|
On September 19 2010 23:11 NightRapier wrote:
Feel free to correct me of course, but I think the widespread view that religion is the father of morality is on some level rooted in reality.
A lot of the behavior that we would consider to be a sign of our morality is also displayed by other life forms. This indicates that what we consider morality actually predates religion by quite a large margin.
|
@ nadir: I would argue that the commandments have a great deal to do with morality (adultery, thievery, murder, lying etc) and set quite a good basis for morality. However, it is the product of a bygone time and a very different culture, so as Carlin so amusingly stated in his own special way, many of the commandments are no longer relevant.
On September 19 2010 23:31 WilbertK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2010 23:11 NightRapier wrote:
Feel free to correct me of course, but I think the widespread view that religion is the father of morality is on some level rooted in reality. A lot of the behavior that we would consider to be a sign of our morality is also displayed by other life forms. This indicates that what we consider morality actually predates religion by quite a large margin.
While it is reasonable to suggest that humans are naturally 'moral' beings, as great efforts have been made throughout history to improve our morality as a species, religion still seems to be one of the first instances where such morality was set in stone, so to speak.Of course, myself being a very strong atheist, I would welcome an example that proves otherwise.
|
I'm not contending that religion is an early record of man's morality. I'm contending it's the source of it. Or, more precise, I'm pointing out that there's no evidence for that statement.
|
On September 19 2010 23:11 NightRapier wrote:
While I am not a student of such things, it seems to me that the idea that religion=morality comes from way back in the day when religion really was the only fixed moral code in many great civilisations, simply because we hadn't reached the same point of intellectual evolution and concepts such as human rights had not appeared yet.
Feel free to correct me of course, but I think the widespread view that religion is the father of morality is on some level rooted in reality. It is of course no longer the case in the modern age that there cannot be morality without faith so nothing of what I have said is entirely relevant, but it is still interesting.
Religion has always dealt with what people should or shouldn't do. That doesn't mean that morality in any way originated from religion. It should be mentioned that many good people (past and present) refer to scripture when they argue for universal rights (I think an example could be M L King), but I don't think that this fact has much to do with religious people bashing others who don't buy their crap. It seems like an inability to cast aside the myths they feed themselves. The myths being that they are good because of their subordination to an imaginary father figure. Christians especially have an amazing lack of faith in the inate humanity of humans. It's supposed to be God that bring out our redeeming characteristics, nothing else. Good (obediance) vs Evil (freedom). It's an outdated starting point for the exploration of morality. This is something which even the adherents of certain more advanced branches of christianity will acknowledge.
I'm sorry if I wandered from the point you were making. I just don't think that it's all that relevant. I mean religion and culture used to be so joined at the hip, that you can argue that all the good things of the cultres were the result of religion... I don't see any reason to make such assumptions. It's also worth exploring the exact meaning of of the word "morality", because it's often confused with related concepts. This is no doubt another reason why it's so easy for religious zealots to persuade themselves that "morality" is a religious thing.
|
You make good points and I completely agree. However, one point I would still like to make is that religion made a point of writing down a moral code of sorts, which also has the effect of being the creation of laws of a sort. That the religion of Moses would use their version of morality as a basis for law seems to me to be evidence that religion has been a good source of a moral guide in the past.
I also agree that the meaning of the world morality could use some clearing up. My definition of morality which I am making up as I am typing is 'an internal code that regulates our behaviour by considering the effects of our behaviour on others'. I don't know if this is actually the case, if you asked me to tell the difference between morals and ethics I would be stuck.
|
Notice that the pope refers to "atheist extremism" since it seems that every atheist in this thread feels beeing attacked.
I guess there is no doubt that atheists without or very low moral values can exist.
|
Ahaha, I just wrote an essay arguing that secularism is the best way to run a nation. I used O'Donnell as one example of a crazy anti-secularist. Looks like the Pope might be another good example.
|
On September 19 2010 23:52 NightRapier wrote:
You make good points and I completely agree. However, one point I would still like to make is that religion made a point of writing down a moral code of sorts, which also has the effect of being the creation of laws of a sort. That the religion of Moses would use their version of morality as a basis for law seems to me to be evidence that religion has been a good source of a moral guide in the past.
I also agree that the meaning of the world morality could use some clearing up. My definition of morality which I am making up as I am typing is 'an internal code that regulates our behaviour by considering the effects of our behaviour on others'. I don't know if this is actually the case, if you asked me to tell the difference between morals and ethics I would be stuck.
You know, the disagreement I have with your assertion is that jews didn't write down what I would consider morality. I think something like the ten commandements is in part an expression of morality (nrs (5),6,7,8 and 9 only). It's not 'generalized' morality itself. For instance,it doesn't say : don't do to others what you would not want to have done to yourself. I don't know, it seems to me like a substitute for moral thought. I believe that morality requires empathy, honesty and critical thought. All this stuff is absent in the commandments. The fact that these jews lived in a time in which humans could write doesn't make their rules particularly elevated. Writing didn't develop because of the belief in gods as far as I know. Religion is many things and I certainly agree that it is very good at passing on "knowledge" and values. The culture of our ancestors is undoubtedly the foundation of the present. Luckily for us we get to pick which aspects we choose to preserve, and which we cast aside. There's a lot of "evil" about religious morals that we've been able to get rid of in the West. Thank God.
|
okay, for the record. everytime these discussions pop up, i feel the urge to intervene. Let me say this first and foremost and with extreme conviction; Atheism is stupid and atheist people are stupid. Period. It's as simple as that.
