Moral Values Debate

[K e r b e r o s]

Kerberos, I don't think you exactly got my point on the

Well, from the way it was conveyed the point of it was, primitive man based upon instinct could **** and kill me for all they care.

However, the problem as I posed it, is how would I go about convincing them of the things you said would make them change their behavioral habits when they dont understand my language?

Also, since there pretty instinctive individual's, as we all are, they might just shoot me a wierd look and get back to screwing women and killing there children.

I referenced I would be better at pointing to something for a conveyence, however, that would'nt be very good either.

Thing is the reason judges can convict some criminal is because the constitusion or something like that lends them the right, it says in the constitution what rights people have and what they have to obey I think, or it may be some law book, I hope you get what I mean. Anyway same thing in my example.

However, for the context of your original arguement, I dont see anything that would promote a change, unless they understood my language to begin with.

I dont think Onga Tunga, a caveman who just got done shooting Protein Rockets into the Girl he knocked-out and screwed en'route to his cave home, would understand:

"Bible. God. Change your ways, or burn in hell."

For something like this, as you said "Constitution", that would'nt hold any bar for something as instinctive and primitive as to our own lost bloodlines. The Bible, and the Constitution are intellectual properties -- it takes someone of significant understanding to acknowledge what they say, and it takes someone of some extreme determination, to not get bored whilst reading it.

lets say in the year 1000 there was no religion, all the people could make up themselfes what is right and what is wrong, and could commit atrocities and you would have no right ot convict them cause who teh **** are you to say what is wrong and what is right, why should they listen to you.

Umm, first, the year 1,000 is kinda ... umm ... happening or happened, yo.

However, for this example, yes lets say there was no Religion. All the people could decide for themselves what was right and wrong for there own personal contexts.

That in itself, speaks of no law. Wether or not Religion and Law go hand in hand, both speak of law and what not to do. From the society you portray, it seems nethire exists. Should'nt at least one exist to control their own inhumane natures?

Then you say they would commit attrocities. I agree, they would, without even as much as one law. However, they would'nt understand the grounds of attrocities because for what they're commiting, would be to there own personal benefit. And see, as you portray it, Religion leaving the world would cause it.

Oh, I agree. Whilst Religion[ers] can be dumb, Religions in themselves, try to call a peace to mans instinctive will to ... kill someone else.

However, what say could I have in them doing that? Oh, I have a right to say what I want -- its wrong for those people in the future. However, if its an inevitable future where Religion does'nt exist, and the mindless human society sits upon the brink of instinction, its still going to happen wether or not we change for it. Infact, probably bracing for its effects, might be the cause for its happening.

Although, I would still try to institute law in that very dustful future.

Now lets say in another dimension there is religion, now bare in mind in 1000 we werent as culturized( don't know if this word actually exists, but I have no other way to say this) as we are now, so we didn't have relativly independent courts, and so. So now people believe in god, and the morals of that religion, now someone saying that rape is wrong, he has all the right to say it is, cause the religion in which everybody believes says it is, so his a basis from which he can clame he is right.Religion served the purpose of bringing us together, bringing stability, and the same thing as the constitution and the law, saying what is wrong and what is right, and the search to get closer to god did help science as far as I know.

That point I see. Religion did bring stability. However, for that lawless society you see, that has no Religion, could be our future were we kill each other just because we can.

If we loose Religions, or Laws, we loose the very context to our own human restraint. You and I, would probably die within the first weeks to mans desperation to survive.

but common your smart, you understood that, why did you choose to mock me, I don't mock religius people, the yjust scare the pance off of me.

I dont recall mocking you -- however, if your on about my analysisticness to your post of a primitive man and its understand of what I was telling them, you could see those corrections [and I apologize] at the top of my post here.

And though religion and communism are not the same, I think they do share some striking simmilarities and that is the reason I compare them to further the debate and to make my believes more clear.

Perhaps. However, it does'nt make sense as Communism classifies as a Politik, whereas Religion, could classify as anything being religious, or religiously believed.

If Communism is being religiously believed, its still not a Religion, because Communism only has a law -- not a God.

It certainly isn't just Bush shovelling, but when he shovels, which he's doing now, bad things happen; Iraq, gay marriage ban, reducing money spent on; education, job training, war veterans etc etc.

Iraq may have been Bush's issue, but Human Rights made it hard to properly defeat the insurgency.

It it were me, no, no ... no. I dont like to think about that.

The Gay Marriage Ban, as I recall, failed in both Congress, and the Supreme Court. Its failed, becaue it oppresses human rights. Thanks to some of those Liberals I voted into courting systems, I dont see this process happening anytime soon, and without a fight.

However, for states saying Gay Marriage was not allowed, you have to realize that our states are still like mini-countries. If states want to choose whats right or wrong for themselves, its still defined a states right, that they can do so.

If you want to reform that process for the American Establishment, become a citizen, and help out.

The reason I blame the religious right is because I believe what they're doing is severely harming the society both economically and more important morally.

Morally? Thats a little far-fetched to incorperate the Religious Right as being not moral. Im technically defined as the Religious Right, however im not planning on oppressing you, or anyone else.

However, if your going to label, you helped to create this Religious Right. Other's had helped the Religious Right, form its backgrounds based upon retalliation. Some of these people, were the Religious Left, but have since wanned over to being conservative.

The reason? Because all of the lefters screamed at these people, saying, "God is evil, I hate you, you hate gays, I hate you, I know what your thinking, because I just do, I hate you guys, toodle'le'boo!"

