11 ms·

I’ve seen far more contention, gossip, and backbiting behavior in secular groups, saying this as someone who didn’t go back to religion until only a few years a

I’ve seen far more contention, gossip, and backbiting behavior in secular groups, saying this as someone who didn’t go back to religion until only a few years ago. Let’s not pretend that being secular somehow makes you levitate or something. Check out the “new atheists” and their démise. The funny part is that everyone is talking about this sort of inherent internal moral guidance, which flies in the face of the modern scientific thought.

cwmoore 3y ago
What science contradicts internal moral guidance?
- ta8645 3y ago
  I'll bite. Many school curriculums teach that science proves that gender isn't a binary and is divorced from sex, and they often implicitly (and sometimes explicitly) also go further to say that it is hateful to believe otherwise. So anyone who has an internal moral voice that speaks to this issue, may be contradicted by science.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - cwmoore 3y ago
    Individuals beliefs are often contradicted by science. Citations for the point you replied to would be welcome.
    - ta8645 3y ago
      > What science contradicts internal moral guidance? > Individuals beliefs are often contradicted by science. Not sure why you asked the first question, given your belief in the second.
      - cwmoore 3y ago
        Sorry, I thought in the context it was obvious that I meant the existence of internal moral guidance.
  - throwaway626 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - ta8645 3y ago
      Humans are bipedal. It's not perfectly true, but that doesn't invalidate the natural and normal case.
      - throwaway626 3y ago
        [flagged]
      - wredue 3y ago
        These days we understand that “normal” extends far beyond male and female, and that these norms are not exclusive to humans. As an example, gay people are perfectly normal and natural.
        ta8645 3y ago
        > These days we understand that “normal” extends far beyond male and female. No. It is normal to have a penis or a vagina. So, humans are either male or female. This can be stated as truth, just as a scientist would claim that humans are bipedal, even while acknowledging exceptions do exist.
        defrost 3y ago
        > It is normal to have a penis or a vagina. So, humans are either male or female. False logic - you might want to work on your syllogisms there. By normal you mean common place. It's normal for crust material to not be gold. Statistically it's more likely for a human to be neither male nor female than it is for crustal matter to be gold. We do not, however, conclude that the crust does not contain gold. Indeed we value the rare.
        ta8645 3y ago
  - pstuart 3y ago
    Well, the science does lean that way, and there is a shit-ton of hate for trans folk -- so trying to nip it in the bud is a good thing. And those morals might not be entirely internal if they're regularly preached to.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - crote 3y ago
    Could you clarify what exactly your internal moral voice objects to? The school curriculums basically boil down to "Most people are either men or women. Some people aren't, and that's okay - you should still treat them like anyone else." Does your internal moral voice object to any part of that, or is it something else I am missing here? Do you also disagree with schools teaching kids in a similar fashion about the existence of left-handed people, redheaded people, or handicapped people?
    - ta8645 3y ago
      > Could you clarify what exactly your internal moral voice objects to? I'm arguing the point, not my own conviction. The inner moral voice I was defending was someone who believes that it's important to acknowledge and respect the differing roles of the sexes. And object to the scientific insistence that we should concentrate as much on the exceptions as on the normal case. And I don't think you've accurately depicted the typical stance of schools today, where sex is not based on biology, but instead on social construction. If you need any proof of that, look through this thread and see how many people object to the idea that the physical characteristic of say a penis, and its insemination role in reproduction, is a defining characteristic of a male of the species. People aren't even pretending to make a distinction between gender and sex, they literally have a problem with defining human sexual roles via genitalia.
    - implements 3y ago
      > "Most people are either men or women. Some people aren't, and that's okay - you should still treat them like anyone else." Is that what they're just teaching, or are they saying that a) human nature is fundamentally gendered, and b) men and women are gender rather than sex classes - that how you look, think and feel relative to socially constructed and recognised gender stereotypes determines what sex you actually are, and that early medical intervention may be necessary to put your mind in the correct type of body? I agree that society shouldn't police gender non-conformity (perhaps what many home-schoolers would actually like society to do) but as a 'people are a collection of unique individuals, differentiated by sex for the narrow purposes of biological reproduction' kind of person I also object to the 'viewing society through the prism of innate gender' position - which some schools seem to be teaching as scientifically correct when it's actually much more like a ideological and / or metaphysical belief.
  - smsm42 3y ago
    That's not science, that's scientism, which replaces traditional religion for many, and usually not with better results.
  - mnky9800n 3y ago
    I think you are being a bit hyperbolic. I think it's quite reasonable to say that a way a person perceives themselves is complex and poorly described by categories. This is separate from describing the physical attributes a person possesses. It's rather unreasonable to state anything other than this because there's very little evidence towards the claimed lack of complexity of the human experience. So any moral argument ends up coming across as rather anti intellectual.
jurynulifcation 3y ago
"which flies in the face of the modern scientific thought" citations. please. show me the researchers who claim to have empirical knowledge of human morality.
- cwmoore 3y ago
  I would have rather had that discussion than the one that appeared instead. For one, Steven Pinker addresses topics relevant to your post and mine in: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Better_Angels_of_Our_Nature https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Better_Angels_of_Our_Natur...

