Do we need a religion to save the planet?

[JESUS_IS_WITH_YOU]

Hello everyone,

There is a significant issue with morality that has not been adequately addressed by either atheism or theism: contrary to popular belief, reason and logic do not necessarily lead to moral behavior.

If your primary goal in life is to maximize personal pleasure, moral behavior may not be advantageous. To amass excessive amounts of money, power, or influence, one often has to engage in actions that are considered immoral. Otherwise, those willing to engage in such behavior will outcompete you.

Moreover, empathy can be seen as an obstacle to achieving personal pleasure. Empathy benefits the group rather than the individual, which contradicts the pursuit of individual pleasures. The idea of treating others as you would like to be treated does not guarantee happiness. Your real goal is to prevent others from harming you rather than preventing you from doing things that benefit you, even if they harm others.

Another argument in favor of moral behavior is the idea of ensuring a better world for future generations. However, this is irrational, as you will never experience anything beyond your lifetime. Caring about the future is akin to caring about Santa Claus—you will never see or experience it. For every argument supporting moral behavior, one can always find reasonable counterarguments.

This is why religion establishes dogmas to uphold moral values. Only by believing in an afterlife, a deity, or karma can we halt the endless chain of rational arguments that undermine morality. These dogmas allow us to justify a set of moral values that enable society to develop in beneficial ways, even if those morals do not have a positive impact on the individual’s lifetime but only on future generations.

Unfortunately, we see that our society is doing the opposite, sacrificing the future of our planet to sustain current pleasures. Perhaps we need some form of religion or dogma to justify stopping this destructive behavior?

[CyberLN]

@JESUS_IS_WITH_YOU

There is a significant issue with morality that has not been adequately addressed by either atheism or theism: contrary to popular belief, reason and logic do not necessarily lead to moral behavior.

Well, of course atheism doesn’t address morality! All atheism consists of is a response to ONE proposal - a theist asserts god(s) exist, an atheist does not accept the assertion as true / fact. That’s it. Hard stop.

@JESUS_IS_WITH_YOU

This is why religion establishes dogmas to uphold moral values.

You mean moral values like the support of slavery, misogyny, genocide, bigotry, etc? These are all supported by many religions and their books.

@JESUS_IS_WITH_YOU

However, this is irrational, as you will never experience anything beyond your lifetime.

It is not irrational to behave in such a way to ensure future generations can thrive. It’s actually quite rational as we, like most other species, want ours to endure. It’s a built in biologic drive.

There is more of your post I could challenge but will stop at these as there’s a lovely bottle of Bordeaux that’s been resting which is currently calling my name…

[Sheldon]

Wow how I loathe people who come here to preach at us, anyway…

I stopped trying to count the logical fallacies in there, someone else have a turn.

In the mean time, can @JESUS_IS_WITH_YOU answer a few questions for me please:

1. Could you define what you think morality means please?
2. What objective evidence if any, can you demonstrate that any deity exists or is even possible?

Oh, and welcome to AR…blah blah blah…

@JESUS_IS_WITH_YOU

contrary to popular belief, reason and logic do not necessarily lead to moral behavior.

This suggests you don’t know what reason means, or what logic means, or what moral means, just saying.

@JESUS_IS_WITH_YOU

empathy can be seen as an obstacle to achieving personal pleasure.

Nope, you’re just doing it wrong. I can say without any doubt the most pleasure I have had has involved sharing it with others, and let’s face it, I’ve had more than my fare share of pleasure alone…so I should know

@JESUS_IS_WITH_YOU

Empathy benefits the group rather than the individual, which contradicts the pursuit of individual pleasures.

Still wrong, personal pleasure and group pleasure are definitely not mutually exclusive, this might be the stupidest post ever, yours I mean, not mine, though I rule nothing out at this point.

@JESUS_IS_WITH_YOU

The idea of treating others as you would like to be treated does not guarantee happiness.

Pissing on your feet while wearing suede shoes is not a good idea, since we’re making trivially true sweeping claims.

@JESUS_IS_WITH_YOU

Your real goal is to prevent others from harming you rather than preventing you from doing things that benefit you, even if they harm others.

That’s flat out BS…this is going to be a record for deepities in a single post I suspect, again your post, not mine.

