Moral Bigotry Without Religion

[Purple Knight]

Question for Debate: Does moral bigotry without religion exist? If so, how does it exist?

Example #1: Moral bigotry with religion. One man eats a pig. Or he serves one for dinner. Another man says, no, whoever eats that will go to Hell. He thinks the first man is trying to send him to Hell, so he kills him. Now, if he's right, this is legitimately self-defence. If the first man will commit one atrocity, he may very well lie and try to do it again. If eating a pig is really an atrocity, then you don't even need to justify that he may send you to Hell. He's done something beyond terrible so he gets punished and most people accept that if you do something horrible enough, death might be a suitable punishment.

Example #2: Morality, without bigotry. One population thinks scams and lies are perfectly fine, but violence is never okay, while the other side thinks violence is fine if it's against dishonesty and scams which are never justified. The honest people agree not to kill the scammers, and the scammers agree to at least display in their businesses that they are lie- and scam-allowed. Now, with this compromise, both sides can live in the same society in a way that is fair to both, though each side has had to make a sacrifice: The honesty-enforced side cannot use violence against the scammer side even if they are deceived, as they would with their own, and the scammer side cannot completely pretend they are honest, as they think they have every right to do. Since each compromise requires sacrifices on both sides, theoretically, with enough compromises, everyone becomes unhappy.

I used to think there was no overlap, and a religious society must have moral bigotry, while two nonreligious people would simply have to work it out like they did in example 2, or simply not live together if they can't mutually agree on a compromise. This is because the religious person believes he (or his god) has a higher moral authority, and the nonreligious person does not believe that. I've learned there can be religious morality without bigotry, if a higher authority exists but didn't decide every nuance. Or if a higher authority exists but two people who both believe something different, can never quite be sure they're right about what it wants, so compromise has to be done in practice. But I don't see how there can be nonreligious moral bigotry.

If the nonreligious person believes he has a higher moral authority, and doesn't have to compromise because he is simply righteous and the other person isn't, how could he possibly come to this belief? I've always been very fair to the religious, assuming every rational motive I possibly can, and I ask for likewise in return: Please assume this nonreligious person is not simply insane. How can he possibly believe as he does?

[William]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #56]

Do we each know we are having a human experience or are we simply believing that we are having a human experience?

The question itself focuses on the difference in believing and knowing.

One who knows, has shifted from the position of one who believes.

[Purple Knight]

I agree that moral bigotry can exist among the non-religious, and the clearest example is in politics. How do they justify it? I think people can make value out of anything. Religionists tend to view their standards as coming from God, while the non-religious can just put something else in place of God, like Democracy, or whatever else they choose to look up to or assign some high value to. I don't think the non-religious have in mind that their views are nothing more than just socio-cultural standards, otherwise some of them may start to accept the full implications of that, like realizing their views are no more valid than those of other societies.

But they will say that, they fully understand that, if they're atheists talking about religion. They completely get that these are just ultimately arbitrary (but sometimes time-tested) value-judgments about what societal standards ought to be. It's how they justify the need to change this or that. They will say, well, that's not objective morality that we're doing now, and this would work better, so let's change. They must think that their morals are different, higher, special, and objectively true.

There is nothing more fundamentally moral about "racism is wrong and should be punished and outlawed" than there is about worshiping the Jewish God before any others. Both might do good, both might hurt some people. Both positions are pushed entirely morally, and not out of utility. Even Friedrich Hayek who is hawking capitalism, admitted that even if free market and non-aggression were not actually more practical, the tenets of the free market make it the moral position. (People were more honest in the past, it seems.)

But given all this, I will say that someone should not consider the alternatives of their own moral standard beyond just theorizing about it. In a most extreme case, someone may say that it's wrong to rape a baby, and is intolerant of those who would say otherwise. The person who is against raping babies can consider an opposing position, especially if it's in a debate about objective morals, but to be practical, we shouldn't allow that to go beyond theorizing or debate unless there is good logic and evidence for it.

Well, I don't think we need to consider outlier moral positions in our society. That's why it's a good idea to have some sort of political process that is higher than morality, not lower, and helps us decide these things. I don't really like voting but at the moment the example serves. So Mister Baby Rapist can go ahead and vote that baby rape should be legal. But I get to vote against him and so do you and he'll lose. AND THAT'S OKAY!!! When he cries that we've imposed tyranny of the majority, he should not be heeded unless he has figured out a better political process that is still higher than morality and fair to all. And when he says that his morality is higher and should not be subject to politics which is lower, we can send him to live in an enforced theocracy like Afghanistan, where he belongs.

But when dealing with the morality of other societies, I think we do need to consider that baby rape might be moral and not impose our way. But if he rapes our babies, we need to be able to deal with him, because our ways are just as important and necessary to us, as his are to him. So if he absolutely needs to rape babies, and we absolutely need to not have our babies raped, he just can't come where we are and vice-versa. Irreducible, fundamental moral conflict is the logical terminus of diversity.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #56]

Do we each know we are having a human experience or are we simply believing that we are having a human experience?

The question itself focuses on the difference in believing and knowing.

One who knows, has shifted from the position of one who believes.

Again, the habitual wrong approach, The fact that science has shown that things work without a god needed, makes that the default, even without what little we know about the brain's divine ideas and experiences, we may call them, suggesting it is something the brain does.

Succinctly, we know the mind is real, we do not know a god is real, i

[William]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #63]

Do we each know we are having a human experience or are we simply believing that we are having a human experience?

The question itself focuses on the difference in believing and knowing.

One who knows, has shifted from the position of one who believes.

Again, the habitual wrong approach

What evidence do you have to support your implied assertion here, that conflating belief with knowledge is the right/correct approach?

