Religion doesn't make people better (marriage, Christians, believers, belief)

[miticoman]

In this dimension there are three great monotheistic religions that... we like it or not... guide the faith of the masses, their story is gross of crimes and wars of power, as I'm concerned, what is being discussed with the violence should not be tolerated

[reed067]

Originally Posted by faez

Religion has another idea: Be moral and nice to people! Even if you don't feel good.even if it is against your wishes. For example if the foreigners invade your country and kill people, sacrifice!and defend your country’s inhabitants, even if you don’t feel good of death. And this is not harder for a religious (who believes the everlasting life and its heaven) than it is for a pagan. Surely pagans don’t feel good to do a work that ends to annihilation.
Look! Religion makes this kind of moral people however by the threat of a burning hell or encouragement of heaven!
Doesn't it make better people?

I would think that anyone no matter what they believe OR don't believe would want to do something nice or try to make some kind of difference for others. Religion has no part in that if you ask me. I believe in life after death as well but I don't do it because I think I'll be given an endless supply of cookies for it & milk served in a gold gobblet. Nor do I do it to please the Gods I believe in. IF Christians feel the need to do good deeds ONLY because they don't wish to go to hell, I would think thier ALL knowing God would call thier bluff when they get to the pearly gates. Which means they are doing it because it's the right thing to do but only out of fear. That's indeed sad if that is the case, don't you think?

I do it because I want to believe that somehow it makes my corner of the world a better place. In the end it may not make one lick of difference but at least I tried for My reasons alone to to kiss butt of the powers that be.

[Eusebius]

Originally Posted by Clintone

Religion does not make people more morally righteous. It sometimes cuts people off from their innate or learned common sense morality by causing people to make guesses about what pleases certain all-powerful, or highly-powerful, nonhuman entities. At times, persons study their holy text of choice for quite awhile, and history and language from the time period it was written in to understand its context, and are quite likely to accurately understand what the holy text desires for them. Even in this case though, the morality of human beings and the morality of nonhuman dieties regularly are dissimilar. Would anyone like to dispute this?

Religion is the enemy of true Christianity.

Religion tells you what you must do to please God.
True Christianity tells you what has already been done.

[faez]

Originally Posted by JohnA151

Its called social order even animals have it .
to suggest that only believers have need of or have a moral compass is insulting . .

I didn’t want to insult anybody, JohnA151.I asked a question to understand the origin and base of pagan’s morality. Yes they have morality, but considering the topic of this thread I wanted to make clear if religion makes people better, by comparing religious morality and nonreligious morality.

Originally Posted by JohnA151

if fact thou out history its those whoa confess to a beleive in a supreme being who have caused the most suffering in the world wars genocide have almost always been based on a religious doctrine
…
in fact those who believe have a excuse for **bad /unsociable behaviour they say the devil currupted me
or as in the case of war bush invading irag .. said *god told me it was the right thing to do * hate which christians seem to have a lot of regarding other humans behavious is always justified by some words in the *bible *.

Don’t forget that what is good is capable to be used as a cover to hide the evil. Religion doesn’t make people bad! Bad people use religion as a mask to justify their bad works. Like a person who misuse science or policy to reach his own purpose.
So we can affirm that pure religious people are good so that others who have bad purposes make themselves in liken of them. Genocides don’t occur because of religious purposes, they occur for evil desires in the mask of good purposes like religion.

Originally Posted by JohnA151

being a belivers in a **god ** does not a moral person make
action is the way in which society judges who is **good ** or bad

So your definition of morality is what society judges about actions. Society’s approval is the base of your morality!
Good! But I have some questions:
(As I said my purpose is clarifying the base of nonreligious morality and pursuant to it the end of it. By this analysis I’m going to find the output of nonreligious morality. Perhaps it would be better than religious morality!!!)
The base of reed067’s morality was feelings…
The base of your morality is society’s acceptance…
Obviously feelings are not fixed .every body’s feeling differs due to different personalities, different situations, and different wishes and benefits. So the morality which is made based on feelings is unstable. So it cannot be valid.
What about society’s acceptance? In some societies people are obligated to kill their old parents to make them relaxed and let them be free of their inabilities and boring life. Their societies agree this action as the respect to parents, while other societies consider this action as a crime.
Some societies consider friendship and helpfulness as a bad thing.
Some tribes accept theft.
And even in one society, morality changes. Some decades ago in some western countries appearing in shirts with short sleeves was reacted by the police as a forbidden action. But now in the same societies people can appear in any way they would like.
So aren’t the moralities based on society’s acceptance unstable too?
And what can be the end of an unstable thing?
Can an unstable Ladder be used to climb?
Can an unstable morality make people better?