Most of these "OMG I HATE GOD" people told them [Left, Liberal thinking Religious people] to basically **** off from being Liberal, or believing in a Liberal stance, because they were uncomfortable with Left-Thinking people talking about God. Religious people in the left, were also discerned.

I've not seen one Liberal treasure a Liberal stance coming out of a religious person. So, until Liberal's treasure everyone's opinion, even those amungst them that happen to be believers, the Religious Right will continue to bloom with so-called memberships.

It's amazing how they can let Bush off all the crap he's done/ is doing... all the hatred the strong christian influence in politics is causing by just saying "God is in control so all the bad is for a reason, vote Bush cuz he's got God on his side"

The Strong Christian Influence is just the man he is -- if someone was in public, and said they liked God, would you get in a fight with them just because they professed, what they like?

However, for the latter comment, thats a little misrepresented. Bush did'nt say that for hisself -- someone said that about Bush. If people honestly believe that, so be it them -- its just going to be used as political spin.

It's not effective, people already know what is right and what is wrong. Many people have used the bible to teach that you can't do this and you can't do that; but with out the bible these people would learn the exact same thing as I pointed out in the example with countries that don't have the bible in their government.

It's not effective, people already know what is right and what is wrong.

This is debate-able.

However ...

Which countries would these be?

Yes, I am. But like I said, I don't need government officials preaching my religion to the masses. I talk about my religion with friends, family, and in church, I don't need to talk about it in politics.

I dont need for it to happen either. However, thats just because im reserved.

But there won't be silence, people have every right to discuss religion as they do now.

Do they? Some people in the workplace, are celebrating Christmas, however under the knowledge that people are openly protesting the use or celebration of Christmas, in a work or school place.

I came from a Liberal town known as Broomfield. It happened to be in a conservative denominated state, Colorado.

In Broomfield, we did'nt just celebrate Christmas. People, when they celebrated their Religions, were celebrated with by almost anyone.

How is it now, a man can be told he's not allowed a Christmas? Because it offends someone else's beliefs? Im sorry, I like my poe-dunk jolly fatman giving me free shit -- take away my Christmas, hell no!

If you want to celebrate what you believe, then Celebrate it! Christmas is'int just about Christ, is synanonmous, about world-wide cheer about either the birth of their stances, or about the birth of a good whiskey to their dinner table.

However, if you dont have the luxury of celebration, let those that can celebrate alone, and allow them their right to be happy or take a days work off.

Again, you do not need religion to know what is right and what is wrong! In civilizations long before the bible (1,000s of years before) most places still had a law system in place and people were fully aware of what is right and what is wrong. That argument is simply foolish.

Your right. This arguement would be foolish. You want to know how systems of law were explained in Egypt? With Gods.

However, since Religion happens to be the backbone of most significant law-based developements in a primitive civilization, its inherently flawed to use it for your own arguement, that our civilizations never needed it.

We never ran a test.

The idea that a religion is required to uphold an individual, or society, sounds like crap to me. It had it's benefits, but now it seems as society advances, and we have more and more ways of controlling the masses, religion is not needed.

However, if you dont need Religion, thats you. If someone else does, thats them.

If were going to socially advance where 'Religion', becomes the 'Gay' of the 1950's, its going to have an enormous discourse.

I'm an atheist, and find it quite offensive when people suggest this means I have no morals. Because, if religion is needed to give a person morals... I shouldn't have any

I find it quite offensive when people wish to generalize over my belief system, after I, having even represented it, have done no wrong to anyone with my beliefs.

Actually, I just hate generalizations altogether.

I find it interesting as well, and this is entirely a subjective opinion of myself, that I'm extremely skeptical about the media - the other big moral decider.

Either get used it, or call for reform. But your in the UK -- you cant call for a US Reform without actually being a citizen. Hurry Up, Burner! Forget your allegiance to the Queen, and ... well ... come with us. Help us dood.

The bottom line is, naturally, I believe, the majority of people will be 'moral' upstanding citizens. We live in a democracy, and so what the majority think, goes.

I agree -- however, I will continue to be religious. I will put faith into this arguement. ^^

No, no, no, guys you misunderstood, I know that you don't need religion to now what is right and what is wrong, but most of the time that respect for the rules is based upon fear or respect.

Fear or Respect -- I dont like controlling a man through fear, but I will demand respect. If he fears my call, thats to his own end.

Religion can be easily corrupted and manipulated.

Religion is as corruptable as the man who professes he is behind it, or against it. A Good mans best defense against corruptability, is to have a complicated belief -- one that involves an undying faith and will.

Wether Religious or not, men fall corrupt because they refuse to believe anything, or believe in themselves for that matter.

But it's not the States responsiblity to raise children, and children are the heart of our society.

That they are.

It's parents responsiblity to raise their child. That's the problem today. Parents arent doing their damn job.

This is true. Absolutely true. ^^

Why isn't Bush campaigning against all of those other things? Because he is a politician and he knows its a battle he cannot win.

HOLY SHIT! WE HAVE A WINNER!

 

[No Limit]

Kerberos, your entire argument is based on a claim that I said is not true; that you need religion to know what is right or wrong. Sure, cavemen were violent because they did not have a real civilization in place. However, once civilizations started to form people got a sense of what is right and what is wrong long before religion because they knew civilization would punish them. Tell me, does an atheist go on a killing rampage because he doesn't think anything will happen to him once he dies?

 

[Mechagodzilla]

I'm not religious at all. I actually find the basic concept of religion to be inherently flawed.

So, how come I'm not murdering babies with my stolen car while simutaneously injecting heroin directly into my heart and having kinky gay sex?

