PeaceCubes4
From BBC’s Atheism Tapes: Jonathan Miller in conversation with Daniel Dennett.
Source
Religion is like moral Viagra – Daniel Dennett
Similar Posts
Sophia The Robot At NASSCOM Event | TechnoWarPro | SOPHIA THE ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENT ROBOT
AI Agent to Automate Your Computer! | Microsoft Windows Co Pilot
Brands leading the way in using Artificial Intelligence (AI) in marketing
30 thoughts on “Religion is like moral Viagra – Daniel Dennett”
Comments are closed.
@hyperseauton
The problem is that if a religious man says even worse it's perfectly OK, because he has religion that backs him up.
The pope has declared as can be found on the Vatican site, that atheists are the cause of the worst massacres in history.
The Catholic priest head of "Radio Maria", one of the largest religious radio station in the world, has often said on air the same thing, as well as they: "hate god", "are desperate", "commit suicide", "no morals", "are Satan", "love Satan" etc
Since religion is "moral Viagra", is why atheism is moral castration along with a visit from Lorena Bobbitt
The fanatically committed materialists of 20th century Marxism proved that already
@Chuichupachichi
Atheism is not a substitute to religion, atheists simply believe that their morals come from some where else, and the majority might even give credit to their religious family and priests, there is clear evidence in the bible that non of them have in turn their morals coming from the bible even if they are convinced it does,
Their is no defined value or philosophy of life behind atheism, if their where, it should take another name.
@saintpine
{there's clear evidence in the bible that non of them have in turn their morals coming from the bible even if they're convinced it does}
The Bible definitely claims that it is the source of correct morality. But you're saying that the Bible presents evidence against itself. Thus, first you misinterpret particular parts of the Bible. Then, you cherry pick those parts to be credible evidence against the other parts that are not credible simply because they're from the Bible
Sounds Evo
@Chuichupachichi
cherry picking ? who me ?
you're joking.
our moral standards and rules for living are so complex now days, that every nation has tons of laws written by men, the bible is hardly taken in consideration.
You need to do a lot of mirror climbing to be able to find a useful position for the bible.
The UN's universal declaration of human rights is putting together something that looks like a objective morality, and no god is involved, they local laws fix the rest.
Don't even argue with me kid. You're sorely deficient. I gave explanation of why your previous post's statements are undeniable logical fallacies… noted & explained
However, its precisely your deficiency that not only causes your defective thought processes, but also causes you to be incapable of recognizing it even when one has taken you by the hand & walked you through it
After my explanation, you still have to be right. Why? Because your response is; "you're joking". Then you're the kind
of people that wonder why society has gone to shit. So you contemplate (your feelings) and you conclude that you don't feel like the truth should be that God actually exists because that would entail inconvenient consequences & that sucks!
So you go backwards from there, but since the factual means don't really result in your predetermined ends is why we end up with brilliant things like "you're kidding"
The complexities of your statement which I addressed in my last post, are such that after
applying a considerable amount of mental exertion, one can finally come to a understanding of your intended meaning… despite the incoherency. Which is due to your great grammatical gift for its literarily luminous execution. All of which in turn, makes it predictable that it would also result in defective thought processes
{our moral standards and rules for living are so complex now days}
Oh yes, of course! "Do as thou wilt" is so extremely complex because it involves everything
In other words, do "everything" that fancies you
But I wouldn't expect your provincially simplistic mind to have come to understand that today, that is "the whole of the law" which has been culturally implemented
Why do you think so many unborn babies are killed? Cuz people want to, thats why. They don't happen by accident. Welcome to Canaan. Ha, your materialist kind are so funny… you guys don't even know where you live… and you make it happen!
"Orks", go figure. Not the sharpest knives in the kitchen drawer, thats for sure
{The UN's universal declaration of human rights}, when applied, end in death or at least, tyranny. Thats because they are the Babylonian system
Check it out… only technology changes over time. But man still retains his essence no matter how much time may pass. Thus, the new, is the old. For there is "nothing new under the sun"
Awaken!
@xSilverPhinx
{then emotions of others don't really come into play}
Certainly they come in to play! In fact, why don't we let them in and play with them right now?
Actually, in taking your delicate, Orchidaceae emotions into considerable consideration, the comatosely compassionate world has decided to completely ignore the indisputably, factual, documented history of the 20th century
The century which has been recognized to be history's first true secular century as well as bloodier than all
others combined. The century of which its atrociousness was marked by the fanatically Darwinist, Materialist, Atheist Socialists (that means Nazis too)
This new, infant century is already marked by atrociously stupid. Since even after the last century was what it was, still, Marxism & materialist atheism are more popular than ever
Not to mention that we're expected to cater to all the atheist Queenie's delicate emotions. Its not enough that their 4 legged whales are the only "real" science
Dennett is a typical materialist. Namely, they will often assert something and refute it with the same breath
"If religion does help people lead moral lives"
He says that with the implication that religion is not necessary for people to be morally correct.
