسیاری از جوامع ناسازگاری دارد
و اصلا با تعریف از خلق و خوی شایسته انسانی مغایرت دارد یعنی ما وقتی به شخصی می گوییم نیکوکار که به ضعفا بیشتر کمک کند تا به اقویا و در پی منافع شخصی خود باشد
به نظر من این نظریه مخلوطی از فلسفه نیتشه (درکتاب انسان برتر )و عقاید کانت است که دواکینز وقبل از ان چند نفری ان را به قالبی جدید ریخته اند و به اسم تکامل اخلاق در مقابل معنویات سرچشمه گرفته از دین که در بسیاری از موارد از نظر اخلاقی با این نظریه مغایرت دارد قرار داده اند
بنده مثال زده ام که ایا در یک جامعه که همه دزد هستند ایا دزدی رفتاری ناهنجار به حساب می اید یا رفتاری هنجار؟
زیرا در صورت این نظریه داوکینز /کانت پاداش عمل نیک بمراتب بهتر انجام خواهد شد !!آ
یا اینکه که نیکی مطلق در جوامع برقرار باشد
حال انکه می بینیم اینطور نیست
پس کردار خوب و بد از چه منشا می گیرد ؟
و اصولا تعریف اخلاق کانتی چیست ؟!!!آ
ایا ان را هم می توان بر این بنا گذاشت که رقابت ژن ها باعث شده فرد برای بقای خود رفتاری انجام دهد که بر خلاف خواسته های جامعه باشد
اگر اینطور است این رفتارها چرا ناهنجار به حساب می ایند ؟
و رفتار های نیک هنجار ؟
مگر همه ان رفتارها از ژن هایی که برای بقای خود مبارزه می کنند بوجود نیامده
چرا جامعه رفتار ژنتیکی را هنجار و دیگری را ناهنجار قلمداد می کند
در یک گروه دزد ایا دزدی رفتاری هنجار است ؟
اگر شخصی در این جامعه از دیگر دزدان دزدی کند ایا رفتاری نیک انجام داده یا خیر ؟
جواب خیر رفتار او از نظر دزدان درست نیست !!آ
حال جامعه ای نیک کردار را در نظر بگیرید
ایا نیکی در این جامعه که همه نیکوکار هستند رفتاری هنجار است یا نا هنجار ؟
جواب رفتاری هنجار و نیک است
چرا در ان جامعه رفتاریک شخص از جامعه از نظر اشخاص رفتاری غیر نیکو و در جامعه نیکو رفتار یک فرد با همان معیارها رفتاری نیکو به حساب می اید؟
حال فرض کنید شخصی از ان جامعه نیکو برود و از دزدان چیزی بدزد و به جامعه خود بیاورد
ایا این رفتار از نظر ان جامعه رفتاری شایسته است یا نا شایسته ؟
با در نظر گرفتن تئوری داوکینز باید گفت از نظر جامعه نیکو این باید رفتاری شایسته باشد
زیرا فرد به جامعه خود نیکی کرده !!!!آ
در صورتی که اصل دزدی در ان جامعه ناشایسته است که این با اصل اخلاق و تئوری ژن خود خواه جور در نمی اید
همچنین بنا بر تئوری داوکینز باید همه افراد در جامعه به یک شکل رفتار کنند
حال که می بینیم اینطور نیست
و هر فردی اخلاقیات خود را دارا می باشد اگر اینطور بود ما دیگر احتیاج به قوانین مدنی نداشتیم قوانین اللهی پیش کش
بعد در مورد نیکوکاری متقابل سخن می گوید و رفتار نیکوی فرد در جامعه را دلیل بر ان می داند که در مقابل جامعه به او پاداشی نیک دهد
که این به نظر من ربطی به اخلاق نیک یا بد ندارد
زیرا ممکن است رفتاری بد باعث پاداشی نیک گردد
مثلا شخصی کاری را در جامعه انجام دهد که رفتاری غیر نیکو باشد ولی در مقابل پاداشی نیکو در یافت کند
که مثالها زیاد هستند
این رفتارها ممکن است از نظر پاداش دهنده و جامعه غیر اخلاقی باشد
ولی در مقابل فرد پاداشی نیکو دریافت کند
بعد از ان داوکینز در مورد شهرت و برتری و ارتباط ان با رفتار نیکوی شخص در جامعه صحبت میکند
مانند مهربانی / بخشندگی /که باعث شهرت و برتری فرد در جامعه می شود
باز در این مورد داوکینز توضیح نمی دهد که چرا مثلا مهربانی و بخشندگی که باعث شهرت فرد در جامعه می شود نیک
و مثلا کشتن و قتل که باز باعث شهرت شخص در جامعه می شود بد است
اگر اخلاقی را که ما نیکو می دانیم و سرچشمه گرفته از احساس برتری فرد در جامعه است پس چرا دیگر رفتاری را که ناشایسته می دانیم ولی باعث شهرت می شود را جامعه ناهنجار می داند
همچنین رفتارهایی هستند که در جوامعی نیک و در جوامع دیگری غیر نیکو بحساب می ایند
مانند ادم خواری ایا اگر اخلاق نیک جهان شمول بود نبایستی اعمالی که در یک جامعه نیک است در جامعه ای دیگری هم نیک به حساب اید ؟
داوکینز همچنین در مورد ارتباط اخلاق و دین اشتباه می کند
او فکر می کند که از نظر دین داران دین اخلاق را بوجود اورده !!!ا
حال که اینطور نیست
دین تنها برای تبلور اخلاق نیک که در ذات انسانهاست امده
تا انها را گوشزد کند
نه اینکه رفتار جدیدی که در غریزه انسانی نبوده بوجود اورد
زیرا چنین چیزی نه ممکن است نه توسعه ای خواهد یافت