@JESUS_IS_WITH_YOU

Another argument in favor of moral behavior

Shit, I missed the first one, now I have to go back and re-read that nonsense.

@JESUS_IS_WITH_YOU

Another argument in favor of moral behavior is the idea of ensuring a better world for future generations. However, this is irrational, as you will never experience anything beyond your lifetime.

Which principle of logic does it violate and why? Dear oh dear…

@JESUS_IS_WITH_YOU

Caring about the future is akin to caring about Santa Claus—you will never see or experience it.

Quite possibly the stupidest claim I have ever seen, kudos.

@JESUS_IS_WITH_YOU

For every argument supporting moral behavior, one can always find reasonable counterarguments.

Your post thus far has definitely got me questioning my own morality, luckily this egregiously stupid nonsense (again, your post, not mine) is not being offered face to face.

@JESUS_IS_WITH_YOU

This is why religion establishes dogmas to uphold moral values.

Like slavery you mean? Exodus 21, give it a read…it’s way more entertaining than the BS you’ve posted.

@JESUS_IS_WITH_YOU

Only by believing in an afterlife, a deity, or karma can we halt the endless chain of rational arguments that undermine morality unevidenced superstition.

Fixed it for you…

@JESUS_IS_WITH_YOU

These dogmas allow us to justify a set of moral values that enable society to develop in beneficial ways, even if those morals do not have a positive impact on the individual’s lifetime but only on future generations.

Cool, like slavery again then, or sex trafficking children from ethnic cleansing wars. I don’t say this often enough, but you…are off your fucking tits…

@JESUS_IS_WITH_YOU

Unfortunately, we see that our society is doing the opposite,

Thank fuck for that, as the dystopian nightmare you’re describing has been tried, just read the bible or Koran, it holds little appeal, no prize for you tonight, but thanks for playing…

@JESUS_IS_WITH_YOU

sacrificing the future of our planet

@JESUS_IS_WITH_YOU

ensuring a better world for future generations… is irrational

Your post has broken my stupidometer…

@JESUS_IS_WITH_YOU

Perhaps we need some form of religion or dogma to justify stopping this destructive behavior?

What are you suggesting, scientology?

I’m ok thanks, you believe what you want, and I will live in the real world.

[Sheldon]

@CyberLN

these as there’s a lovely bottle of Bordeaux that’s been resting which is currently calling my name…

Enjoy, I’ve had my Shiraz, and now a small libation…it may be bed early tonight…

[Get_off_my_lawn]

@JESUS_IS_WITH_YOU

If your primary goal in life is to maximize personal pleasure, moral behavior may not be advantageous. To amass excessive amounts of money, power, or influence, one often has to engage in actions that are considered immoral. Otherwise, those willing to engage in such behavior will outcompete you.

Moreover, empathy can be seen as an obstacle to achieving personal pleasure. Empathy benefits the group rather than the individual, which contradicts the pursuit of individual pleasures. The idea of treating others as you would like to be treated does not guarantee happiness. Your real goal is to prevent others from harming you rather than preventing you from doing things that benefit you, even if they harm others.

If your primary goal isn’t to maximise personal pleasure, your argument falls, and we can toss your argument in the rubbish bin

@JESUS_IS_WITH_YOU

Another argument in favor of moral behavior is the idea of ensuring a better world for future generations.

First, define “moral” and “moral behaviour”. Who defines what is moral and what is not?

@JESUS_IS_WITH_YOU

However, this is irrational, as you will never experience anything beyond your lifetime. Caring about the future is akin to caring about Santa Claus—you will never see or experience it.

Bovine manure . I care for my children and want them to have good lives also after I’m dead. And the children of my children. And the same with my relatives. And my friends. And my colleagues. And my neighbours. Etc. And I would think a lot of other people thinks like that, too. And we are back to your first erroneous assumption, namely the one about maximising personal pleasure.

@JESUS_IS_WITH_YOU

This is why religion establishes dogmas to uphold moral values.

Which of the many religions in existence? And how do you do arbitration when there are conflicting dogmas and conflicting ideas about what is good morals and not? And who gets to choose the arbiters?

@JESUS_IS_WITH_YOU

Only by believing in an afterlife, a deity, or karma can we halt the endless chain of rational arguments that undermine morality.

