|
| Thread: what relievence does religion have now? |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
angelito
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
proud father of a princess
|
posted July 22, 2009 10:40 PM |
|
|
@ Elodin
No one forces you to read my posts if you think it is a waste of time 
And as far as I know, we are not only allowed to post OWN opinons, but can quote from other sources too...like some do from the bible..
____________
Better judged by 12 than carried by 6.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 22, 2009 11:05 PM |
|
|
@ Mv and Death
You do realize that two different objective morals seem to be a contradiction in itself, right?
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 22, 2009 11:33 PM |
|
|
Quote:
@ Mv and Death
You do realize that two different objective morals seem to be a contradiction in itself, right?
Yeah. One reason why mine are more "absolute" is because they can apply to anything, not just humans, or biological life, or anything like that. 
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
antipaladin
Promising
Legendary Hero
of Ooohs and Aaahs
|
|
posted July 22, 2009 11:36 PM |
|
|
elodin: please dont get this wrong,i dont want to offend you but you said
Quote:
are taken out of context of the passage
How would you know? you wrote them?
The funny think about bible,and deity,that its subjectiveness incranted.
Morally i agree with mytical,word pun not intendead.
Sociall morals. if bible says we can merry at 13,and girls at 12. why is it only that way in sevral Countrys? It's the words of God how can it be ignored?! we should change age of consult to 13-12!
also speaking of moral changes from old to new... Eating 'unholy enimals' Reasons of sin and morallity. eating pork is unmoral and unkosher. in christianity it's not.
____________
types in obscure english
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted July 23, 2009 03:17 AM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 04:59, 23 Jul 2009.
|
@ mvassilev
I say to that, what is the basis of your objective morality without God?
@ Mytical
Society is the source of morals? The rapist may not disagree with society and not care what society thinks. He may be a very cunning and powerful individual who can escape the wrath of society, so why should he care what society thinks? What makes the subjective opinion of a group of individuals more valid than the subjective opinion of the rapist?
If there is no God what makes the life of any individual significat? Aren't we just an accidental collection of random chemical reactions? What could possibly make any action objectively moral or immoral?
Who says it was once moral "to go killing, raping, and pilliaging (the ancient vikings)?" That particular society said it was ok. Maybe another society existing at the same time said that we should all love one another and live in peace and harmony. Which society had the correct morals, and on what basis do you say it was right?
And aren't there things that within a society that society does not have a consensus on? If 51% of society were to say rape of a baby; is immoral is it immoral? If two days later 51% percent of society says raping a baby is perfectly moral is raping a baby then moral?
I submit to you that a society's apparant change of moral values is NOT evidence that the society is the source of morals. One's (or a society's) perception of what is moral can change. But does that mean that what is moral changed? Is is really right to rape a baby one day and two days later it is wrong?
@ angelito
I don't think your posts are a waste of time. Evidently my attmept at humor failed. I've deleted the offending sentence.
@ JJ
Neither has explained the basis of their morality being objective. Shall we sell tickets and let them duke it out to determine whose morals are objective?
@ Antipaladin
What the passage says helps determine the context of the verse. For example, let's say a passage says "God spoke to Jonah in a vision. "Thus saith the Lord, Go tell Nineveh to turn from their wicked ways." Now, if I lift out only the second sentence I could say Antipalidin, you claim to believe the Bible. It says quite plainly here, "Thus saith the Lord, Go tell Nineveh to turn from their wicked ways." God says you should be in Nineveh preaching. Why aren't you?
In fact the command was only given to Jonah. I lifted the verse out of context and tried to make it apply to something that it does not apply to.
The Bible does not actually give a marriage age. Jewish tradition does. Please go back and read my post again. The fact that no all countries follow one moral code does not mean that an objective moral code does not exist. It only means not all countries are [edit: not] following it.
The ceremonial laws, such as the dietary laws and sacrificing animals were only meant to be in place until Christ died for out sins according to the New Testament. Christ ratified the New Covenant that Joel and Jeremiah had predicted. The New Covenant has no dietary laws and such.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 23, 2009 04:03 AM |
|
|
JJ:
Yeah. Needless to say, I think Death is wrong.
Elodin:
Meeting a living being's needs and desires.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted July 23, 2009 04:31 AM |
|
Edited by Mytical at 04:40, 23 Jul 2009.
|
Of course there are rules and laws that I disagree with on a moral basis (in history). Morals ARE subjective, ask most people who do something we might find morally offensive if he is 'evil' and you will get an emphatic no. Now here is my next point on the subject.
