|
| Thread: what relievence does religion have now? |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 · «PREV |
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
posted July 23, 2009 05:36 PM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 17:37, 23 Jul 2009.
|
|
Here is the thread Death is referring to.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 23, 2009 05:44 PM |
|
|
JJ:
Indeed, morals evolve - towards an objectively optimal goal.
Mytical:
Quote:
lack of the morals we have =/= a better life
I'm talking about social ethical morals, not the morals an individual may hold. There is a set of morals that, if held by society, result in maximum well-being for its inhabitants. It's one thing to have a few transgressors. It's another to say that murder and rape are okay.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 23, 2009 07:10 PM |
|
|
Well, let's not forget the topic this is discussed for: it was said that religion still had a relevance today, because morals are "solid" only, when they are founded on something that is absolute: god. The question then was why raping babies would be wrong otherwise.
The answer is that nature has given us natural positive emotions for our babies, and if we would allow raping babies we would allow something that no sane mother or father would want their babies to happen. Moreover and because of that it would lead to the destruction of any group with that moral.
We don't need any superior being that tells us which things are good or bad - we have to find our own way.
I'd like to make sure that this is independent of whether (a) god exists or not
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted July 24, 2009 04:05 AM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 04:33, 24 Jul 2009.
|
@Mystical
Tribe Good would certainly be justified in killing Tribe Evil to protect themselves. Killing is not immoral. Murdering is immoral. Now, if Tribe Good just up and decided to kill Tribe Shepherds because they wanted Tribe Shepherd's sheep, that would be murder.
The phrase "religion can't be the source of morals" keeps being repeated. Religion is not the source of morals. God is. Apart from God there is no objective right or wrong, good or evil, justice or injustice.
@JJ
You are right that a "warrior tribe" like the Vikings would not have a double standard. But they would have a wrong standard. They believe that they have a right to take by force what they want and kill at will. Those are immoral things.
Actually the moral of "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" does not allow one to rape a baby. If you lift the verse out of the context of the teachings around it you can make it mean what you will. It has to do with loving your fellow man and spreading good will.
Quote:
Mat 7:12 Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.
It is a positive statement that sums up the Law that goes beyond the "negative" injunctions of don't murder, steal, ect. It says that it is not enough to avoid hurting your fellow man. You must actively seek his good. Love is active.
If morals are all about survival, where does self-sacrifice come from? A soldier who throws himself on a grenade to save his fellows. A passerby who hears a cry of help and rushes into a burning building to save another or rushing to the aid of someone being attacked by a gang, against all odds?
You say that if morals are objective there should be no difference between the morals of any groups. But that does not follow. All it means is not everyone is following the objective moral code.
You call religion a crutch (and the idea of objective morality, it appears.) But I submit that the idea of a subjective morality only is a crutch. It allows one to act however he wishes. No one can condemn him. Because after all, who are they to say he has any obligation not to hurt anyone. Why should they say he has an obligation to help anyone. Everything is relative.
I submit to you that the moral of not only not hurting your fellow man but actively seeking to help him is an objective moral. And is is far more beneficial to society than lesser morals that give one a crutch to excuse his selfish actions by saying that all morality are subjective.
Subjective morality can find a way to excuse any action and is destructive to society. Especially if it is specifically from the atheistic world view where a human life has no intrinsic worth. Subjective morality allows one to excuse the murder of unborn babies, the sick, the retarded, the handicapped, the elderly. After all, in a world of limited resources why should they live? There lives are offering little to no benefit to society. Kill them and use the resources to better educate the young or lift more people out of poverty.
One can see what horrific things have been done through these concepts by people such as Stalin, Lenin, Mao, Pol Pot, Hitler, ect. They all had the same world view. There is no God watching me. I am accountable to no one. The desire to stamp out religion. That religious people are sick, delusional, demented, have a mental virus. Human life has no intrinsic worth. That religion is the product of sick minds that man must rise above.
The Hitler youth group sang this little ditty:
Quote:
We follow not Christ, but Horst Wessel,
Away with incense and Holy Water,
The Church can go hang for all we care,
The Swastika brings salvation on Earth.
I submit to you that the subjective morality of the Swastika did not bring salvation to Germany or to the earth. It brought bondage, destruction, death. Subjective morality cannot save mankind. Subjective morality is a danger to mankind.
