/sci/ - Science & Math

its a question of culture not religion. typically japanese are far more educated, respectful and well mannerd than americans.

>>2711635
Religion plays the biggest role in culture of any other influence.

>>2711635
Incoming shitstorm.

>> death penalty for apostates
>> claim that your loving god killed thousands in the japan quake as a loving signal to atheists
>> persistently suppress condoms in africa, buoying up AIDS

When compared to that, hell I'd take an amoral crackpot.

>Implying God exists and is angry with japs for some reason.

>>2711635
>implying you have any source for your information that isn't you're anus

>>2711646
>amoral crackpot
>implying there is any reason not to be amoral

>>2711644
that's not even proper english

>>2711635
This is truth.

>>2711620

I bet those Christians also thought US had Katrina and 9/11 coming.

>>2711658
>>implying there is any reason not to be amoral

pedophile detected

>>2711620
100% - 16.1% = 75% ?

>>2711644

>Religion plays the biggest role in my culture of any other influence.

Ftfy

>>2711806
no, that's not fixed at all

that's just awful english

>>2711814

>>Religion plays a bigger role in my culture than any other influence.

There, happy?

Athiests can enjoy their radiation.

>>2711819
why don't you just say "One of the largest influences in culture is religion"

simple sentences are not hard to construct, you don't need to throw complicated shit in there

>>2711644

Traditional "Christian" morality, is actually not very much to do with the bible at all. In fact the overall "western morality" is more a continuation of the greco-roman tradition than anything.

>Traditional "Christian" morality, is actually not very much to do with the bible at all.

who ar eyou and and why can't you construct sentences in english

but the japanese are also genocidal maniacs. see WII.

>implying there is just a religion
>implying atheism is a unified way

>>2711874
You can't hold a people responsible for a powerful and charismatic leader. Often with very forceful leaders, the population has little they can do to stop them from reaching power.

>Japanese

>A bunch of niggers

Well there's your problem.

>>2711878
atheist just mean you are not religious, no god. nothing more.

Religion is one of the main forces keeping the general public away from basing their morality on rational principles. Once society can accept how blindingly obvious it is that we need a code of personal and legal ethics based on rational principles, then the rest (with the help of scientific evidence) will just fall into place. Debating individual moral issues becomes a hell of a lot easier if everyone's on the same page.

Sadly, i have seen a small percentage of idiots become less moral as a result of not believing in god. I must stress these are a minority, and hopefully their arguments will be exposed for how stupid and hypocritical they are once the general public is more morally aware (instead of just basing their morality largely on their feelings and not being able to explain it).

>>2711884
Funny, they thought the emperor was divine back then. I'm seeing a trend.

>>2711874

>judging current generation of Japs by what their ancestors did 60 YEARS AGO

ithinkivejustbeentrolled.jpg

>atheist morality

And where, pray tell, does that come from?

>japanese
>civilized

Choose one.

For you historically challenged people, please read up on these:

Unit 731
Rape of Nanking

Don't fool yourself.

>>2711950
Don't forget Pearl Harbor Death Toll right?

>>2711945

this is the sort of fucktarded question people in generations to come will be amazed that people could be so dumb. How the fuck could you question the existance of morality?

Gotta hand it to sam harris, writing a book to prove something which anyone with half a brain new anyway.

http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/the-moral-landscape/

>>2711945
Respect for oneself and one's fellow man.

>>2711930
judging everyone and everything by what you see on the colbert report

>>2711995

>sam harris

Oh, I knew this response was coming. This is a very silly concept of morality.

...

I don't know, maybe more social pressure for conformity, and less entitlement.

As for this being a story of "superior morality" due to any factor (religion etc.). I think it's more complicate then that, every civilization has their triumphs and their shame, Japan is no different.

>>2712013

This is reasonable, why?

>>2711945
Self Interest.

>>2712046

Why should one be interested in oneself?

>>2711945

Fear of ostracization and and self preservation. A culture makes rules that survive if useful. Members adhere if they wish to be a part of the culture.

If someone goes around helping people under the auspice of religion, I say more power to them. Similarly if someone goes around helping people under the banner of secular humanism then I say have at it. So yeah, plenty of moronic religious people, but if they're genuinely helping the world be a better place than I don't care/

>>2711945
Empathy, I can't get rid of it.

>>2712068

Because I value my life, and the lives of others, and there are many ways that I ought to act if I wish to maintain them.

>>2711995
Sam Harris is either trolling or just stupid. I'm an atheist and admit that science cannot "answer moral questions." If science tells us anything about morality, it tells us that it doesn't exist and is a human construct. Science tells us that we're complex organic organisms that float about on a mote of dust in the galaxy with no apparent purpose or importance. Depressing, right? But it's most likely the harsh reality. Wouldn't adopting such a world view make it infinitely easier to go out on a killing spree? It would. I'm an atheist, and I do not find it at all a coincidence that the murderous nihilist dictators were atheists. The world will probably one day be atheist, and we need a damn good reason for people to have morals if they no longer believe in hell. Either that or religion is healthy in low doses.