Could it be that religion doesn't determine 'morality'?

Seriously, if religion is the only thing keeping you from commiting crimes against humanity, then I'd warrant you might require some help.

It looks to me like a case of misdirected praise. The bible says don't kill, and very few people enjoy killing, therefore the bible has saved us from ourselves halelujah!

Of course, I could write a book that says "don't roll in puddles of bacon fat" and absolutely no-one does that. Looks like my religion has saved humanity from itself too. And more effectively than christianity, I might add!


Let's look at the 'religion determines morality and not the other way around' argment from a logical standing:

-Humans are inherently immoral, compared to God.
-God is the infallible source of the only true morality, and sent the Bible down to teach morals to christians via religion.
-Therefore, christian religion is the only source of morality on Earth.
::however::
-Other religions describe morality similar and in many cases identical to the Bible's. Also, athiests. Many of these religions, and especially atheists, were here first.
-Despite God's omnipotence and infallibility, he created us as immoral in the first place, in an obvious mistake. He did attempt to correct it, after all. Repeatedly.
-Also despite God's infallibility, his solution to that mistake has had limited success on the world scale, even among christians.
-Again in spite, the Bible contains many vague passages and contradictions. (Thou shalt not kill + a whole lotta killing, God being infallible + God making tremendous mistakes)
Arguably, it is poorly written.
-The consequences of not following God's code of morals, as portrayed in the Bible, are largely god-created punishments that are arguably more immoral than most crimes. (eternal torture, genocide, apocalypse, etc.)
-Many things in the Bible that were not considered immoral are now considered immoral, despite no religious precedent. (Slavery)

So God, cannot logically exist as he is described in the Bible. And, since the Bible is the only existing description of God's superior moral center, religion provides no reference point with which to determine human morality.
Since the greatest alternative to religion is society, and societies are a natural human construct, morality must be a natural development.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

Kerberos, your entire argument is based on a claim that I said is not true;

I dont get it -- elaborate your point to me.

that you need religion to know what is right or wrong.

We only know what we're taught -- and for that, we're mostly taught by our Parental Guidences. (No TVG Jokes here.)

I'm sure your House-held lessons were very different from mine. However, thats not to say somewhere in your families ancestery, a person or two had believed. In addition, thats not to say they helped to contribute some of the families rules, traditions, or memories, based upon what they lossed or gained from Religion.

While even simple, just one or two people, can make all the difference in a families history. I'm argueing, that you should be thankful in some context, Religion has helped to develop some foreground to your families identity and house-held rules.

Now, morales dont always have to take a Religious shape. However, I'll also affirm that some morales if not most, took at some point Religious legging. Right now, your at a time in your life where you can discern what is right and wrong; based upon the teachings of your family. However, you were speaking from a context, that you knew at the age of being 3 months old, that you should not commit murder.


As an example however, I dont think you knew much about rules and murder at 3 months of age, or knew it all, at the age of 3 years.

That cant be proven to me if you had known -- so I'll not believe if its said. At the age of two, you really could've cared less about things as scarey as death. However, you now know not to kill, and that its not right. Congradulate yourself on being fortunate those rules and lessons where passed to you, wether from your family or Catholic directorate.

that you need religion to know what is right or wrong.

Since your a Catholic, im assuming you believe not because you need help on a approach to morality, but because you have other fundementals in question.

I was not accusing you of lacking morales (if the context was read incorrectly, it would seem im accusing aethists of lacking morality), however your response speaks as though there existed a personal offence. I'm beginning to wonder, why?

You've posed this declaritive before: You dont need Religion to know Morales.

However, im asking from where did you learn most of your life lessons, and your parents aswell?

cavemen were violent because they did not have a real civilization in place.

I was addressing GreyFox's original post. Here, I'll cite it:

( imagine things like guys killing children of a woman so they can mate with here, just like it happens in the animal kingdom, simply because they had no culture no god to fear, just instincts) now imagine saying to them , hey stop that, why should they. Thye would probably kill you. Now if you menage to convince them that there is a god, and that they will go to hell if they do that, they would probably listen to you.

Its on the first page, a few responses down after my first. Im sorry, but you've mistaken me for beginning this half of the debate.

However, once civilizations started to form people got a sense of what is right and what is wrong long before religion because they knew civilization would punish them.

You talk of Religion in a sense that most associates towards a Christian option. You forget, the most notable ancient societies, used Religions involved with many a God. Some, decided it was nessecary to incorperate there Religions with their laws, and in the end, they were still successful.

Its amazing to see such a civilization as Ancient Egypt, to lay claims there own God's put down there culture and laws. Its also amazing to see you post, noone needed such a venture.

[Which they did -- without God's, where would the Pyramids be? Where would Egypts mysticism and still debated empire be?]

Religion bonded them, and helped to form the core network of there diverse culture.

The ancient Egyptians, used Gods to explain there existence and purpose along the nile. For example, the Persians used there own Gods', to explain a code to life; involving peace and prosperity. The American-Indians, used there many Gods', to explain the thanks and giving that animals and plants existed to provide them life.

From within these Religions, laws were closely associated to. Even the mongol's, had Gods aswell. Norse tribes, during 768 AD, had there Gods aswell. Each one, was explained in the context of well-living, punishment, and law.

As it seems, the worlds greatest Civilizations, along with there intellectuality, strided on the lengths there own personalized Religions gave. Those that did not have them, were equally succesfull if however minor in both number and influence.

However, even the Visigoths had there opinions on life, aswell as Pagan Goths, or Celtic Visorgothic Establishments. Throughout life, people have had options and opinions. However, morality, is'int so much as a lesson, as its a day to day restrainment on our urges.