[reed067]

The base of reed067’s morality was feelings…
The base of your morality is society’s acceptance…
Obviously feelings are not fixed .every body’s feeling differs due to different personalities, [/quote]


Not just feelings it's also about hoping that people will pass it on so to speak. If they see or hear about someone helping others, then perhaps they will be motivated to do the same. One can at least hope.

[EinsteinsGhost]

Originally Posted by Clintone

Religion does not make people more morally righteous. It sometimes cuts people off from their innate or learned common sense morality by causing people to make guesses about what pleases certain all-powerful, or highly-powerful, nonhuman entities. At times, persons study their holy text of choice for quite awhile, and history and language from the time period it was written in to understand its context, and are quite likely to accurately understand what the holy text desires for them. Even in this case though, the morality of human beings and the morality of nonhuman dieties regularly are dissimilar. Would anyone like to dispute this?

To folk who disagree with this...remember that the atheists tend to swarm like piranas when they become stirred...just making sure you realize what you're getting into....There could very possibly be several atheists who more or less agree with the above statement.

My argument: Religion makes for a good mob control. And for the leaders, a good business opportunity.

[JohnA151]

Originally Posted by faez

I didn’t want to insult anybody, JohnA151.I asked a question to understand the origin and base of pagan’s morality. Yes they have morality, but considering the topic of this thread I wanted to make clear if religion makes people better, by comparing religious morality and nonreligious morality.
******
You have not answered the question in your mind what is the differance between religious morality and non religious morality .are you saying if you have religious morality you have* higher *morals than those who dont what evidence do you have to support that if that is your contention ?*****

Don’t forget that what is good is capable to be used as a cover to hide the evil. Religion doesn’t make people bad! Bad people use religion as a mask to justify their bad works. Like a person who misuse science or policy to reach his own purpose.
So we can affirm that pure religious people are good so that others who have bad purposes make themselves in liken of them. Genocides don’t occur because of religious purposes, they occur for evil desires in the mask of good purposes like religion.


So your definition of morality is what society judges about actions. Society’s approval is the base of your morality!
Good! But I have some questions:
(As I said my purpose is clarifying the base of nonreligious morality and pursuant to it the end of it. By this analysis I’m going to find the output of nonreligious morality. Perhaps it would be better than religious morality!!!)
The base of reed067’s morality was feelings…
The base of your morality is society’s acceptance…
Obviously feelings are not fixed .every body’s feeling differs due to different personalities, different situations, and different wishes and benefits. So the morality which is made based on feelings is unstable. So it cannot be valid.
What about society’s acceptance? In some societies people are obligated to kill their old parents to make them relaxed and let them be free of their inabilities and boring life. Their societies agree this action as the respect to parents, while other societies consider this action as a crime.
Some societies consider friendship and helpfulness as a bad thing.
Some tribes accept theft.
And even in one society, morality changes. Some decades ago in some western countries appearing in shirts with short sleeves was reacted by the police as a forbidden action. But now in the same societies people can appear in any way they would like.
So aren’t the moralities based on society’s acceptance unstable too?
And what can be the end of an unstable thing?
Can an unstable Ladder be used to climb?
Can an unstable morality make people better?

your mixing up values and morals









What are the differences between values, morals and ethics? They all provide behavioral rules, after all. It may seem like splitting hairs, but the differences can be important when persuading others.
Values

Values are the rules by which we make decisions about right and wrong, should and shouldn't, good and bad. They also tell us which are more or less important, which is useful when we have to trade off meeting one value over another.
Dictionary.com defines values as:

n : beliefs of a person or social group in which they have an emotional investment (either for or against something); "he has very conservatives values"

Morals

Morals have a greater social element to values and tend to have a very broad acceptance. Morals are far more about good and bad than other values. We thus judge others more strongly on morals than values. A person can be described as immoral, yet there is no word for them not following values.
Dictionary.com defines morals as:
n : motivation based on ideas of right and wrong


your VALUES as a religious person may be differant to mine but our MORALS can be the same and there again who is the JUDGE of what morals are right you or me ???

[faez]

Originally Posted by JohnA151

your mixing up values and morals

What are the differences between values, morals and ethics? They all provide behavioral rules, after all. It may seem like splitting hairs, but the differences can be important when persuading others.

Thank you for your definitions JohnA151!
Yes as you said the differences can be important when persuading others! And also clarifying the origin of differences is helpful for this forum which its name is religion and philosophy by helping people to think about everything philosophically! You did a philosophically action. Defining is important for making the things clear to think about them. But I’m surprised that you didn’t answer my questions in none of your definitions.

