Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't think a religious person has a strong foundation for arguing about their morals when it all boils down to the fact that they believe there's a threat hanging over their heads that they're going to go to hell unless they behave in a certain manner that's clearly laid out in the Bible or whatever religious text they believe in. That's just admitting that they're trying to live moral lives becaused they're scared not to. I think it makes a more powerful statement to say that you do what you believe is ethical based on your personal sense of right and wrong because it's the right thing to do.
As far as I'm concerned, if a person needs to believe to prevent them from doing bad things, I'm morally superior to them.
I know what you mean, it's like wearing one of those ankle bracelets that are not intended to start a trendy fad in clothing but rather to alert the authorities that a certain individual has gone beyond their permitted boundaries and a squad car is on the way to pick them up.
I always wonder about the moral fiber of the person making that accusation. It seems to me that they're saying they would actually be out raping people and murdering their families if it weren't for their belief in God. I would ask them in just that manner:
"So you're telling me that you'd rape people and murder entire families if you didn't believe in God?"
I always wonder about the moral fiber of the person making that accusation. It seems to me that they're saying they would actually be out raping people and murdering their families if it weren't for their belief in God. I would ask them in just that manner:
"So you're telling me that you'd rape people and murder entire families if you didn't believe in God?"
What I've come to realize is that the ones who can't understand how people can be moral without belief are the people who would be out committing all sorts of crimes if they didn't believe.
I think most religious people are good people who are following the dogma taught them or that was introduced to them and filled something in them at a time they were vulnerable. A small minority probably turned to religion out of hopes they wouldn't act on "sinful" urges.
How do you answer when "believers" claim that if you are an Athiest, then you have no foundation for moral behavior. They have the Bible, Torah, Koran, etc., and say that if we do not believe in Something, then we CANNOT have moral guidelines for behavior. This makes us immoral in their way of looking at it.
I was raised to act humane, and courteous. I was taught this as a societial norm. I don't need a book to tell me how to behave, I just watch good examples of my fellow human beings, and them incorporate their good examples into my behavior.
Why do theists think this way? As far as I can see, history has proven time and again that more death, destruction, and all around barbaric behavior has been done to mankind by Theists, that ever were done by Athiest. Just WHAT is this "morality" they speak of. Surely it is NOT a concept which Theists have mastered, as yet.
Yeah, religion has an EXCELLENT moral track record; absolutely spotless... This argument works well in churches where everyone is feeling good about themselves, but it's preaching to the choir, no pun intended...
Who cares why you behave in a moral way as long as you do it? Frankly, when it comes to behaving well and not commiting crimes, etc, I don't really care what reason people have for not doing it. As long as it keeps them honest. If it happens to take believing in an all-powerful purple sky dragon, so be it.
For me, a moral sensibility is something that has evolved in us, like everything else, and I agree with what has been said by others-- that sensibility shows itself in our capacity for empathy primarily, which is the basis, afterall, of the golden rule. We live in groups, our survival depends upon groups and the awareness, always, that we are not the only ones on the planet.
Evidence now points to the conclusion that early humans and prehumans were, long before religion started, predisposed to practice empathy, fairness and loyalty. In fact, these qualities are commonly found in bands of chimpanzees, and the normal behavior of very young children also reflects these attributes.
Evolutionary psychologists propose that natural selection resulted in brains that instinctually encouraged Australopithecines and other early hominids to be concerned about the welfare of others in their group, to share resources and information with them and to be loyal members of that band.
Such behavior would have been highly valuable. The cooperation facilitated by generalized empathy, fairness and solidarity would have greatly enhanced group survivability. Hominid bands that did not have these qualities would be less likely to survive, and so not pass on their genetic tendency to be amoral.
Of course, those points apparently had rocket boosters since they whooshed over the heads of many who read the article. I have to remind myself to not read the responses to articles like this. I just end up shaking my head and thinking "don't these people have any sense?"
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