I think there needs to be this recognized -- most Children during those ancient ages, were taught morality from the system of Religion. These children, did'nt know any better -- and there parents were probably raised with Religion, associating law and order, with a God like Osiris or Amon-Ra.

Societies have been built on such diverse Religions and Grand Concepts, and those Children or Adults who followed it -- and no matter what it was, still flourished.

Inherently, your arguements flawed because apparently, our ancient and most grand civilizations required Religion or at least a belief, to explain either law, life, or purpose. For the most part, today, we dont require Religion as much -- assuming Parents do there job and teach kids well.

Where in the information age -- most of us, are lucky with what all the options exist for us today. We dont live in an age where if our fathers dislike our presence enough, he can kill us and give our corpse to town majistrate for burial.

Tell me, does an atheist go on a killing rampage because he doesn't think anything will happen to him once he dies?

Some do. Just like some Christian's.

I'm not religious at all. I actually find the basic concept of religion to be inherently flawed.

Describe what flaws it -- I've always looked forward to your opinions.

So, how come I'm not murdering babies with my stolen car while simutaneously injecting heroin directly into my heart and having kinky gay sex?

Could it also be you were raised better than that?

See, its not on the point people need Religion to understand morales -- its the point its been a significant principle to the developing "of". You cant disacknowledge this, as most of our civilizations had a "belief" or "religion". Its what cultured their diversity and respect for each other, in there own system.

Now look at us today -- besides some loathsome problems around the world, most of the Earth is booming with diversity and human rights. I'm of the belief, in both a rude and good context, Religion has helped us to this point.

Its wrong to disacknowledge aethism and religion as having purpose for us all being here -- because if there was another choice, is it still debateable we would be here, let alone, as we are now?

Could it be that religion doesn't determine 'morality'?

It could -- but our ancestors needed something to believe. So they chose, and now we are here. You've learned due to what your taught. Also, on the benefit of personal lessons.

Me or you, did'nt have knowledge of those concepts until taught. Humans both however, naturally wan to what is right and wrong, and whats to believe and not to believe.

So its inherently right for both arguements, that Religion can teach morality, yet you can learn it elsewhere. It just shows that morality is a human principle.

Seriously, if religion is the only thing keeping you from commiting crimes against humanity, then I'd warrant you might require some help.

Religion has a lot to do with the choices I make -- there are times I could be beligerant and cuss someone out; however, I decide that because of my Religion, I'll not do that.

However, to argue for me and profess that without Religion, I would kill someone, is a little far-fetched. As I've pointed out, Morality can be found elsewhere yes -- but it also was helpfully founded in our ancient civilizations.

Besides, I have no reason to kill anyone. Is'int that, reason enough not to kill?

It looks to me like a case of misdirected praise. The bible says don't kill, and very few people enjoy killing, therefore the bible has saved us from ourselves halelujah!

Misdirected praise? To whom should I praise then?

For your sarcasm I have no comment -- namely, because im not guilty of it. As you can read. ^^

Of course, I could write a book that says "don't roll in puddles of bacon fat" and absolutely no-one does that. Looks like my religion has saved humanity from itself too. And more effectively than christianity, I might add!

Of course you could. Just like Karl Marx also wrote a book -- do you remember its name?

However, if indeed you defined the, "don't roll in puddles of bacon fat", as a Religion I would respect it. Laughingly. Just because it was posted as being sarcastic humor.

However, humanity is'int exactly threatened by puddles of bacon -- so its a misdefinition of "saving". Some people choose to be "saved", because they feel that just dying with no other purpose is well, a worthless life to lead or have had. So they turn to God.

Thats the "saving" part. To be saved from a life without purpose.

Let's look at the 'religion determines morality and not the other way around' argment from a logical standing:

Religion, does'nt define as Christianity. Work your way back. Which came first, "God", or "Amon-Ra?" Which came first, the Christian or the Egg? ... era, I mean, which came first? The Chicken or the Egg?

Its selfish to assume, even for yourself, Christianity, is "they" Religion. Even I did'nt go so far as to make that context. :cheese:

-Humans are inherently immoral, compared to God.
-God is the infallible source of the only true morality, and sent the Bible down to teach morals to christians via religion.
-Therefore, christian religion is the only source of morality on Earth.

First, what about the ancient Egyptian Religions? What about the Quran? Islam? List "x_belief here".

-Other religions describe morality similar and in many cases identical to the Bible's. Also, athiests. Many of these religions, and especially atheists, were here first.

Thanks. Other Religions describe morality similar -- athiests included. Which, I've not discluded thus far.

However, "especially" does'nt correspond with either. Although, man has always been inclined to believe something. How about if they were here ... at the sametime? It would indeed explain their competitive natures for both being against, and for each other.

-Despite God's omnipotence and infallibility, he created us as immoral in the first place, in an obvious mistake. He did attempt to correct it, after all. Repeatedly.

Actually, he did create us without sin or immorality. However, the Tree of Knowledge, is what forced us down the pipe -- we made that choice inherently. God gave us the option of choice, and we chose.

Whoops! Damn apples ...

-Also despite God's infallibility, his solution to that mistake has had limited success on the world scale, even among christians.
-Again in spite, the Bible contains many vague passages and contradictions. (Thou shalt not kill + a whole lotta killing, God being infallible + God making tremendous mistakes)

Those contradictions also come from the men who decided to write the bible and its parables. They're were more then forty authors to the book.

If you happen to find bias, then its due to "one" of them straying off course.