The book defining the morals that you attribute to god has, sadly, not been around since the dawn of time. I contend that people were not morally bankrupt (ie had no morals) before that book. So, how can the god that nobody knew of be the source of morals? It is the rule of the many, ie society, that has decided what is morally acceptable. Even when a single person disagrees. That is where the LAW comes in. They enforce the rule of the many, even those some of us do not agree with.
Unless somebody thinks people around before Christ came around had zero morals (which in my opinion would be a wrong assumption) then attributing morals to the christian god would be a bit ... odd. Now if you attribute it to the other deities at the time, as I pointed out some of them had morals contrary to what we hold true now, and I would have to ask if those are the morals we want to have.
As to the vikings, with the argument presented they would have gotten their morals from their gods, so we would have to state that even BAD morals are attributed to deities including God. Which I personally would not want to state.
Now don't get me wrong. I fully agree that religion does teach morals, but that there are morals that these religions do not cover that we today hold true. Therefor, all morals do not come from said religion, but from society. Even those we do not agree with, and some even act against.
Edit: As to the question "If there is no god, what makes an indivual significant?"
Understand that I fully believe there is a higher power, and this is a different topic. My replies are centered on morals and deities, not if deities exsist. However, I accept this challenge and will indeed answer the question.
If a deity is needed to make a person significant, then I contend that that deity and not the individual is what is significant. What makes a person significant is what they leave as their legacy.
Now I don't mean the money, or children, or 'great deeds'. But the small impact they have on the life of others. Regardless of if that is bad or good it is what makes the person significant.
____________
Message received.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 23, 2009 04:37 AM |
|
|
Just because there are subjective morals doesn't mean that there aren't objective morals as well.Quote:
Morals ARE subjective, ask most people who do something we might find morally offensive if he is 'evil' and you will get an emphatic no.
No one admits that they are evil. A child rapist might say that from his point of view, child rape is OK and you should get off his back. It doesn't mean that child rape is morally OK objectively.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted July 23, 2009 04:46 AM |
|
|
Indeed, but the morals are what we aquire from our upbringing. So to US the deed is morally represhensive. Raised in a different society, the morals might be different and we might not find it so repulsive. So subjectively, yes morals are subjective. (Hmm is this offtopic? perhaps a discussion about morals? This is a grey area that is ontopic while being offtopic).
____________
Message received.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 23, 2009 04:58 AM |
|
|
Regardless of upbringing, there is still an objective optimal set of morals. One cannot say that a tribe of shamanistic cannibals is healthier or happier than someone holding the view that murder and cannibalism is wrong.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted July 23, 2009 05:50 AM |
|
|
However we can not say the opposit either, so doesn't that make it objective? For me, I am a very moral person, and I know what you are saying. However, since morals have changed through out history, regardless if we liked those morals or not is immeterial. Because those are the morals WE have grown up with.
____________
Message received.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted July 23, 2009 06:21 AM |
|
|
@ mvassilev
Why is meeting a living being's needs and desires the basis of objective morality. Why is not the rapists morality of taking what he wants from others as he wills the basis of objective morality?
@ Mystical
I hope I'm not preaching. I think the subject of morality is appropriate for this thread, so no need to move the discussion.
I don't think you have understood me. I'm not claiming morality comes from the Bible. I'm saying the objective moral standard comes from the existence of God. When Cain murdered Abel it was sin though the Bible would not be written for quite a long time.
The Bible defines morality only in the sense that it "spells it out." It instructs us in the objective morality that exists independently of the Bible. It brings out the depths and richness of that morality. It encourages us to press towards the perfection of the perfect character of God.
Quote:
Mat 5:48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.
Like I said, an atheist can be a moral person. In the Christian perspective we were all created in the image of God, but that image was marred by sin. So we have an imperfect moral character. We do inappropriate things. We don't see everything clearly. The Bible can be a mirror that lets us see the mud that we didn't realize was on our face.
I disagree that the rule of the many establishes morality. Let us say that you live in Tribe Good. Another tribe, Tribe Evil lives on the other side of the river. Tribe Evil believes they have a right to rape anyone. One day they invade your village and rape everyone. Was their action moral or immoral? If you believe that morality is only subjective then you can't be mad at Tribe Evil because they only did what they though was moral. you can't call them immoral because the standard of their society says their actions were moral.
If morality is subjective does the UN have the right to impose sanctions on nations that commit genocide? After all the "rule of the many" in the nation determined it was moral.