The fact that science has shown that things work without a god needed, makes that the default

Let's run with that belief. What about the facts of science tell us we should believe those facts rather than know those facts?

Science is a method/process.

Re that, - assuming that science shows us that we do know we are having a human experience, has any science shown us anything that would have us conclude we are simply believing that we are having a human experience?

Succinctly, we know the mind is real, we do not know a god is real

Again, the necessity of making sure we do not conflate words is important.
Mind = "the element of a person that enables them to be aware of the world and their experiences, to think, and to feel; the faculty of consciousness and thought."

How has science shown this is a real thing? What do you mean by "real"? Are you referring to it being real like a brain is real - in that it can be shown to exist as a physical thing? Something else?

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #63]

Do we each know we are having a human experience or are we simply believing that we are having a human experience?

The question itself focuses on the difference in believing and knowing.

One who knows, has shifted from the position of one who believes.

Again, the habitual wrong approach

What evidence do you have to support your implied assertion here, that conflating belief with knowledge is the right/correct approach?

The fact that science has shown that things work without a god needed, makes that the default

Let's run with that belief. What about the facts of science tell us we should believe those facts rather than know those facts?

Science is a method/process.

Re that, - assuming that science shows us that we do know we are having a human experience, has any science shown us anything that would have us conclude we are simply believing that we are having a human experience?

Succinctly, we know the mind is real, we do not know a god is real

Again, the necessity of making sure we do not conflate words is important.
Mind = "the element of a person that enables them to be aware of the world and their experiences, to think, and to feel; the faculty of consciousness and thought."

How has science shown this is a real thing? What do you mean by "real"? Are you referring to it being real like a brain is real - in that it can be shown to exist as a physical thing? Something else?

This is fiddling around with Epistemology. It looks like the familoiazr 'how do we know what we know?' used by theists to doubt what we know and try to make gaps for a god.

We know the mental process. If you doubt that, I will leave you to your doubts as nobody else will doubt it. Is it a natural (biological process) or a connection to the divine? As i know exactly how sortagoddists or residual theists) think.

As I said, we know biological processes work without a god, so there is no logical need to postulate anything else for the mental process.

In the same way, the case for a Cosmic Mind has not been made (despite various ID and kalam arguments) so again, logically, evidentially and epistemologically, there is no good basis for a god, cosmic mind or a consciousness other than a biological process, other than as required by Faith.

That is why all your arguments have been wrong with inverted burden of proof and reversed logic.

Sorry, and i don't mind sortagoddists (Deists) in a practical way, so long as they do not use their irational arguments to try to make materialism look wrong. It is correct of evidence and reason.

As to consuming once again our metaphorical ejecta in the hopes that there will be a different result, Einstein had something to say about that.

[William]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #65]

It is a simply enough question.

"Do you know you are having a human experience or do you simply believe that you are having a human experience?"

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #65]

It is a simply enough question.

"Do you know you are having a human experience or do you simply believe that you are having a human experience?"

It is a simple enough answer, you are doing it wrong, Bifurcation or fallacy of the undistributed middle; that is, you offer only two alternatives, knowledge and belief. Because theism does not understand or does not want to....
/
(a) the materialist default (theist dismissal of the database of science making a default basis for theorising is a fundamental logical flaw that invalidated most of their arguments)

(b) Probabilities, is the right option, not knowledge Or 'Belief'. Both of which have to be relative unless we have enough evidence to be pretty sure. Like with evolution.

The human mind is not fully understood, but the attempts to make it gap for a god (name your own anyway - another faithbased mistake that the religious make, if Deists don't) fail.

The little we know about Mind (the attempt to use NDE's to make a case for a spirit and afterlife not having done too well) indicates a biological process, (never mind dualism) and not a cosmic mind. Attempts to make it do so (Consciousness being the third Big Gap for a god) is really gone, like in fact the other two.

Simple, like I said, but like a kid asking why the moon doesn't fall down, it takes some explanation.

Arq's Atheists Axion, "It takes less words to say 'There are fairies at the bottom of my garden' than to explain why there probably aren't."

[William]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #67]

"Do you know you are having a human experience or do you simply believe that you are having a human experience?"

you offer only two alternatives, knowledge and belief.

I am open to hearing any other alternatives you want to offer by way of answering the question.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #67]

"Do you know you are having a human experience or do you simply believe that you are having a human experience?"

you offer only two alternatives, knowledge and belief.

I am open to hearing any other alternatives you want to offer by way of answering the question.

I gave the alternative above - probability (without claiming knowledge or belief). Don't you read or comprehend posts?

No, I guess you don't.

Because in the 80's I came across what I call 'keyword exegesis'. It works with the theist skipping over the atheist argument without actually taking it in - that's the trick, and then picking up something to hang an apologetic onto, even if it is irrelevant or already answered.

Come on now isn't that what you did?

[William]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #67]

"Do you know you are having a human experience or do you simply believe that you are having a human experience?"

you offer only two alternatives, knowledge and belief.

I am open to hearing any other alternatives you want to offer by way of answering the question.

I gave the alternative above - probability (without claiming knowledge or belief). Don't you read or comprehend posts?

No, I guess you don't.

Because in the 80's I came across what I call 'keyword exegesis'. It works with the theist skipping over the atheist argument without actually taking it in - that's the trick, and then picking up something to hang an apologetic onto, even if it is irrelevant or already answered.

Come on now isn't that what you did?

Ad Hominem

As I wrote.

I am open to hearing any other alternatives you want to offer by way of answering the question.

You claim there is a spectrum between believe and know. I am open to examining these positions to see if they collaborate with your claim.

I can't do that if all you are going to do is practice Ad Hominem.

So, please provide the evidence to support your claim...