-The consequences of not following God's code of morals, as portrayed in the Bible, are largely god-created punishments that are arguably more immoral than most crimes. (eternal torture, genocide, apocalypse, etc.)
-Many things in the Bible that were not considered immoral are now considered immoral, despite no religious precedent. (Slavery)

The consequences of not following God's code of morals, in the ancient testaments, were indeed largely immoral. However, Jesus came with the message those would be no more. That infact, for our sins, Jesus would make the ultimate sacrifice.

As God went on in the Old Testament, he also began to stop the slaughtering of both human and sheep sacrifices, in exchange for prayer and asked retribution. Forgiveness.

As for Slavery, the bible has never said Slavery was correct. God's chosen were enslaved and attacked by Egypt a total of four times -- it was also attacked by the Persians twice, and ruled over by the Romans for 750 years.

I've not read anywhere, where it suggest slavery as being correct. If you could, cite the parable so that I might determine for myself.

-----

So God, cannot logically exist as he is described in the Bible. And, since the Bible is the only existing description of God's superior moral center, religion provides no reference point with which to determine human morality.
Since the greatest alternative to religion is society, and societies are a natural human construct, morality must be a natural development.

So nothing, should logically exist either. It was just by chance Space was the biggest black hole, and collasped in on itself which ruptured and exploded outward -- propelling the existing "Space" we know of today into, "existance".

The Bible does give reference point to morality. In that, God created us and was our teacher. He taught us morality according to the parables -- just like other Religions and Gods, taught they're believers accordingly.

Society, is also the function of humans not feeling safe whilst alone -- morality is indeed a human construct, however, morality is soley not without Religions help, as it was without the help of Atheist minds.

Do you see where I'm coming from here?

You should'nt deny that either Religion, or Atheism, had a part in developing our morales and cultures. Both helped, and I think that was my point all along: Not to deny either, for both were significant.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Describe what flaws it -- I've always looked forward to your opinions.

Really just one flaw: Devoting your life to the pursuit of something that makes no logical sense. Since there is no proof of god, the worship of any god isn't sensible.

There are lots of sub-flaws within that main flaw, but that's the gist of it.

Could it also be you were raised better than that?

In that case, that would prove that morality is determined by something other than religion, as my parents and my grandparents are equally as atheistic as I am.

See, its not on the point people need Religion to understand morales -- its the point its been a significant principle to the developing "of". You cant disacknowledge this, as most of our civilizations had a "belief" or "religion". Its what cultured their diversity and respect for each other, in there own system.

If religion promotes diversity, why are jehovah's witnesses and various other christian groups always trying to convert me to them?

I don't think religion has done much for purveying morality.
There are very few religions that give reasons behind their morals. Most of them cite some vague threat as an alternative, or that it's god's will. But beyond that there's little reasoning as to why their morality is somehow superior enough to deserve following.
As a result, we've got people banning gay marriage for absolutely no logical reason other than that god doesn't like gays.
It's not "stealing is bad because it hurts other people." It's "stealing is bad because god doesn't like stealing."

It's like the ultimate brand name loyalty. If the bible recorded god prefering Coke, Pepsi would be out of buisiness in a minute.
I say it isn't morality if the choice to be good is made for you.

But religion has been around so long, no-one knows the alternatives. You can assume that religion creates morals in society, but I'm pretty sure there is no religion-free society to use as a comparison. I'd warrant that we would have the exact same amount of crime without it. Possibly less.

Now look at us today -- besides some loathsome problems around the world, most of the Earth is booming with diversity and human rights. I'm of the belief, in both a rude and good context, Religion has helped us to this point.

And that, like most everything religious, is a belief. There's no reason to think that religion has changed anythig because there is no secular planet we can see as a comparison.
What I can see is george Bush declaring the war in Iraq because god told him to, and overwhelming numbers of people voting rights away from gays. Cults causing trouble and theocrcies across the world past and future squelching diversity, from the romans to the taliban.

Its wrong to disacknowledge aethism and religion as having purpose for us all being here -- because if there was another choice, is it still debateable we would be here, let alone, as we are now?

It could -- but our ancestors needed something to believe. So they chose, and now we are here. You've learned due to what your taught. Also, on the benefit of personal lessons.

I read this three times, but couldn't decypher your meaning.

Me or you, did'nt have knowledge of those concepts until taught. Humans both however, naturally wan to what is right and wrong, and whats to believe and not to believe.

So its inherently right for both arguements, that Religion can teach morality, yet you can learn it elsewhere. It just shows that morality is a human principle.

So, morality is natural result of societal progress? That was my point in the first place.

Misdirected praise? To whom should I praise then?

My point was that calling religion the source of human morality is giving it too much credit. Since you apparently agree, the comment wasn't directed towards you.

Of course you could. Just like Karl Marx also wrote a book -- do you remember its name?

The communist manifesto? What does that have to do with this?

However, humanity is'int exactly threatened by puddles of bacon -- so its a misdefinition of "saving".

Bingo! Exactly how humanity isn't threatened by moral decay, so attributing safety from moral decay to religion misdirected praise. That was the metaphor.

Some people choose to be "saved", because they feel that just dying with no other purpose is well, a worthless life to lead or have had. So they turn to God.
Thats the "saving" part. To be saved from a life without purpose.

Aw, shucks. my life is worthless. ;(

Religion, does'nt define as Christianity. Work your way back. Which came first, "God", or "Amon-Ra?" Which came first, the Christian or the Egg? ... era, I mean, which came first? The Chicken or the Egg?

I already said, morality is natural and arrived before everything. Religion was later developped as an alternative to a legal system as a way of enforcing a specific view of morality without actually needing stuff like jails or law enforcement officers.