I don't think that it is a persons accomplishments that make them significant and I don't think you think that either. I think we had a miscommunication.
Let me restate the "What makes a person significant" question. What is it that gives value to the life of a person.
I am especially interested in an answer from an atheist. If we are just a accidental collection of random chemical reactions what makes a human life significant? What makes it have any value? Why should I care about anyone else?
As a Christian of course I believe God is ultimately significant. My value as a human being comes from the fact that God created me. And specially that he created us in a special way, in his image. A person is significant regardless of his accomplishments. A person in a coma is doing nothing for society but he is no less significant than a scientist who cures cancer.
You say that morals are what we get from our upbringing. Yes, we are taught some morals. But some morals we may arrive at on our own. A member of the aforementioned Tribe Evil can come to the conclusion that rape is immoral even though every member of his tribe says it is moral. Is that membeer immoral because his tribe says he should rape others and he refuses to go on rape raids anymore?
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 23, 2009 06:22 AM |
|
|
We can't say the opposite?  I should say that we well can. Some are dying of diseases and afraid that their tribesmen are going to come bash their heads and eat their brains. Others are doing well and leading prosperous and happy lives. All as a result of morals.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted July 23, 2009 06:37 AM |
|
|
Tribe good would face a moral choice as a society..revenge to stop the attacks or allow them to keep happening. Would tribe good be morally wrong to kill tribe evil to protect themselves? Good and evil are not absolute in the cosmic scheme, only in our own eyes. Let me see if I can put this in words people understand (sometimes I can be a bit chaotic and hard to understand).
Religion can not be the source of morals nor the guide by which we base our morals on. Here is why.
Some religions advocate sacrifices including human. Yet if we say "You can not follow that religion" then why would they not have the right to say "Then you can not follow yours?" else there is a double standard. Yet I bet that human sacrifice is considered 'immoral' by most people here. So religion as a whole should not be a moral compass, nor even a guideline for morals.
Mvass the issues of the cannibles are a bit different, because of the climate they live in. It is a much harsher invironment, so yes they don't live 'as good as lives'. However, if the climate was different and they still held the caniblistic lifestyle there better would be subjective also.
____________
Message received.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 23, 2009 07:09 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Yet if we say "You can not follow that religion" then why would they not have the right to say "Then you can not follow yours?"
Because their religion is harming others. Objectively. Yours isn't.
As for the cannibals, if they ceased their cannibalism, their environment would become considerably less harsh, no?
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 23, 2009 09:59 AM |
|
|
Okay, since moralty is not considered off-topic here.
The first thing to see is, that even those with a warrior moral are not having a double moral. The Vikings didn't grant mercy, but they didn't expect any either.
All clans with a moral that allowed pillaging, warring, plundering and so on, fully expected the same treatment by others. Of course there were rules among each other.
The general moral where everything starts is a slight change of a very well known moral.
If you do something, accept (the possibility) that it will be done to you.
This is different from if don't want that something is done to you, don't do it yourself.
The first one is rather more active. It allows to "rape a baby", but the person who does this accepts the possibility that his baby is raped as well, and if he doesn't have one, he's instead roasted slowly on a spit for it.
However, this moral is pretty stressful for general survival, because it's a PREDATOR moral. People always have to be on the lookout, be watchful, ready to defend. Life tends to be short and harsh. It makes sense - for survival - to create communities, islands of the SECOND moral, where you are within a trusted circle and can drop the guard and relax.
Obviously religion helps here, but the rules of religion are always valid only for those who follow religion. Among other things religion created the impression of an objective yardstick which helped people to relax into the second, more advanced moral.
However, morals aren't a purpose unto themselves - if they were objective, they were exactly that (that should be obvious). Morals have the purpose to regulate the relationship between self and others, between individual and group, and this in turn must be beneficial for survival: groups and soecieties with morals that are NOT beneficial for survival will just vanish.
For example: A group with a moral to never use violence, under no circumstances, against other humans will very probably lose its character and moral: they will be assimilated by other groups with a more aggressive moral (best case).
On the other hand a group with a too violent general moral will go down the same way, since it will destroy itself.
Lastly a rather crucial question is for whom morals are valid. There is a difference between the morals that are valid for all members of a group and those that are valid for inter-group realtions. If moral was objective there should be no difference between the morals of specific groups, and in fact all should merge to one group. At this point, however, religion becomes a brake: either groups with different religions cannot merge, or, if they can, their morals cannot be founded on religion.
