Dr.Grass said:
theprof00 said:
Yes it is a gross misrepresentation because you equate areligiousness with strict mechanical automation.
You asked how a person without religion could have motivation for morality, then pointing out that the areligious follow cut-throat instincts. You talk as if they're a separate species.
So don't lie. That's what you actually think. Otherwise, the whole reasoning for your psot makes no sense. People do the right thing because we are social creatures, and are guided by a conscience to ensure group survival rather than individual domination. There are variances here and there, but for the msot part it is true. We are designed to work in a social environment. Even the lawless barbarian hordes are a group of brothers, no? Evil people are still morally good to their brothers. It's just the scope that's different. They have no outside morality, but in their group, they do.
Again, it is a straw man argument because you turn humans who disagree with you (areligious) into heartless robots, and then attack a heartless robot's motivation for doing good. That is case in point, a strawman argument.
|
''Yes it is a gross misrepresentation because you equate areligiousness with strict mechanical automation.''
When the laws of material nature are all there is then how can this not be true?
''You asked how a person without religion could have motivation for morality, then pointing out that the areligious follow cut-throat instincts. You talk as if they're a separate species.''
Yes I did ask that, but I didn't 'point out' what you are saying there. You are building a nice straw man there yourself aren't you?
''So don't lie. That's what you actually think. Otherwise, the whole reasoning for your psot makes no sense.''
No. I believe in a different source of man's desires. There is no point in trying to cram it in here, but it is also not required for me to explain my beliefs in this context at all. I understand why you would think that the 'reasoning behind my post' doesn't make sense based on my statements before. In fact, you have seen a subtlety in my reasoning and made a rather valid assumption. Unfortunately, your assumption is wrong - my motivation stems from the fact that I cannot tolerate seeing someone being religiously against religion. ESPECIALLY if this person loses logic and common sense along the way. That is why I attack such a person, even if my method of attack seems to insinuate beliefs that are not my own.
''People do the right thing because we are social creatures, and are guided by a conscience to ensure group survival rather than individual domination. There are variances here and there, but for the msot part it is true. We are designed to work in a social environment. Even the lawless barbarian hordes are a group of brothers, no? Evil people are still morally good to their brothers. It's just the scope that's different. They have no outside morality, but in their group, they do. ''
I get this evolutionary idea, I really do. I once had to sit through 50 excruciating minutes as my computer science proffessor went on and on about the evolutionary origin of love. Yes, an explanation of the origin of these things has been found. But it's not the only explanation, and I certainly do not think it is a very good one. For me to be convinced you need to simulate the evolution of these things - that would certainly constitute proof. Anything less and you can keep your hypothesis and I'll keep my eastern philosophy (which I consider much superior).
''Again, it is a straw man argument because you turn humans who disagree with you (areligious) into heartless robots, and then attack a heartless robot's motivation for doing good. That is case in point, a strawman argument.''
No. Because you are explaining here that I'm presenting the person in a certain light - NOT his proposition. Therefore, not strictly a straw man argument.
I'm enjoying this very much btw - and I'm editing out that nasty last comment I left - it was uncalled for, and, in hindsight, possibly inaccurate.
|