I reject all forms of organized religions, and i obviously admit that religions have historically been an obstacle to our advancement of knowledge. The problem here is that some unstable people will use the failure of religion to declare with absolute certainty that God does NOT exist. Excuse me? The smartest people in the world have always had the same goal; to discover God's well structured laws. Religious failures and the nonexistence of God do not equate. Some idiots will observe the failures of the bunch of morons at the top of their respective clergies, and will find refuge in Atheism.
These fun-loving individuals will observe Christians, Muslims and Jews misbehave and will conclude with absolute certainty that God does NOT exist based on the moronic behavior of a few carefully selected individuals. They happily jump on the "hi!, God does not exist" bandwagon, and reject the existence of a creator from their empirical observation of a bunch of morons living on Earth. How can you imagine the creation of the Universe and it's prefect harmonious structure if no creator is involved? it just happened? sure.
Einstein always thought that the Universe and it's rules are so well organized that the nonexistence of God is unimaginable. He said; "God does not play dice. We just have to find the rules"
Deism is where it's at;
"Deism (pronounced /ˈdiːɪzəm/, us dict: dē′·ĭzm)[1][2] is a religious and philosophical belief that a supreme being created the universe, and that this (and religious truth in general) can be determined using reason and observation of the natural world alone, without the need for either faith or organized religion. Many Deists reject the notion that God intervenes in human affairs, for example through miracles and revelations. These views contrast with the dependence on revelations, miracles, and faith found in many Jewish, Christian, Islamic and other theistic teachings."
Atheists are almost as stupid as religious people.
|
I suppose I could be more accurately described as an agnostic, since the non-existence of god cannot be definitively proven or disproven. When it comes down to why I, and so many others are not theists, it is very simple: in this modern age, we have science and reason to explain the mysteries of the universe. And the existence of a supreme being, one of many theories and one originally created to explain in older times what we can now explain with science, is looking less and less likely. That isn't to say it is impossible, but what is important is that we distinguish between a 'supreme being' and the deities of our great monotheistic religions, because the latter are almost certainly non-existent.
But when it comes down to it:
okay, for the record. everytime these discussions pop up, i feel the urge to intervene. Let me say this first and foremost and with extreme conviction; Atheism is stupid and atheist people are stupid. Period. It's as simple as that.
You lost me, and everyone else, there.
|
yeah, everytime i argue with an atheist i pretty much always succeed to convert him at least to agnosticism, which is still wrong, but closer to reality than die-hard atheism.
|
On September 19 2010 16:46 blitzkrieger wrote:They do teach safe sex and those other things. Abstinence until marriage is safe sex and its free.
They also teach that married couples should try to have as many kids as possible, a lot of impoverished families in the 3rd world take this very seriously resulting in many families trying to support a lot of kids on a very low income.
|
lol @ Intrudor's 'everybody's a moron except for me' rant. A+. Have read again. Keep posting!
|
true lol. @ me.....
except i do have a point lol.
|
On September 20 2010 00:59 intrudor wrote:
yeah, everytime i argue with an atheist i pretty much always succeed to convert him at least to agnosticism, which is still wrong, but closer to reality than die-hard atheism.
Personally, I find it amusing you claim atheists are wrong for believing god does not exist and theists are wrong for believing god does exist, yet you see no problem with yourself claiming that you are unequivocally correct. If substituting passion for reasonable argument is the definition of an illogical thinker, then that is exactly what you are.
More importantly, you're a really bad poster, and should probably fix that.
|
On September 20 2010 01:01 WilbertK wrote:
lol @ Intrudor's 'everybody's a moron except for me' rant. A+. Have read again. Keep posting!
I don't think he realises that atheism is either the lack of belief in any deity or the belief that no deity exists. It isn't a claim to knowledge concerning the existence of any deity.
Einstein always thought that the Universe and it's rules are so well organized that the nonexistence of God is unimaginable. He said; "God does not play dice. We just have to find the rules"
People shouldn't be so obsessed with a quote which characterises why Einstein didn't accept QM, especially when he turned out to be wrong.
|
The only thing interesting about the pope is his hat
|
On September 20 2010 00:59 intrudor wrote:
yeah, everytime i argue with an atheist i pretty much always succeed to convert him at least to agnosticism, which is still wrong, but closer to reality than die-hard atheism.
Agnosticism and atheism aren't mutually exclusive. Agnosticism refers to the question whether or not the ultimate truth of our existence can be known. Atheism is a position which rejects all the current claims about gods. It doesn't say they're wrong, it says they haven't met their burden of proof.
Have fun trying to convert those atheists!
|
The pope hasn't been a relevant figure since the 1980's.
As far as I know only 60 year old grannies listen to what the Pope has to say.
|
On September 20 2010 01:02 intrudor wrote:
true lol. @ me.....
except i do have a point lol.
Sorry, I must have missed that. Did you write it down?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