Its selfish to assume, even for yourself, Christianity, is "they" Religion. Even I did'nt go so far as to make that context. :cheese:

Christianity isn't "they" religion, its "they largest" religion. It's also the main topic behind this thread, as it deals mainly with christianity's influence over american politics.
It's also the religion that I know the most about, so if my points are christian-centric, it's to keep things focused on the main point of the thread.

The following argument I made was to contradict chiristians who would say that a superior morality exists in the form of a god, and therefore religion should have power of the whole of society.
If that does not apply to you, then disregard.

There are a few points which stood out though:

However, "especially" does'nt correspond with either. Although, man has always been inclined to believe something. How about if they were here ... at the sametime? It would indeed explain their competitive natures for both being against, and for each other.

I'm pretty sure atheism predates organised religion.

Actually, he did create us without sin or immorality. However, the Tree of Knowledge, is what forced us down the pipe -- we made that choice inherently. God gave us the option of choice, and we chose.
Whoops! Damn apples ...

In that case, why did god create the tree, satan and the ability to choose the apple that would cause all the things that would make him so angry in the future? I don't think he was covering all his bases if he let original sin get through. Making his arch-nemesis was a bit of a mistake too, I'd think. You'd think seeing everything and having unlimited power and speed would be a more than adequate security system.

Those contradictions also come from the men who decided to write the bible and its parables. They're were more then forty authors to the book.

If you happen to find bias, then its due to "one" of them straying off course.

You'd think having incompetent editors would be a mistake god should have been able to avoid.
And if there are flaws in the bible, how can you tell what god wrote, and what was penciled in by his ghostwriting team?
What if the whole "thou shalt not commit adultery" thing was Moses punk'ng us? There's no way to tell.

The consequences of not following God's code of morals, in the ancient testaments, were indeed largely immoral. However, Jesus came with the message those would be no more. That infact, for our sins, Jesus would make the ultimate sacrifice.

So, jesus had to fix god's mistakes? God's not looking very ept. And, frankly, jesus hasn't done a very good job of convincing the world to stop sinning either.
He hasn't stopped me, for one.

As God went on in the Old Testament, he also began to stop the slaughtering of both human and sheep sacrifices, in exchange for prayer and asked retribution. Forgiveness.

Well, if god wanted less sacrifices, you'd think he could have stopped that in a more timelier fashion, like zapping the guy who came up with the idea before he could think it, manifesting a gigantic boombox and personally telling the world that sacrifices are bad. Or, y'now, not making that tree from a while back.

As for Slavery, the bible has never said Slavery was correct. God's chosen were enslaved and attacked by Egypt a total of four times -- it was also attacked by the Persians twice, and ruled over by the Romans for 750 years.

I've not read anywhere, where it suggest slavery as being correct. If you could, cite the parable so that I might determine for myself.

God also never said slavery is bad, to my knowledge. I would have expected a bit clearer of a stance, being god and all. "Thou shalt not enslave other people" would have been adequate enough. Might have saved millions of people from christian slave owners.



-----

So nothing, should logically exist either. It was just by chance Space was the biggest black hole, and collasped in on itself which ruptured and exploded outward -- propelling the existing "Space" we know of today into, "existance".

I never said that the big bang theory was logical. I'm confident that we will never know for certain the source of the universe. (Another flaw with most religions, IMO.)

But, logically, a flawless god cannot exist. Or, if one does, such a god is not described by any religion. So if it isn't the result of something super-human, religion must be a construct of human society.

Society, is also the function of humans not feeling safe whilst alone -- morality is indeed a human construct, however, morality is soley not without Religions help, as it was without the help of Atheist minds.

Do you see where I'm coming from here?

I see where you're coming from, but I can also see you're arguing against points I never made. I never said that morality is a sole result of atheism.

My point was and still is that morality is an inevitable result of societal development. And, although religion is a part of society, I see no reason to believe that it has had any measurable benefit.
So, things that cannot be logically measured should not be part of secular law because they are simply too uncertain/unlikely to be accepted unquestioningly.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

Really just one flaw: Devoting your life to the pursuit of something that makes no logical sense.

Where at two different ends of the table -- we both can convince ourselves of something as sporadic as a God existing, or not existing; however what we believe is something already decided from within us.

I'm not going to try to convince you to believe in God, nor try and leave you feeling guilty.

And nothing more beyond that. If its illogical to believe in a God, and you have reason -- thats fine by me. I dont find it illogical to not believe, although I do find it unfair that such a thing could be claimed as to not exist, when Science cant prove it to be wrong.

I'm of the belief, because there are multitudes of layers existing in Space, a God or higher-being existing, might not be that impossible.

Since there is no proof of god, the worship of any god isn't sensible.

There is no proof for, or against. Its a really, "choose on your own" matter.

You've chosen -- and thats perfectly fine by me ^^

There are lots of sub-flaws within that main flaw, but that's the gist of it.

However, those sub-flaws exist not in the Bible, but of the people who wish to practise it; then violate it.

As is my concept of it, anyway.

In that case, that would prove that morality is determined by something other than religion, as my parents and my grandparents are equally as atheistic as I am.

Morality is a so-so thing. Morality is obviously a human nature, however, believing in something, wether mysticsm or Religion, is also. So, you could say morality came before Religion, however I could say human wonder came right alongside it, and at the sametime.

If they go hand-in-hand for some people, whats wrong?
If you've suffered in life based upon religious values, or religious people -- there's a saying I must use here, and one, that I cannot stress enough:

Life is short. Get over it. ^^ I mean that in the best sense possible.