Mankind could unite if all would follow true objective morality. Subjective morality divides people into groups. One things it is ok to kill unborn babies. Another does not. One thinks it is ok to kill the elderly. Another does not. One says we should help our fellow man. The other says, no, we have no obligation--survival of the fittest, let the weak perish. One says all people have the same intrinsic worth. The other says no, the Jews, and blacks are subhuman. Kill them so society can advance.
@AntiPalidin
Yes, the Old Testament said the Christ would [die] for sins. It even says his hands (wrists in original language) and feet would be pierced and that God would be be betrayed for 30 peices of silver and be born in Bethlehem.
I will quote one of the most beautiful prophecies about Christ by Isaiah and written long before his birth.
Quote:
Isa 53:1 Who hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the LORD revealed?
Isa 53:2 For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him.
Isa 53:3 He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not.
Isa 53:4 Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.
Isa 53:5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.
Isa 53:6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.
Isa 53:7 He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth.
Isa 53:8 He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken.
Isa 53:9 And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth.
Isa 53:10 Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.
Isa 53:11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.
Isa 53:12 Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.
I don't think naming just and unjust wars is relevant to the topic. I already told you the types of war that I believe are just. Reread my post please.
Oh, there is a lot of historical evidence for Christ. No serious scholar can deny that Jesus existed but that is not the subject of this topic either.
I'll be going out of town in about 12 hours so I'll not be around to comment during the weekend so don't say I've conceded any points for lack of response. 
|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
|
posted July 24, 2009 04:08 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Tribe Good would certainly be justified in killing Tribe Evil to protect themselves. Killing is not immoral. Murdering is immoral. Now, if Tribe Good just up and decided to kill Tribe Shepherds because they wanted Tribe Shepherd's sheep, that would be murder.
So wait wait wait wait!
Killing for survival, but killing for survival is not? Woah! What if they needed those sheep?
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted July 24, 2009 04:51 AM |
|
|
Actually no, the christian god is not the source of morals. Since there are many societies that do not even acknowledge the christian god's exsistance, and that morals were around beforee god was 'known' (let alone his or her teachings) that would be like saying Neil Armstrong discovered the moon.
@Mvass. If morals 'evolve' does that not mean that morals are subjective? It is regardless if they 'improve' (a subjective term in itself) or not is immeterial. IF Morals were constant through out time in all civilisations I would have no problem saying morals were absolutes.
____________
Message received.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 24, 2009 06:06 AM |
|
|
Quote:
If morals 'evolve' does that not mean that morals are subjective?
Not at all. They are moving closer and closer to a set of morals that are objectively the best for human well-being.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 24, 2009 10:05 AM |
|
|
I'll just try to keep this on a fairly small track. So I will ask this: what IS moral?
a) obeying the commands of god or
b) finding the balance between the interest of the one and the whole or "the others".
a) is your answer when you think that moral comes from god.
b) may be your answer when you don't.
If we were intelligent loners like cat predators our moral would look completely different because the values would be shifted to the "individual side". Self-sacrifice to save other ADULT members of my race would be unthinkable.
If we were intelligent hive creatures our moral would be different and shifted to the "community" side. Self-sacrifice to save other members of the hive would be the rule.
In all cases the objective goal has something to do with survival as a species.
With humans this is in the balance, but there is a "window" of equally possible morals with more or less "freedom" for the individual and more or less "duties"
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted July 24, 2009 12:18 PM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 12:20, 24 Jul 2009.
|
All you mentioned was keeping the commands of God. What is "the others?" I think you must have left out some phrase or other since I did not understand "choice b."
My answer is a) If you understand what it entails.
Loving God and my fellow man. Love is active. If you love someone you don't want to hurt them. You want to be a blessing to them.
Have a great weekend and do something special for someone today.
|
|
angelito
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
proud father of a princess
|
|
posted July 24, 2009 01:09 PM |
|
|
Quote:
All you mentioned was keeping the commands of God. What is "the others?" I think you must have left out some phrase or other since I did not understand "choice b."
A group (society). 1 of them...or all others. 1 likes killing babies...all others don't. Who's "interest" is more important?
____________
Better judged by 12 than carried by 6.
|
| |
|
|