So the bottom line is that morals are in permanent development. The most basic moral is the predator moral: do what you want and be prepared that the same is happening to you. Predator moral is for loners or SMALL groups at most, so the next step is group moral - after all, humans are no loners. At this point religion helps establishing morals that allow a more relaxed existance with less stress and better survival chances by delivering a seemingly objective yardstick (this probably isn't the only reason for the development of religions).
These morals are only valid for the group, though, and once you have the crutch of religion to cement the morals, it becomes a wall against other groups necessarily, since the groups's morals are seemingly based on completely different foundations.
The rock and the hard place here is, if you think that there IS an absolute moral that comes from a specific religion, then a compromise solution isn't really possible. Consequently a real merging of groups isn't possible.
If on the other hand you merge groups and adopt religiously neutral morals for that merged group, that group moves away from a "religiously based objective moral" to one that fulfills another purpose.
While it may have been helpful to base morals on the absolute foundation of the will of a superior being, the purpose of keeping to the standards of god(s) isn't helpful in the long run because in that case humans can merge and become a group only in the collective service of that god(s), which is pretty counter-productive at some stage of development.
Another problem is the use of terms subjective, objective and absolute/relative.
It should be clear that morals must benefit the group in terms of survival and prosperity. If morals don't do that, they - and the groups that cling to them - will disappear automatically. So the purpose of morals is a pretty objective one. But of course it depends on lots of inner and outer factors how that morals will actually look.
Take slavery. There have been lots of societies where slavery was allowed - what morals would slaves adopt? Or would be objectively valid for them if there WAS an objective moral?
What morals are valid when you can only pick between bad things?
What morals would other species have or develop, if intelligent?
What morals would allow children to be judged and killed?
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted July 23, 2009 11:33 AM |
|
|
Quote:
As for the cannibals, if they ceased their cannibalism, their environment would become considerably less harsh, no?
And considerably less tasty.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted July 23, 2009 01:35 PM |
|
|
First, before I do this, I do want to appologise for what can be considered way off topic. As a moderator I should be a better 'role model'.
I present to Mvass the case of Jeffrey Dahmer. When the people around him were asked about him, they had nothing but good things to say about him. Some even called him a pillar of society. Until such time as he was caught doing what he did, he lived a decent life (not morally mind, but I will get to that). While maybe not an idea life with mansions and such, it was deffinately not a harsh life..for him.
He was a little 'worse' then the 'average' cannible. Along with canniblism, he added rape, torture, and other things. Not that canniblism is in any way good. Now true after he was caught, he lived a very harsh life (because that is the morals with which people have currently) and a very short and violent one.
What he did was morally bankrupt, but he lived a 'average' life until caught. In fact he was not alone, there are many such examples out there where before they are caught doing something. they are considered 'pillars of society'. So lack of the morals we have =/= a better life. Though indeed if caught they lead a much worse life.
We now return you to your regularly scheduled program.
About morals in general. I've searched for the words and I am not sure I can find them, but here goes.
The morals we have now WE do not consider objective or subjective. To us, they are absolutes. Why? Because they are OURS, and mankind has a need to feel 'superior'. Am I saying that the current morals are wrong? No. As much as we look back to the viking society and say that it is morally wrong, future generations may look back and say WE were wrong, which is (IMO) the definition of objective and subjective.
If morals were not subjective or objective, when you looked back in history every society would have been exactly the same. The same morals we have now, we would have had then. If a ancient roman person was asked if the orgies, colliseums, and such were moral I am sure they would probably have looked at you as if you had 5 heads and said "Of course it is." They would have ABSOLUTELY been convinced, as we are convinced, that they were morally right.
____________
Message received.
|
|
antipaladin
Promising
Legendary Hero
of Ooohs and Aaahs
|
|
posted July 23, 2009 02:32 PM |
|
|
|
while it hints jesus,the old testamont speaks nothing of,dying for our sins. so i could argue thats subjective. i did not see him ressurect,nor did i see him die,therfore i dont have a reason to belive he ever existed. folklore is nice and all,but then there was folklore about Zeuz too... and meny more archeological evidence. prove that Jesus did exist and zues did not. also you did not listed 5 jut and unjust wars as i asked. meaning you proved me right.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 23, 2009 04:41 PM |
|
|
Quote:
@ JJ
Neither has explained the basis of their morality being objective. Shall we sell tickets and let them duke it out to determine whose morals are objective?
Yeah I have in a thread long forgotten in which I put effort some time ago. (first page, the rest is just quote wars)
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
| |
|
|
