Then you meant to say there are objective markers for the existence of suffering, but suffering is, and can only be subjective, since we cannot measure or quantify the experience, like pain. I think nuanced thinking is as beyond you, as critical thinking is. Hence the endless strident sweeping absolutes.
Our inability to measure something does not affect its objective existence. It merely indicates our limitations and has no impact on what is real or not.
Suffering is real; it does not depend on your opinions, ideas, motivations, knowledge, or anything else. It exists, and everyone can experience it, regardless of our ability or inability to measure it.
.
Is English your first language? I just explained where youâd gone wrong with your straw man, and you repeat it, Letâs try larger letters for youâŚ
I never disputed the existence of suffering, only that suffering is not objective, but subjective, as like pain we cannot directly experience or measure someone elseâs suffering.
Straw man fallacy.
Straw man fallacy.
Straw man fallacy.
As far as I know, âsubjectiveâ refers to things that depend on oneâs personal opinion, ideas, or viewpoint. It should not be applied to real phenomena that are simply difficult or impossible to measure.
However, if you understand it differently, as long as you donât deny its existence, Iâm willing to concede whatever you prefer regarding it.
adjective
- based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.
No one can objectively experience someone elseâs suffering, ipso facto it is subjective, like pain.
Straw man fallacy.
I have never denied its existence, that was a straw man you created, suffering is subjective it cannot be otherwise. You claimed it was objective, itâs not my fault if you meant itâs existence can be verified through objective markers, again like pain. You canât experience someone elseâs suffering, itâs a personal experience, ipso facto the experience is subjective.
1 Like
Demonstrate anything exceeding the lifetime of an individual. Those are more inane assertions on your part. No one is preventing you from living in a world of nonsense. Perhaps the reason you are here is so that you can find your way out of the peanut butter jar, you seem to be trapped in.
We do not all agree that there âISâ the right thing to do or âWHATâ that right thing is. You are incorrect. Have you not heard of "MORAL DILIMMAS?â (Once you have solved all of these with the "RITGHT WAY TO BEHAVE.) Get back to us with your replies. 30 Best Moral Dilemma Examples - BitGlint
The biological predisposition is to be a herd animal. To form groups. Morality is a function of getting along in those groups. We have 300,000 years of humans forming groups to survive. Those group members that did not follow the rules, did not procreate. They were ostracized or killed, just like the good folks who refused to follow your Iron Age religion and the ancient minds that created your ancient god.
Calling a path destructive does not make it so. Pointing to destructive events does not reflect on the path as a whole. Your claim of Prophecy is as lame as every other claim you have made. Reason has changed this. Reason is feeding the world. Reason is pulling the religious out of their darkened candlelit pews into the light of day. Reason is spreading across the USA and emptying Churches as it spreads. Reason is causing the human mind to evolve once again, and it is obviously leaving you behind.
As you know, all powerful and influential groups in our society are deeply involved in activities that are highly immoral. (ALL: Please list all the groups and give citations for your conclusion.
Hey! I have an old soapbox in the garage. Itâs missing a nail but it is pretty sturdy. If you send me your address I will mail it to you. Then you can find a corner someplace to preach.
Do you actually have anything real to say or is your mind so loaded with religious garbage that you can not see what is in front of your face?
2 Likes
Perhaps if the thread author has been able to offer anything beyond the bare claim, and endless repetition, but they have failed to do this.
Not one reason why we need religion per se to save the planet, not one example of religion that people already follow that would help reduce (for example) global carbon emissions, or scrub the existing carbon in the atmosphere, or new technologies that can replace our use of fossil fuels to satisfy our energy needs, or one word on halting the exponentially increasing human population, without which all else is ultimately doomed to fail, on a planet with finite resources.
Ironically science and scientists are busy trying to solve most of those issues, without any need whatsoever for religion. No one is suggesting it wonât be problematic, and extremely difficult to stop powerful national and business interests from continuing their destructive path in the meantime, but then the thread author has offered not one word as to how religion will do this, indeed, he hasnât even said which religion, or what specifically about it has any hope of achieving this, given religions have been the pursuit of the majority of people as far back as human history can discern, we have every right to be dubious.
Religions paradoxically, are directly contributing to some of those issues, for example by decrying contraception and abortion as a âsinâ, and undermining womenâs rights to self determine how their bodies are used, and trying to enslave them to their reproductive systems, by undermining public confidence in scientific evidence, for things like climate change, and a whole host of lesser pursuits that all in some way contribute to increasing our carbon footprint. Note I donât say every religious person does this, but there is a significant problem nonetheless.
3 Likes
Or we can take better care of the planet in order to survive as a specious. Your argument seems to be based on an American centric perspective. This perspective favors the individual, it believes capitalism is akin to human nature and that individual rights are more important than collective rights. World wide I would hazard a guess that this is a minority perspective.
Why depend on a religion when common sense will do. Lets face it religion has failed to get us to a better place. In fact I believe there are Christian sects that believe that personal wealth is a sign that God loves them more than the poor. Then their are Christian sects that believe based on a fairy tale, that God gave man dominion over the planet to do whatever he wanted. So between transactional capitalism and Religion the planet didnât have a chance.