If religion promotes diversity, why are jehovah's witnesses and various other christian groups always trying to convert me to them?

Religion does promote diversity -- Jehovah's witnesses and whatever various Christian Groups are ... randomly spawning at your front door spouting bible parables, are diverse in themselves.

However, those are'nt they only things compromising of the Religious sect. Some people still believe in Ancient Egyptian Religious Demi-God figures.

Do they knock on your door? Of course not -- those people are happy as they are.

C'mon, even a Christian can say Jehovah's witnesses are ... wierd people. I think every one of us here has a story to tell ...

I don't think religion has done much for purveying morality.
There are very few religions that give reasons behind their morals. Most of them cite some vague threat as an alternative, or that it's god's will. But beyond that there's little reasoning as to why their morality is somehow superior enough to deserve following.

I think it does. Putting aside, "dont sin. or god will devour they", I find most religions to be entertaining and sometimes, useful.

Gods and Punishments, were often imposed through the mixture of its Religion, and a nations law. People ended up following either or both, due to both citing each other as purpose.

Its not impossible, because people often did'nt know any better but to follow what was handed to them. However, are you just against Christianity, or all religions, altogether?

As a result, we've got people banning gay marriage for absolutely no logical reason other than that god doesn't like gays.
It's not "stealing is bad because it hurts other people." It's "stealing is bad because god doesn't like stealing."

I could see this point. A light went on in my head, thank you.

Its like the same concept of, "Dont do drugs honey"
"Why?"
"Because I just dont like them"

Bingo.

However, im not for banning gay marriages. If you'd like, become a citizen and help us call for a state-wide reform. Without more voices, we dont technically have "more" power.

It's like the ultimate brand name loyalty. If the bible recorded god prefering Coke, Pepsi would be out of buisiness in a minute.
I say it isn't morality if the choice to be good is made for you.

I disagree. God hates Soda -- he prefers water.

^^; Sorry, but if god liked Coke, I'd still like Mountain Dew. Or ... Sobe'

It is morality if its still good. However, if the choice is made up for you, and the choice is: You shall not kill. Period.

Would you violate this law in protest? I know I would'nt even want to experiment with killing someone -- and im not inclined to do so. I believe morality can come in many contexts, but one, cannot be without the other.

Religion brought some stuff to the table, even if its basic, and I acknowledge that as much as you say for yourself, from what you're families taught you.

But religion has been around so long, no-one knows the alternatives. You can assume that religion creates morals in society, but I'm pretty sure there is no religion-free society to use as a comparison. I'd warrant that we would have the exact same amount of crime without it. Possibly less.

Course, what more morales could you want to create?

You've learned from your family that its not right to kill. I've learned from mine the same. Now, from the Bible, it just enforces that with another point.

I still see it as the same lesson -- however, it'd be unhealthy if you did'nt have a personal crash course with society first.

And that, like most everything religious, is a belief. There's no reason to think that religion has changed anythig because there is no secular planet we can see as a comparison.
What I can see is george Bush declaring the war in Iraq because god told him to, and overwhelming numbers of people voting rights away from gays. Cults causing trouble and theocrcies across the world past and future squelching diversity, from the romans to the taliban.

Just like Atheism is a belief. Its not a fact, just as mine is not. We dont have a comparison for either of them, or a science that proves them the correct way of going.

Religion is just less attractive today, because men seeking to manipulate people use Religion as a foreground.

What I can see, is George Bush declaring war in Iraq for an unknown reason. It was for WoMD. However, none were found.
Now, its against Al-Qaeda. Well, we've have a lot of that now.
What I see, are gays believing they are powerless and do nothing to stop the state from restricting their rights. Too many times do I hear them talking of moving to Canada, or being mass-exodused into Canada. If you refuse to have a voice, you refuse to have freedom.

If I have to work until my death to get something right, I will. Some however, are'nt even willing to fart a coherent sentence speaking against the Government. Its time people ...

I read this three times, but couldn't decypher your meaning.

Its wrong to say either Atheism or Religion had no say in how the human moral is perceived or developed.

Its wrong to say either Atheism or Religion, was not responsible for what we are today. A more diverse and powerful society.

It could -- but our ancestors needed something to believe. So they chose, and now we are here. You've learned due to what your taught. Also, on the benefit of personal lessons.

I was discussing here, without the option of Religion or Atheism, we probably would'nt have science much either. Included with that however, is that they fortunately chose instead of to gamble on nothing. Now, we are here, as we are now -- in the society we have today.

Of course we have our ups and downs, and that I understand is a broad generalization to some of the emotions out there, but we still can consider ourselves inherently better because of past bumps.

I was also sudo-discussing where your morales were founded.

So, morality is natural result of societal progress? That was my point in the first place.

However, Religious systems, and Personal Belief systems, have also contributed to societal progress. Science, is another key player.

Naturally, people want to believe something. Naturally, people ant to learn something. Natural as it is, all have contributed some positive and negative effects to our social growth.

That, was my point.

The communist manifesto? What does that have to do with this?

The Comparison was rough -- however, the Communist Manifesto is not, or at least, classified as being a Religion. Therefore, your book, "why ..uh", I cant remember the name, is just as good as it, comparing nethire are Religious, but are just books.

... did that make sense? Critique me here.

Bingo! Exactly how humanity isn't threatened by moral decay, so attributing safety from moral decay to religion misdirected praise. That was the metaphor.

Depending on who you are, society is threatened by moral decay.
At least, I think it is. I look around at more people in public schools and common colleges, and im seeing an increase in beligerant behavior.