That’s quite an assertion. But you’ll first have to define morality and what is moral. And why it is moral. And who gets to decide what is moral or not. And so on. Until you do that, you are just talking out of your arse.

[Sheldon]

@Get_off_my_lawn

I care for my children and want them to have good lives also after I’m dead. And the children of my children. And the same with my relatives. And my friends. And my colleagues. And my neighbours. Etc.

I concur, odd how his strident apologetics eschews empathy in this way, well not odd at all really, perhaps ironic is a better word, given he’s trying to preach morality.

It’s hard to take the post seriously, as it’s like someone in a clown suit trying to sell you life insurance…by throwing a custard pie as you answer the door.

[Kevin_Levites]

@JESUS_IS_WITH_YOU

Another argument in favor of moral behavior is the idea of ensuring a better world for future generations. However, this is irrational, as you will never experience anything beyond your lifetime. Caring about the future is akin to caring about Santa Claus—you will never see or experience it. For every argument supporting moral behavior, one can always find reasonable counterarguments.

Is it me, or do theists always seem to believe that caring about your fellow humans–and future generations–must–by definition–include God?

Why is it so hard to believe that one can have a sense of right and wrong without God?

Is it the original poster’s idea that God is the only thing that keeps us from being sociopaths?

If the O.P.'s position is that one must have faith in God to be “good” (in however you define the concept), then what’s wrong with having faith that one should be good just for its own sake?

[Sheldon]

@Kevin_Levites

Is it me, or do theists always seem to believe that caring about your fellow humans–and future generations–must–by definition–include God?

They implied it was impossible without theistic belief, and simultaneously claimed it was irrational anyway, as you won’t be around to see it, priceless.

@Kevin_Levites

Why is it so hard to believe that one can have a sense of right and wrong without God?

Why does any deity even feature in morality? Objectively demonstrate a deity is possible, then that it exists, then that it has made moral proclamations, and then that we have the ability to know its proclamations are moral, and then of course we can point out that if we know what is nkoral we wouldn’t fucking need divine diktat.

@Kevin_Levites

what’s wrong with having faith that one should be good just for its own sake?

They don’t get to sententiously preach at us heathens?

[JESUS_IS_WITH_YOU]

@CyberLN

It’s actually quite rational as we, like most other species, want ours to endure. It’s a built in biologic drive.

We have lots of biologically driven impulses that are irrational and should be refrained, therefore the fact that it could be a biological impulse does not make it a valid point. Caring on a future that you will never see is irrational exactly because of the fact that you will never see, experience or feel it by any means. This is like caring on the opinion of unicorns.

Reason tells us that caring on the future is only an impediment to experience maximal pleasure on the present.

Let me remind you that this is exactly what our society is doing, destroying the future to maximize benefits in the present. This is why this question is not trivial—because we are doing exactly that.

@Sheldon

What objective evidence if any, can you demonstrate that any deity exists or is even possible?

It’s off-topic, but your ability to experience reality is all the evidence you need. Many people forget that we are part of the universe, not something completely separate from it. The same laws that apply to the universe operate within our bodies, and we experience reality …

@Get_off_my_lawn

If your primary goal isn’t to maximise personal pleasure, your argument falls,

Is there any other valid goal in life, according to reason, besides maximizing pleasure, which is inherently positive?

[JESUS_IS_WITH_YOU]

@Kevin_Levites

Is it me, or do theists always seem to believe that caring about your fellow humans–and future generations–must–by definition–include God?

This is not my point. The question I’m asking is whether there is any way to rationally justify morals that doesn’t ultimately rely on some form of dogma, which doesn’t necessarily imply belief in God.

[JESUS_IS_WITH_YOU]

@Get_off_my_lawn

Bovine manure . I care for my children and want them to have good lives also after I’m dead. And the children of my children. And the same with my relatives. And my friends. And my colleagues. And my neighbours. Etc. And I would think a lot of other people thinks like that, too.

Well, I completely disagree because we are currently living in a society that is causing irreversible harm to the planet, and you know it very well. Maybe not your children, but your grandchildren will pay a heavy price for our current comfort. This is cognitive dissonance—we say one thing but do another, just like much of what happens in our society. So, I don’t think we truly care; we like to say “I care,” which is significantly different from actually caring.