>>2712097

>Wouldn't adopting such a world view make it infinitely easier to go out on a killing spree?

4/10

>>2712097
But Richard Dawkins, man!

>>2712097
Trololololololl

>>2712099

Why do you value these things?

>>2712114
Think about it, bro. People need restraints. Religions tell them at an early age that they will go to hell if they do "evil" stuff, providing a self-preservation incentive to be "good." Take away the "convenient fiction" of Hell, and you will invariably have chaos. Something not being true =/= not being useful for controlling society.

>take calls for charity in southern state
>largest black population in US
>thousands of calls today
>NOT ONE FUCKING BLACK PERSON called in to donate
>yes you can tell race by voice, white people talk generally coherently, all southern black people talk like YA MAN WUT DUN WIT NIGGA GUNNA GETS ME DAT BITCH DUN WALKIN ROUND LIKE A CRIPPA CRAB ER SOMETING HEHEHEHEHEHEHE NIGGA GIMMIE DAT
>occasionally get call (from white people) where people ramble on about end times and god punishing japan and other assorted hurr durr
>nuclear plant continues to burn, probably will explode soon and radiate the island, I'll have to deal with this shit for weeks
>mfw america has way too many poor and stupid people these days

>>2712137

Why do I need to give and explanation for why I value these things?

If you want to play infinite regression chicken that's fine too.

>>2712137
He values those things because of a culture that was largely inspired by religion and religious values. In a way, he's piggybacking or "freeloading" on the values of religion without being an active member of it.

signed,
atheist who realizes that atheism would lead to social disorder if applied en masse

>>2712156

I am trying to understand how an atheist can find morality reasonable.

>>2712141

...naw

1/10

>>2712169
Can you at least offer a counter-argument?

>>2712160

Worship of the state could replace morality appropriately.

>>2711950

They were far more religious back then.

>>2712160
The people who created those religions must have valued the same things, so why did they value them?

>>2712160

So the implication being that these values -could not- have developed in a society without religion?

>>2712190
it could, but it sounds like living under that regime would be a pain in the ass, like soviet russia. personally, i'd prefer to live in a country with some faggot theistic religion than that; it seems a lot easier (go to church, put on fake face, leave, go home, fap, go to work, fap, repeat process).

>>2711945
It's most likely just another evolutionary self-preservation instinct. A certain moral foundation is in many ways beneficial to both, the individual and the species. I don't see why morals should be analyzed any differently than our impulse to protect and care for anything with "baby cuteness", and similar survival instincts.

>>2712097
This is complete drivel.

>civilized people
> niggers

>implying this has anything to do with religion vs atheism

>>2712160

Christian morality today has little to do with the actual biblical texts. In the more intellectual sects, it has been developed by interpreters of interpreters of the bible through the eyes of Plotinus, Plato and Aristotle.

>>2712201
no, no, please don't take it to the opposite extreme. i'm sure that's a logical fallacy but have never taken the time to look them up. arguer 1: "yeah, but seriously, pigs don't fly." arguer 2: "whatttt!!!! so your'e saying that pigs are completely immobiel!!! the'yre not sloths, you know!"

no, i'm not saying that religion is the only mechanism that produces morality. it very well could have been something else in our history that stated and enforced morality (like kings or something), but it is a lot more compelling to threaten you're going to go to hell after you die (after all, that's the ultimate mystery).

>>2711620
>mfw when I read morality as molarity

Goddamnit chemistry.. goddamnit.

>>2712225
>>I don't see why morals should be analyzed any differently than our impulse to protect and care for anything with "baby cuteness", and similar survival instincts.

If morals were to be determined by our biological impulses, a lot more murders would be committed than they already are.

>>2712247

Not even close to a good analogy

>>2712247
>but it is a lot more compelling to threaten you're going to go to hell after you die (after all, that's the ultimate mystery).
Yeah, that's an entirely baseless claim, completely detached from reality. Our prisons are filled with Christian criminals and our churches burst with child molesters.

Of course, I'm not claiming there to be a causal link between religion and crime; I'm just saying that religion is *evidently* useless for crime prevention.

Atheism is not a faith. It is a lack of faith. Not having faith is not faith. Not collecting stamps is not a hobby. Atheism is not the Big Bang theory and it is not the theory of Evolution. Science is not a religion, it is a method for discovering new knowledge. Atheism is a religion in the same way that not believing in Santa Claus is also a religion. There is no purpose for our existence, only causes. Morality is independant of religion. Actions done under the belief that punishment awaits are impure. "Good and "bad" are only human perceptions. Religion is the epitome of ignorance, it is a deadly ignorance. It is an abomination and an insult to reason. It is a political tool to control large populations. It is a security blanket for those that fear death. It is a cheap answer to questions that science cannot at this time explain. It is the result of a lack of information. It is an emotional response to reject reality. It is a terrible blight on humanity and is holding back mankind from it's potential.