People are fighting more, people are'nt being responsible enough. Inexperienced drinkers are getting there hands on alcohol. I blame the parents, and them being affraid to punish their children.

Aw, shucks. my life is worthless.

Noone wants to be a Mechagodzilla anymore.

Actually, we all do. However, I was conveying what other's might feel, to show you motive why they might seek Religion. If you feel your lives not worthless, then you dont fall into this categorey.

Personally, im glad you dont feel like your lifes worthless.

If that does not apply to you, then disregard.

<hands him a snickers>

I'm pretty sure atheism predates organised religion.

However, the atheism we know of today, happens to correspond a disbelief to religion.

If atheism existed back then, then it was in the form of, people innocently believing without a Religion to disagree with. However, its not to say certain individuals believed in a higher-being, having no other way to explain there existence. We have ways now, with the purpose and understanding of science.

In that case, why did god create the tree, satan and the ability to choose the apple that would cause all the things that would make him so angry in the future?

A Solid Case.

I don't think he was covering all his bases if he let original sin get through. Making his arch-nemesis was a bit of a mistake too, I'd think. You'd think seeing everything and having unlimited power and speed would be a more than adequate security system.

Yes, but we know even terrorists could foil that. /endjoke

You'd think having incompetent editors would be a mistake god should have been able to avoid.
And if there are flaws in the bible, how can you tell what god wrote, and what was penciled in by his ghostwriting team?
What if the whole "thou shalt not commit adultery" thing was Moses punk'ng us? There's no way to tell.

Good theory. I always told some of my more then "normal christian" friends, that if man wrote the words of the bible, because he is corruptable -- its possible the words in the bible, are corrupted by or for sin.

So, jesus had to fix god's mistakes? God's not looking very ept. And, frankly, jesus hasn't done a very good job of convincing the world to stop sinning either.
He hasn't stopped me, for one.

No, apparently God did'nt make any. Jesus came down to make things more ... plight and agreeable. Besides, it was impossible to be without sin in the old testament -- well, without in the end, being fried by a lightening bolt.

Course, whats your sin? Lying? Murder?

But, logically, a flawless god cannot exist. Or, if one does, such a god is not described by any religion.

Exactly. Im still looking. I guess this is where my form of it, picks up.

I never said that morality is a sole result of atheism.

Nethire did I.

My point was and still is that morality is an inevitable result of societal development. And, although religion is a part of society, I see no reason to believe that it has had any measurable benefit.

I disagree. Without Religion, would you have known you were an Atheist?

For better, or for worse?

So, things that cannot be logically measured should not be part of secular law because they are simply too uncertain/unlikely to be accepted unquestioningly.

Well, nothing can be logically measured. Infact, most mathematical property is indeed what fractures us from exploring and predicting the behavior of space, or space matter.

We'd need to reform our math, and our logic, before we could understand exactly whats around us.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

What I see, are gays believing they are powerless and do nothing to stop the state from restricting their rights. Too many times do I hear them talking of moving to Canada, or being mass-exodused into Canada. If you refuse to have a voice, you refuse to have freedom.

I really, really hope that you don't believe this.

Course, whats your sin? Lying? Murder?

Believing that jesus is pretty much just the KFC colonel without the chicken is probably some sort of sin.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

I really, really hope that you don't believe this.

It is laughable. Why would they all be mass-exodused into Canada?

Its been my question for awhile now -- however, it seems to be a fear amungst some.

Also, I'd like to ask which part you felt I should'nt believe ?

Believing that jesus is pretty much just the KFC colonel without the chicken is probably some sort of sin.

Ugh, thats not a sin. Heck, I'd probably fart and laugh at that one's direction. KFC Colonel without Chicken.

 

[Shad0hawK]

Again, you do not need religion to know what is right and what is wrong! In civilizations long before the bible (1,000s of years before) most places still had a law system in place and people were fully aware of what is right and what is wrong. That argument is simply foolish.

most of those old civilizations laws were based on the religious views of the time as well. sumer, babylon, assyria, etc. the ultimate lawgiver was the king and in many ancient cultures the king demanded to be worshipped as a god. in others the king was viewed as the gods agent or regent.

in the atheistic view morals really are only a matter of personal opinion. so while you may thing it is "bad" if another person felt like he had to kill you for some reason ,the other person may feel what he was doing was "good"

there is actually a rather pragmatic aspect to law being based on religion: so to borrow from another thread for example take the US declaration of independence; in this document human rights are put forward as divinely appointed by God, so no man or government has any business trying to take your rights away...they simply do not have the authority to. the view of the forefathers was that laws should primarily be focused on limitation of the governments power, rather than on the individual.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

I'd like to ask which part you felt I should'nt believe ?

That gay people don't deserve human rights because you don't think they're trying hard enough.
No-one should need to try. They're inalienable rights.
And if it's stupid to leave a country that can and does vote your rights away, then stupid me up.

Ugh, thats not a sin. Heck, I'd probably fart and laugh at that one's direction. KFC Colonel without Chicken.

Sin or not, I'm still going to 'hell' for not believing in god.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

That gay people don't deserve human rights because you don't think they're trying hard enough.

No harm done -- you can make my comments sound nasty, but thats not the case. Least, not to my interpretation. Gays should have all rights.

My take on it, is that nobody is willing to fight for it. It'll take a fight or two before we win gay rights on a full-scale; but I stated, noone seems willing enough to fight. But for those kind of rights, it'll require it.

Sin or not, I'm still going to 'hell' for not believing in god.

Now your an atheist. Why should you care?