بگذارید یک مثال در این مورد برای روشن شدن موضوع بزنم
غریز جنسی در ذات انسانها هست این غریزه برای تولید نسل بوجود امده
این غریزه انسان را هم بوجد می اورد
یعنی ممکن است از این غریزه به شکل مغایری استفاده کند
در اینجا دین می اید و تکلیف تعیین می کند
گوشزد می کند که از این غریزه چگونه باید استفاده کرد چه برای تولید نسل و چه برای احساس لذت !!ا
اگر اخلاق را به شکلی که داوکینز در مورد ان بحث می کند بخواهیم تعریف کنیم
پس استفاده از این غریزه برای بار داری هر مونثی اخلاقی است
همچنین استفاده ان برای احساس لذت به هر شکلی باید اخلاقی باشد
یک بیخدا و یک خدا باور هر دو این غریز ها یعنی انسان دوستی و غریزه جنسی و دیگر غرایز بد و نیک را دارا می باشند
ولی فرق میان انها چگونه استفاده کردن از این غرایز و تبلور انهاست
کسی نگفته که یک بیخدا هم نوع خود را دوست ندارد
هچنانکه کسی ادعا نکرده یک خداباور تنها بخاطر ایمان به خدا هم نوع خود را یاری می دهد
مطلب اینجاست که سر پیچی از این غرایز در صورتی که به نفع شخص باشد در بیخدا و دین باور فرق خواهد کرد
مثلا اگر دو شخص یکی بیخدا ودیگری خداباور را درمیدان جنگ در نظر بگیریم امکان اینکه خداباور داوطلب شود که برای نجات افراد گروه خود روی مین برود بیش از شخص بیخدا است
در اینجا می بینیم که بر خلاف گفته داوکینز اختلاف اخلاق در خداوباران و بیخدایان بوجود خواهد امد
البته مثالها زیاد است یک خداباور و بیخدا و هر دو گرسنه با کشتن شخصی می توانند به زندگی خود ادامه دهند
به نظر شما امکان کدام یک بیشتر است
البته منظور من از خداباور مومن حقیقی است و منظور از بیخدا کسی است که به اخرت ایمان ندارد و تنها چنانکه داوکینز می گوید اخلاق را برای پیشرفت در جامعه استفاده کرده
چنانکه در اکثر حوادث طبیعی می بینیم که وقتی نظاره گری (پلیس)