3 Likes
Religion or no religion, humans donât need help in destroying anything further. Plenty of people are doing that on their own. Itâs all about not caring.
You seem confused.
No one claimed atheism is the cure to morality.
What I can tell you if you fully read the old or New Testament and all the stories about slavery and mass murder, you will see that is the oppoiste of morality.
Stepping away from religion is the first step to a moral society.
Hi @Heathen69, welcome to the forum. If you highlight any text from a post a quote icon appears, click on it and a new post opens with the quoted text linked to the original post. It helps clarify to whom youâre responding.
1 Like
Just my own experience, but I have become more environmentally conscious as an atheist. No god is going to save the planet or make it better, it is up to us.
And yet there are those who believe Gaia will have her revenge. The Revenge of Gaia by James Lovelock is a book that explores the idea that the Earth, or Gaia, is fighting back against human activity and the climate crisis.
And some people will wait for Gaia to save the planet while going about business as usual.
1 Like
I sometime notice that as Atheists we have a tendency to be dogmatic. By that I mean we might stifle our imagination and creative thought. This discussion of Gaia, the earth, climate change and science is a good example at least IMHO.
I think we can agree that the climate is changing and that human activity is, in large part, the reason. Lets also agree that climate scientists have done a good job at describing hows, whys and therefores of these changes.
Letâs take Hurricanes and typhoons as an example. Objectively we know that these natural events are happening more often, start earlier in the season, go longer in the season and are more powerful than in the past. Science has explained that the rise in temperature of the oceans is a major factor for this change. Scientists have made observations, collected data, written reports containing recommendations, created models to aide in making predictions and all the things scientists do.
I wonât go into politicians because that would lead to their donor bosses and we know that that inevitably leads to committees and dusty shelves.
To my point: We can pretty much assume that what little action that will take place will be those natural phenomenon like hurricanes, typhoons, flooding, plant and animal extinctions etc. So whatâs so wrong with pretending that this is the earth fighting back by reducing the populations to more sustainable levels.
Lets be honest and acknowledge we saw this coming for 60 or 70 years and collectively we have stood around with our thumb up our bum saying but I need to work and that mine pays well. And now the second most powerful country in the world has elected a leader who has promised to âDrill baby drillâ. So I say, âGaia, You go girlâ. And of course I wonât let my imagination go so far as to think of Gaia as a god but what we are witnessing is the earth reacting to a set of stimuli in a predictable fashion. LOL 
1 Like
I call bullshit.
One of the primitive animals that I know of is the Cnidarian Portuguese Man-O-War jellyfish.
It is actually a colonial animal with several different animals working and living together, and in order to do this, they must follow rules like âshare food,â âdonât attack your neighbor,â and âdonât eat our offspring.â
The Cnidarians have been around for a very long time . . . with some evidence indicating that they may be more than 500 million years old, and possibly predating the Cambrian Explosion.
The Cnidarians are very primitive. No real central nervous system, and they sense light, but donâtâto the best of my knowledgeâeven have true eyes.
So . . . my point is that even these animals who are not all that much more sophisticated than some plants even seem to follow a form of morality.
Are you telling me that there is a Cnidarian afterlife? That they have religion and pray?
Morality can had without religion. To imply that humans can only be âgoodâ (in however you define this quality) out of fear of eternal punishment means that the human race is only composed of sociopaths, and I reject this.
What about doing good just for its own sake?
If Iâm wrong and there is a God, then I expect that I will enter Heaven anyway, because itâs hard to imagine God begrudging me for doing good for its own sake when I had no eternal reward to earn.
This is rather like Pascalâs Wager in reverse.
2 Likes
Religion couldnât save the planet at all. The Bible Zombies are shitting it up.
Religion focuses on âthe end timesâ, so people who are already waiting to visit their imaginary buddy in the land of Oz arenât really enjoying their lives. Theyâre miserable because they believe in a religion that threatens them with a fiery torture dungeon if they donât do what their imaginary bratty friend wants.
So, if youâre in a religion that tells that the Earth is fucked anyway, why bother treating the Earth good and not helping keep it clean? OhâŚthats right, cuz the bible said so and that itâs cool not to think for yourself.
3 Likes
Being a former Christian I encountered a mixed bag. Some Christian friends are environmentally conscious since they believe the earth is a godâs creation. However for the most part, most of my Christian friends felt environmental activism was a waste of time since itâs all going to burn anyway. Most saw abortion as the only issue they based their vote on and that climate change couldnât be a huge concern because their god was in control.
But thatâs just my experience with Christianity. My friends with Jewish or Hindu backgrounds have very different views and do what they can to help the environment including how they vote and the causes they support. But again, just my limited experience with a handful of people and it may or may not have anything to do with their religious beliefs.
I think I stated this in an earlier post, but since becoming an atheist I am more environmentally conscious and have even switched to a mostly vegetarian diet. No god is going to save us from our stupidity and I want to leave a better world for those after me. And other species matter too, not just humans. Not trying to start a debate on being vegetarian, but thatâs just my thoughts.
3 Likes
Hi! The answer is no we donât need a religion to save the planet.
2 Likes
Suffering is not always objectively bad or immoral, thatâs pretty obvious, and no, suffering is not objective, quite the opposite.