[Kevin_Levites]

@JESUS_IS_WITH_YOU

This is not my point. The question I’m asking is whether there is any way to rationally justify morals that doesn’t ultimately rely on some form of dogma

I think I can rise to this challenge.

The cnidarians are polyp-like animals that include jellyfish, and they are some of the most primitive animals that exist. They have been around since before the Cambrian Explosion, which was about 530 million years ago.

The Portuguese Man-o-War jellyfish is actually a colony of interdependant animals.

In order for this colony to co-exist, they have to follow specific rules, like “don’t attack your neighbor,” “share food,” and “don’t kill our offspring.”

So . . . do jellyfish have morality? Some of these rules actually approximate portions of the Ten Commandments, as “share food” and “don’t attack your neighbor” approximate the commandment about coveting thy neighbor’s property (such as his wife).

Do the jellyfish worship God? The simplest, most primitive animals seem to have an approximation of morality. Were they worshipping God 530 million years ago?

Apes and monkeys show social behavior that even more closely approximates human morality, yet they don’t seem to really care about the future.

Where does this assumption that “God causes morality” come from? I don’t behave in a moral manner because I fear punishment. I follow morality just for its own sake . . . and I don’t understand why theists have an issue understanding this.

If we say that the basics of morality are “hard wired” in the Man-o-War jellyfish, then why does it seem such a stretch to claim that the buildng blocks of morality can be hard wired in the human brain?

We even have examples of what happens when this hard wiring is damaged in some way. We call a person with this type of wire error a “sociopath.”

If God was responsible for instilling morality, then there would probably be no sociopaths.

[Sheldon]

@JESUS_IS_WITH_YOU

We have lots of biologically driven impulses that are irrational

Could you define what you think irrational means for me please, as I suspect you have no idea what it means.

@JESUS_IS_WITH_YOU

Caring on a future that you will never see is irrational

@JESUS_IS_WITH_YOU

the idea of ensuring a better world for future generations…is irrational,

Please explain which principle of logic you think is being violated.

@JESUS_IS_WITH_YOU

Reason tells us that caring on the future is only an impediment to experience maximal pleasure on the present.

No it doesn’t, but even assuming this sweepingly stupid claim were true, it gets a big so fucking what?

@JESUS_IS_WITH_YOU

Let me remind you that this is exactly what our society is doing, destroying the future to maximize benefits in the present.

You have said repeatedly that caring about the future is irrational, so again this gets a so fucking what by your own rationale?

@JESUS_IS_WITH_YOU

@Sheldon

What objective evidence if any, can you demonstrate that any deity exists or is even possible?

It’s off-topic,

No it’s not read your thread title.

@JESUS_IS_WITH_YOU

your ability to experience reality is all the evidence you need.

How does reality remotely objectively any deity? Stop being cryptic, as I have no interest in the religious mumbo jumbo you’ve fallen for, offer some objective evidence, otherwise your god claims go in the same bin as the flat earthers claims.

[Sheldon]

@JESUS_IS_WITH_YOU

I’m asking is whether there is any way to rationally justify morals that doesn’t ultimately rely on some form of dogma,

What has morality to do with logic, that’s a false equivalence fallacy if ever there was one. Again, define what you think morality means, then define what you think logic means, as I don;t think you understand either.

Here’s a clue, morality is subjective, and relative, it cannot be otherwise, but if you think dogma produces sound moral decisions why aren’t you a Nazis, they held to dogma they thought moral, and they were overwhelmingly Christians as well, and all the SS were theists, they had to be, as Himmler forbade atheists from joining.

@JESUS_IS_WITH_YOU

we are currently living in a society that is causing irreversible harm to the planet,

It doesn’t matter if we’re all off to heaven or Hell in a few decades, so make up your mind.

@JESUS_IS_WITH_YOU

This is cognitive dissonance—we say one thing but do another,

Nope, that’s hypocrisy, not cognitive dissonance, dear oh dear.

@JESUS_IS_WITH_YOU

I don’t think we truly care; we like to say “I care,” which is significantly different from actually caring.

So you care, but then if “we” all lie about that why should anyone here believe you? Also who are you to lecture others on caring? This is a debate forum, not a pulpit for you to preach from.