نیست مغاز ها غارت می شود
چه چیز باعث می شود که اشخاصی که دست به غارت می زنند در زمان قبل از حادثه این کار را انجام ندهند ؟
جواب قوانین
پس در صورت نبود قوانین اخلاق ممکن است اسیب پذیر باشد و این با تئوری داوکینز جور در نمی اید و به نظر من این گفته خداباوران که قوانین الهی مورد نیاز است صحیح است
البته این قوانین جای خود را به قوانین مدنی داده است ولی شرط اخلاق بدون قانون ممکن نیست
اگر اینطور که داوکینز می گوید بود احتیاجی به قوانین نبود
یعنی یک جامعه بدون قوانین یا بهتر بگویم قوانینی بدون مجازات!!
چرا ما احتیاج به پلیس / چراغ راهنما / زندان ووو داریم ایا به نظر نمی رسد که اخلاق اکتسابی است نه انتخابی
اگر انتخاب طبیعت اخلاق را بوجود اورده بود دیگر احتیاج به مجازات نبود
پس یا باید تعریف اخلاق از نظر داوکینز غلط باشد یا بشر مختار است که این اخلاقیات را زیر پا بگذارد
و اگر مختار است این اخلاقیات را زیر پا بگذارد باید بر گردیم به نظریه داوکینز در مورد ژن خود خواه که مختار بودن اخلاق با این نظریه
جور در نمی اید
یعنی فرد بر خلاف طبیعتش عمل می کند که این در غیر از دیوانگان کاری بر خلاف صلاح فرد و در پی ان کار نیک و پاداش متقابل است


بله جانم

 

ashtar

National Team Player
Aug 17, 2003
5,448
19
Also, morality is not something that you are told or taught, but it is a byproduct of intelligence and logic.
Now that is laughable. Morality is byproduct of intelligence and logic? What logic? Did you read my other posts? Bet you didn’t. Why don’t you logically explain to me the questions I already asked several times now? For example “if I can take advantage of others and make more money for myself legally (or illegally without getting caught) and thus be able to buy more stuff to satisfy my own ego and ensure my own survival and pleasure at the expense of some dumb-witted loser why shouldn't I? If I were an orphan I wouldn't want being taken advantage of or made fun of but hey I'm not an orphan so if I can get a laugh that would elevate my mood at the expense of an orphan or if I can make more money at the expense of an orphan why shouldn't I?”


You can see when little kids play with each other who have no understanding of religion, god, etc., but they care about each other's feelings. That's a simple proof that morality does not come from religion but just intelligence and logic.
The only thing the above statement proves is that you have no children nor have ever worked with the pediatric population.

Nothing could be further from reality or truth. In fact, human infants have no concept of morality and are purely and genetically wired to be as selfish and self indulging as other animals on this planet in order to ensure their own survival. This is exactly why toddlers and sometimes even adults need to be constantly reminded about the concept of sharing and caring for others. If you see children who are older express behavior consistent with some sort of morality that you agree with it is merely and purely because they have been constantly reminded since being toddlers about what is supposedly “right” and “wrong” and have been constantly punished or rewarded by their parents, older siblings, family or society about the commonly accepted moral behaviors. Even so and despite these constant reminders you still see human children (and again even adult humans) act immoral and in selfish and self indulging manner.
 

Ardesheer

Bench Warmer
Jun 30, 2005
1,580
1
^^^ I think you should read your own posts and logic and have a good laugh. Morality does not mean that you do not commit wrongs, but it means that you have intelligence to know right from wrong. Now if you do something wrong it does not mean that you do not know what is moral, but that you are not a moral person. Same thing you say goes for people who have a religion. In other words, their book may say something is wrong, but they still do it. How is that different?

Also, as for kids, you open your mouth and give some comments without having any source. Your philosophy is that you write and thus it is true. You should read about some research done on kids and morality. Like always, you and GP have no reference but you just throw stuff out without having an iota of knowledge about some subjects that you talk about.