Originally Posted by JohnA151

Values are the rules by which we make decisions about right and wrong, should and shouldn't, good and bad. They also tell us which are more or less important, which is useful when we have to trade off meeting one value over another.

(the concepts are more important than the words because every person has his own definitions. ok Let’s talk about your definitions! )
If Values are the rules by which we make decisions about right and wrong, which values are correct and make people better? The values that societies appoint?

Originally Posted by JohnA151

Morals
...
motivation based on ideas of right and wrong

If morality is motivation based on ideas of right and wrong, which ideas are right? Which motivation provides better behavior?

Originally Posted by JohnA151

They all provide behavioral rules, after all

Which behavioral rules make people better? Behavioral rules which are provided in societies?

I want to clarify what (actions or values or morals or…) are good and right for making people better. I generally call them THE RIGHt THINGS.

Now let me to introduce some preferences of the right things that religion indicates (I used the word indicates instead of appoints because religions rules are based on the world rules and have real and natural results.):

1. Supplying a great goal: The goal showing by religion includes perfection in any aspect of human. Spiritual and physical aspects, worldly and of future. It doesn’t consider human as a limit existence. It introduce an infinite goal because it consider human as an infinite being. while nonreligious rules such as what are appointed by societies acceptance or feelings(emotivism) or every rules that human appoints based on his benefits in this world are finite.
The religions goal supplies the need of human to be infinite, so it is more effective. When you know there is one million dollars in some place, you have much motivation to move toward it than when you know there is one dollar there.

2. Stability: God’s rules is based on his complete knowledge of human and the world so there is not any mistakes in his rules, while humans rules are full of mistakes so that it changes according to his limit experiences.(of course the differences in religions rules are because of different situations not because of mistakes)

3. Guaranty of performance: hell and heaven are powerful things that made people performing the rules which are good for themselves! This is human’s habit that doesn’t move unless for running away from a suffering or reaching to a pleasure.

4. Completion: the right things that God introduces include human’s relationship with others, with himself, with the nature,and (more important than all) with God. So if he is alone and there is nobody to see him he is aware of God so he should do the right thing even if he is alone.

5. Showing the cases and instances and details which the intellect of human cannot understand the righteousness of them: the intellect of human understands the general concepts for example it can understand that justice is good. But it can’t understand the cases that agree with justice. Because it has not enough knowledge about the world and its relations. As a physicist have said our movement affects the galaxies. Or the movement of a butterfly can cause a hurricane in another point of earth! so this kind of sensitive world with its sensitive relations need a complete knowledge to indicate its rules.
This is why religion makes people better and makes better people!

[eanassir]

Originally Posted by Clintone

Religion does not make people more morally righteous. It sometimes cuts people off from their innate or learned common sense morality by causing people to make guesses about what pleases certain all-powerful, or highly-powerful, nonhuman entities. At times, persons study their holy text of choice for quite awhile, and history and language from the time period it was written in to understand its context, and are quite likely to accurately understand what the holy text desires for them. Even in this case though, the morality of human beings and the morality of nonhuman dieties regularly are dissimilar. Would anyone like to dispute this?

To folk who disagree with this...remember that the atheists tend to swarm like piranas when they become stirred...just making sure you realize what you're getting into....There could very possibly be several atheists who more or less agree with the above statement.

False hypocritic religious leaders and governors are the adversary of God

Not every religion: the religion of the idolatry and the atheism is other than God's religion (: which is the exclusive devotion to God alone and following the original commandments and revelataions.)

Following the religion of God will certainly bring about --> the happiness and prosperity of people,

but the idolatry and the enthusiasm in addition to the atheism (Remember as an e.g. the communism and other tyrany regimens) --> all these bring about the misery of people;

God does not intend any evil to man; on the contrary God is Most Gracious to people: on condition they do not wrong themselves or others.

But the false hypocritic religious leaders and governors are in fact the adversary of God.

[intelfan11315]

And being Atheist doesn't make someone progressive and "open minded". Most atheists are just as close minded as anyone else and push their views just as hard, if not harder than any religious people. What I find most annoying are the fact that atheists use their excuse that religious people are so ovebearing and pushy, yet more times than not I'd say it is the atheist starting the conversation, needling at christians and forcing them to "look into their beliefs".

Just look at this board, it is a religion board and atheists can't get enough of this. Even if a person has a specific question about religion, there's always an atheist there to poke fun at it, or use it as their means to promote their beliefs.