[CyberLN]

@JESUS_IS_WITH_YOU

Reason tells us that caring on the future is only an impediment to experience maximal pleasure on the present.

Reason tells “us”? Who is “us”? Have you a mouse in your pocket?

Are you asserting that caring about the future cannot produce maximal pleasure?
If so, how do you know this?

[Sheldon]

I don’t need to delude myself with superstition in order to do what I think is moral. If you blindly follow religious dogma, you’re not making moral choices, but forgoing them.

[JESUS_IS_WITH_YOU]

@Kevin_Levites

If we say that the basics of morality are “hard wired” in the Man-o-War jellyfish, then why does it seem such a stretch to claim that the buildng blocks of morality can be hard wired in the human brain

Human morals differ from animal morals because ours are a cultural inheritance, while in animals, morals are a biological inheritance. This is why our morals evolve much faster than those of animals.

The key point is that our morals are a cultural construct, meaning we are not hardwired to follow any specific morality; we simply inherit it. However, we have the ability to change it over time. This is crucial because, since we can choose whether or not to follow a particular morality, our culture must ensure that individuals adhere to a specific set of morals. This is why I believe dogmas are created.

If you rely solely on reason, you may conclude that morals are useless. This is a serious problem because, in reality, we often behave in ways that contradict our professed morals, even when we believe we are not.

The moment you introduce a dogma into the equation, reason can no longer interfere with morality because you must accept the dogma and all its consequences. I view dogmas as a form of psychological vaccination. Of course, they have their downsides, but perhaps they are the best solution in the long run.

We can certainly try to define an absolute morality, but that’s not exactly the point I’m trying to make.

[JESUS_IS_WITH_YOU]

@Sheldon

I don’t need to delude myself with superstition in order to do what I think is moral. If you blindly follow religious dogma, you’re not making moral choices, but forgoing them.

What I’m saying is that, in the end, any morality is a form of dogma.

[JESUS_IS_WITH_YOU]

@Sheldon

No it’s not read your thread title.

A religion does not necessarily imply belief in deities. In any case, I’m not referring to religion as belief in deities but rather as a dogmatic set of beliefs.

[Sheldon]

@JESUS_IS_WITH_YOU

Human morals differ from animal morals because ours are a cultural inheritance, while in animals, morals are a biological inheritance. This is why our morals evolve much faster than those of animals.

COUGH!! made up bullshit COUGH!!

@JESUS_IS_WITH_YOU

we are not hardwired to follow any specific morality

Then why do you keep insisting we can only be moral if we adhere to religious dogma?

@JESUS_IS_WITH_YOU

our culture must ensure that individuals adhere to a specific set of morals.

we are not hardwired to follow any specific morality

There aren’t enough rolling eye emojis in the world, for this level of stupidity.

@JESUS_IS_WITH_YOU

The moment you introduce a dogma into the equation, reason can no longer interfere with morality

That is a circular reasoning fallacy, oh look reason just ruined your moral dogma.

@JESUS_IS_WITH_YOU

you must accept the dogma

No I absolutely don’t, especially as making a distinction between right and wrong, is the antithesis of blindly following dogma.

@JESUS_IS_WITH_YOU

We can certainly try to define an absolute morality,

Give it your best shot, I am dubious, and not least because your posts suggest you don’t understand what morality means.

@JESUS_IS_WITH_YOU

What I’m saying is that, in the end, any morality is a form of dogma.

You’re wrong, and if you understood either you might see they’re incompatible.

@JESUS_IS_WITH_YOU

A religion does not necessarily imply belief in deities.

You believe in a deity (it’s in your profile), and you’re peddling religion in your thread title, so that’s a rather dishonest and pointless assertion when you’re asked to objectively evidence any deity, but it seems you already know you’re holding an empty bag, and don’t even want to try.

@JESUS_IS_WITH_YOU

In any case, I’m not referring to religion as belief in deities

Liar…

@JESUS_IS_WITH_YOU

but rather as a dogmatic set of beliefs.

They’re not mutually exclusive, and I don’t need religious dogma in order to do what I think is moral, and blindly following dogma is not making moral choices, but forgoing them, as I said, and of course you ignored, as the idea refutes your superstitious spiel.