cwmoore 3y ago

What science contradicts internal moral guidance?

ta8645 3y ago
I'll bite. Many school curriculums teach that science proves that gender isn't a binary and is divorced from sex, and they often implicitly (and sometimes explicitly) also go further to say that it is hateful to believe otherwise. So anyone who has an internal moral voice that speaks to this issue, may be contradicted by science.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- cwmoore 3y ago
  Individuals beliefs are often contradicted by science. Citations for the point you replied to would be welcome.
  - ta8645 3y ago
    > What science contradicts internal moral guidance? > Individuals beliefs are often contradicted by science. Not sure why you asked the first question, given your belief in the second.
    - cwmoore 3y ago
      Sorry, I thought in the context it was obvious that I meant the existence of internal moral guidance.
- throwaway626 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - ta8645 3y ago
    Humans are bipedal. It's not perfectly true, but that doesn't invalidate the natural and normal case.
    - throwaway626 3y ago
      [flagged]
    - wredue 3y ago
      These days we understand that “normal” extends far beyond male and female, and that these norms are not exclusive to humans. As an example, gay people are perfectly normal and natural.
      - ta8645 3y ago
        > These days we understand that “normal” extends far beyond male and female. No. It is normal to have a penis or a vagina. So, humans are either male or female. This can be stated as truth, just as a scientist would claim that humans are bipedal, even while acknowledging exceptions do exist.
        defrost 3y ago
        > It is normal to have a penis or a vagina. So, humans are either male or female. False logic - you might want to work on your syllogisms there. By normal you mean common place. It's normal for crust material to not be gold. Statistically it's more likely for a human to be neither male nor female than it is for crustal matter to be gold. We do not, however, conclude that the crust does not contain gold. Indeed we value the rare.
        ta8645 3y ago
- pstuart 3y ago
  Well, the science does lean that way, and there is a shit-ton of hate for trans folk -- so trying to nip it in the bud is a good thing. And those morals might not be entirely internal if they're regularly preached to.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- crote 3y ago
  Could you clarify what exactly your internal moral voice objects to? The school curriculums basically boil down to "Most people are either men or women. Some people aren't, and that's okay - you should still treat them like anyone else." Does your internal moral voice object to any part of that, or is it something else I am missing here? Do you also disagree with schools teaching kids in a similar fashion about the existence of left-handed people, redheaded people, or handicapped people?
  - ta8645 3y ago
    > Could you clarify what exactly your internal moral voice objects to? I'm arguing the point, not my own conviction. The inner moral voice I was defending was someone who believes that it's important to acknowledge and respect the differing roles of the sexes. And object to the scientific insistence that we should concentrate as much on the exceptions as on the normal case. And I don't think you've accurately depicted the typical stance of schools today, where sex is not based on biology, but instead on social construction. If you need any proof of that, look through this thread and see how many people object to the idea that the physical characteristic of say a penis, and its insemination role in reproduction, is a defining characteristic of a male of the species. People aren't even pretending to make a distinction between gender and sex, they literally have a problem with defining human sexual roles via genitalia.
  - implements 3y ago
    > "Most people are either men or women. Some people aren't, and that's okay - you should still treat them like anyone else." Is that what they're just teaching, or are they saying that a) human nature is fundamentally gendered, and b) men and women are gender rather than sex classes - that how you look, think and feel relative to socially constructed and recognised gender stereotypes determines what sex you actually are, and that early medical intervention may be necessary to put your mind in the correct type of body? I agree that society shouldn't police gender non-conformity (perhaps what many home-schoolers would actually like society to do) but as a 'people are a collection of unique individuals, differentiated by sex for the narrow purposes of biological reproduction' kind of person I also object to the 'viewing society through the prism of innate gender' position - which some schools seem to be teaching as scientifically correct when it's actually much more like a ideological and / or metaphysical belief.
- smsm42 3y ago
  That's not science, that's scientism, which replaces traditional religion for many, and usually not with better results.
- mnky9800n 3y ago
  I think you are being a bit hyperbolic. I think it's quite reasonable to say that a way a person perceives themselves is complex and poorly described by categories. This is separate from describing the physical attributes a person possesses. It's rather unreasonable to state anything other than this because there's very little evidence towards the claimed lack of complexity of the human experience. So any moral argument ends up coming across as rather anti intellectual.

jurynulifcation 3y ago

"which flies in the face of the modern scientific thought" citations. please. show me the researchers who claim to have empirical knowledge of human morality.

cwmoore 3y ago
I would have rather had that discussion than the one that appeared instead. For one, Steven Pinker addresses topics relevant to your post and mine in: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Better_Angels_of_Our_Nature https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Better_Angels_of_Our_Natur...