>>2712265
>If morals were to be determined by our biological impulses, a lot more murders would be committed than they already are.
That's a dodgy assumption. Unless something goes wrong during early development, we all have ethical boundaries and basic feelings of empathy resulting in a natural aversion against causing excessive, unnecessary harm to others. Evidence of this lies in the mere fact that our (extremely social) species survived long enough to even develop religious beliefs in the first place.

My point is, morals (for my purposes defined as the notion that causing unnecessary harm is "wrong") have preceded religion by a *very* long time.

>>2712332

wow.

Morals are a byproduct of evolution in a sense. Natural selection in social organisms favors (among lots of other factors) the ones that work together for success. A successful society doesn't kill itself off, we've learned over the years to not tolerate murder, because it's beneficial to our survival as a species to punish it and not because a compilation of writings from people who didn't know where the sun went at night stated the obvious.

To the people saying that society would break down without religion, we have data on this. Societies that don't follow religion enjoy higher standards of living and tend to be the most civilized places on earth. The people who don't believe in religion are the least criminal, (tied with mormons, actually) which is really the best proxy that we have. The more religious a society or individual is, the less open towards alternate points of view they are. The best example is the enforcement of blasphemy laws as a capital offense in Muslim countries. If people followed their religion's holy book, there would be far more murders then there are, but fortunately very few Christians do.

There will always be people who do horrible things for various reasons. It doesn't take an atheist dictator to launch a genocide or an atheist populace to obey. However, if the genocide is justified on religious grounds, it can take a religious populace. Neither the crusades nor the holocaust could have happened if the people did not think that they were doing god's work, and in both cases they were backed to some extent by the Vatican.

And those genocides that have occurred in an atheist country were only able to do so because there was an equally strong ideology that required a sort of indoctrination reminiscent of the adoption of a new state religion. Really, religion isn't even the enemy, it's ideologies that are fanatically enforced, disregard and attempt to suppress criticism, and claim a sort of moral superiority. It just so happens that religion does all these things excellently, but communism or strong nationalism can do it just as well.

>>2712613
Absolutely true. Societies that do well cannot allow people to murder its members freely. Therefore, individuals that murder people are not allowed to live in a successful society. It's not a coincidence that those things we consider to be moral also tend to be those things that are beneficial to society as a whole.

>>2712613
naturalistic fallacy
false assumption of evolutionary perfection

At least this isn't another nuclear thread.

Religion plays somewhat of a role, but I doubt its the only grounds of morals. Anyone who has picked up the Bible and looked through several pages of say, Proverbs, will see at least some text that they agree with personally. It has to deal with the mentality behind it, which is brought on by many other factors, be it poverty, upbringing etc. It would be better to study the social norms and history of two places to see the differences to see why say one area is more "moralistic" than the other than to just settle it down to religion.

>>2712712
There is no assumption of perfection, merely that it pushes a species in a certain direction. To assume that evolution was perfect would be to assume that there is no such thing as anti-social behavior, such as murder, in a social species. The fact is that social species tend to have traits beneficial to social interactions and this is not a coincidence.

>>2712712

There's quite a difference between what IS moral and what OUGHT be moral. Our morality is not perfect by most standards, but there are rules of conduct which we are urged to adhere to: we call these morals.

>>2712779
How do you determine which is more 'moralistic.' Sam Harris' method would be to look at what's best for society in an objective manner, but in my opinion this is not what most people mean by moral; rather, people tend to regard moral as they they personally find right and wrong for whatever reason. (Be it upbringing, evolutionary pressures, or indoctrination) So if you go with the latter, people will simply regard the society that more closely adheres to what they personally believe as moral, but I don't see how that could possibly be all meaningful. To go Sam Harris' way, on the other hand, would require a large amount of investigation on the consequences of each position, some of which could not be properly analyzed, and in my opinion would rather miss the point in terms of what people mean when they talk about morality.

As soon as you define ANY metric of what is "good", science will tell you what are or aren't good moral principles to attain that goal.

If we want to maximize self-reported happiness, for instance, you just need to study what influences it, and then maximize it. I agree that science can't pick your metric of what is "good" - but human biology does that for you anyway.

>>2712881
Right. If we define the "goodness" of a system by how much a human prefers to be a member of it, then there is clearly a distinction between different systems.

>>2712674
Such gorgeous countries

I feel so much wanderlust

>>2712867
I would say that actually, to define morals would almost ask me to prove a moral as a fact, but morals are merely a collective opinion for whatever reason. So actions alone are not wrong if they are logically sound, but are if the collective opinion of the society has agreed that the action will not benefit it in the long run. Example: A mass murderer kills whoever he pleases and you kill him back to end it. But society believes murder of any sort is wrong unless in special cases it doesn't like to admit. But because of this, you are wrong as well, despite the fact that ending a threat would be more logical than keeping it bound in a temporary holding cell. So to skip a few steps, the logical choice isn't always the moral choice. The only way to measure any sort of moral would be scientifically, but even then morals are also part of tradition. I doubt people would drop thousands of years of agreement just to be more logical in their moral decisions. Example of that would possibly be age of consent, but lets not get into that.