Therefore, to prove his case, he makes his next immaculately moral statement;
"then we're just going to eliminate it"
The sweet scent of morally superior "Authoritarian Superiority"
Dennett could view himself & determine he needs Jesus
The posted comments speak for themselves
I agree.
@Chuichupachichi He's not refuting himself. He's saying that if religion DOES help people lead moral lives, we should be cautious and preserve if RATHER than merely eliminating it. His position, however, is that religion DOES NOT actually help people lead moral lives, as evidenced by the large numbers of atheist philanthropists and tiny numbers of atheists in prison, so we can safely be rid of it.
Actually Darwin never used the phrase 'survival of the fittest', that was first used by Herbert Spencer who used the idea of natural selection to add seeming weight to his political opinions. Co-operation is often more effective in nature than competition, so the idea of calling an ideology like the Nazis 'Darwinist' is even more of a misnomer.
You don't know a lot (or frankly, anything much) about sociology, philosophy, psychology, or history if you think that the atrocities of the 20th century were caused by secularism.
"Religion is like moral Viagra – Daniel Dennett"
Nice try Dennett but WRONG. I would expect such a powerful mind to come up with more precise metaphors, I'm very surprised.
Let's correct it:
Religious extremism, fanatism, suprematism IS moral viagra.
Religion, is moral sexuality. It is natural and healthy.
I have owned you Dennett, pay me a drink.
"The sweet scent of morally superior "Authoritarian Superiority"
Which is funny because materialists and atheists always reproach this to theists and religious people, the "authoritarian moral superiority" 😉
The same way:
-people preaching tolerance are usually intolerant toward people disagreeing with them.
-people against racism are ok with blacks, latinos or asians being proud of their "race" but are against white pride 😉
-feminists reproaching male pride but preaching female pride 😉
Dennett has viewed himself & obviously determined that he does not need Jesus. Some people don't need to believe in a deity to be moral.
{You don't know a lot}
If I did, I might bid on it. Especially if it contained many desirable items with high resale value…such as, grammar instruction books that I can sell on Youtube. Or are you talking real estate? Parking?
Sociology – Wasn't it Sociologists that said rape was a naturalistic construct of evolution?
Philosophy – I know that's the field in which a dummy, such as Dennett, can hide while masquerading as a intellectual
Psychology – They're like Jesus…speaking illness into remission. However, Jesus actually knew the healing words
History – I know across the US there exist many universities with History professors on 6 figure incomes that teach the US founders were a bunch of Deists. Although they ostracized Thomas Paine for publishing his Deism. It's no wonder why America is in economic trouble…6 figured squandering
There exists a video showing Dennett's house…amazing what stupid will get you these days
Pitting one self, in direct opposition to one's own Creator & encouraging others to do the same, is as immoral as it gets
You should study & learn what the US founders knew…equality among men can exist only in light of the Creator's moral determinations. Otherwise, with all men being equal, all men's determinations are merely arbitrary & rightful law cannot be made
All law is morality legislated
''equality among men can exist only in light of the creator's moral determinations." So this is the creator that was fine with slavery, and by the way, you should study and learn what the US founders actually thought about slaves. Maybe these morals given by your creator are not actually good morals.
I meant your understand of reality, divided into different aspects (as represented by different disciplines of inquiry), is poor. I.e. Psychology – your understanding of human motivation and behaviour is poor if you think that secularism could account for 20th century atrocities. History – your knowledge of the events of the 20th century is poor if you think that secularism could account for 20th century atrocities. Sociology – your understanding of social structures is … etc.
It's amazing that someone can be so deluded as to think that paying 6 figure salaries to university professors, who profess that U.S. founders were deists (any examples, by the way?), is the cause of economic crisis in the U.S. (or even emblematic of the causes). Where is your criticism of the god fearing heroes of capitalism, such as Mitt Romney, who live as kings off the labour of others? Must be secularism. Not a parasitic political economy which benefits a tiny elite.
P.S. That wasn't a Republican vs. Democrat remark. Both parties stand for nothing but improving the conditions of big business at the expense of everything else.
A group with a history of being oppressed and subjugated taking 'pride' in its identity is of a different nature to a group with a history of being an oppressor and subjugator taking 'pride' in its identity. 'Pride' in being black in the U.S. is a protest against oppression. 'Pride' in being white in the U.S. is not. White people have never been subjugated because of their race. Saying 'our race is better than all other races' is a different matter. This applies to women and whoever else.
Yes.