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.
How do you know what is right or wrong? Because religious society has passed down those morals for generations. Furthermore, right or wrong is all relative. What's right to one person/group, might be wrong to another group. Are you saying that atheists are automatically born with morals? How is that so when by definition, morals are taught. Isn't it an oxymoron to be atheist and have religiously derived morals?
I think it's scary that people think you can only have morals by reading an ancient text. If you don't know right from wrong in your own mind, without being told, then you have some serious issues. If you go by your holy book, you must think slavery is okay right? Stoning non virgins or disobedient children? Murdering things that don't go how you want? My two year old, without any religious influence, knows not to hurt people or animals, he is nice to everyone, skin color, religion, and sexual orientation play no part in it. He's going just fine without your religion.
I don't know about you, but I could never hurt anyone, even if an ancient text told me to, because my mind wouldn't let me (unless there were mitigating circumstances). I also believe discrimination is wrong, unlike religious people, so I have a leg up there, even without your religion.
Right or wrong may be relative, but religion does not change that. Every religion believes different things. Or are you saying yours is the only one that matters so everyone should listen to it?
Point is, religion does not have the market cornered on morals. It does however, give people a reason to feel superior... You are delusional if you think that is the only way to get morals.
It would be nice, but as long as religion is a major force, they will always have an influence in politics, even if they are not directly involved. You cannot take religion out of politics until you take religion out of the voters The beliefs of religious people are informed by whatever is espoused by their church, and politicians will reflect this in their policies in order to attract voters. Therefore, atheists will remain marginalised in politics until society eventually outgrows religion.
Even in the relatively secular nation where I live, there are still unjust laws which exist only to appease religious beliefs (the law on assisted suicide being one of the more prominent).
It would be nice, but as long as religion is a major force, they will always have an influence in politics, even if they are not directly involved. You cannot take religion out of politics until you take religion out of the voters The beliefs of religious people are informed by whatever is espoused by their church, and politicians will reflect this in their policies in order to attract voters. Therefore, atheists will remain marginalised in politics until society eventually outgrows religion.
Even in the relatively secular nation where I live, there are still unjust laws which exist only to appease religious beliefs (the law on assisted suicide being one of the more prominent).
Well, you are right, the religious voters will always have a say. I think churches should pay taxes if they so much as utter one single word about politics. If you want to have an effect on politics, pay taxes. Simple enough right? I would actually go a step further, and say churches should pay taxes period. Why should they be spared taxes? Look at all these huge, fancy, expensive buildings/crosses they keep building, it is ridiculous. We could put a dent in the deficit just by asking them to pay their fair share.
Unless they want to start paying taxes. Pay taxes then you can have a say. Ok? Just had this argument with a client of my company. She wants a theocracy, and took offense when I laughed at her, and told her we tried that, that's why we called it the Dark Ages. Morphed into a tax argument, what a way to start the day.
I agree. Religions are a business. I am not a member of any religion. If a business takes money based upon a lie, the owners of that company, and their officers go to jail. I have never understood why religions are allowed, unless it is to turn people away from God?
Many of the threads on this forum are trolled by people who understand religions are false. Some even believe the Bible is false because of the lies religions teach. This is not to say the people in religions are false, but to point a finger at those who lead.
It would be interesting to see those who believe religions are false, and those who do not, to sit together, and examine the Bible. if this is done with the idea of coming to the truth, I'm sure all honest people would leave religion, and still believe in God.
Some of it is taught by experience. Early on it is sometimes necessary for parents to perform a little "social engineering" because younger kids do not have enough understanding of "the other" for them to develop social skills on their own. But once they do, a lot of morality comes from empathy. You don't need a complex treatise on morality to understand that hitting someone is bad because you know what it's like to be hit - and it isn't fun.
For some, empathy plays a huge factor in deciding which morals to follow. For others, many bad actions are avoided only because of the legal consequences. Still others may worry about karma.
One thing is absolutely and abundantly clear: Civilization came BEFORE organized religion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CDJudge
Because religious society has passed down those morals for generations.
No ... because there has to be a society before there can be a religion; a society could not exist then if religion was needed to form one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CDJudge
Are you saying that atheists are automatically born with morals?
No, but as we gain experience in life, we do develop empathy. Unless you're a sociopath.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CDJudge
How is that so when by definition, morals are taught.
This reminds me of a time when visiting a relative and I found a BB gun in the basement. I took it outside and shot a bird ... and I watched it drop right off the branch. Of course I was chewed out by my parents, BUT, they really didn't need to. I already felt awful for doing what I did. Thus morality is more often reinforced rather than taught. If it is taught at all, it is taught through our experiences. All too often we have to experience the guilt and remorse of immorality to truly appreciate the meaning of being good.
I didn't have to rush over to my Bible or Qu'ran to find out how I ought to be feeling or whether arbitrarily taking a life (even that of a bird) was somehow wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CDJudge
Isn't it an oxymoron to be atheist and have religiously derived morals?
This is an absurd question because morality isn't "religiously derived." It may SEEM that way given that religiosity is the dominant position - and that religion has hijacked just about everything deemed good. Thus religious people actually think, however erroneously, that morality hinges upon not a vague belief in a higher power but rather, it hinges upon believing in THEIR specific God standing at the head of THEIR specific religion. Which is odd because India hasn't collapsed under the weight of immoral anarchy despite being primarily non-Christian. Nor has Japan, for that matter ... or Tibet. Some places in the Middle East have succumbed to immoral anarchy, but that's BECAUSE of religion and not due to the lack of it.
Sorry, but there simply isn't anything extant in the real world that says religion is the cause of morality and all that is good in the world. That is merely a religious conceit.
Unless they want to start paying taxes. Pay taxes then you can have a say. Ok? Just had this argument with a client of my company. She wants a theocracy, and took offense when I laughed at her, and told her we tried that, that's why we called it the Dark Ages. Morphed into a tax argument, what a way to start the day.
Wow. Just wow. You argued religion with a CLIENT and then laughed at her position on the issue? Is no one else shocked at this unprofessional behavior?
Unless they want to start paying taxes. Pay taxes then you can have a say. Ok? Just had this argument with a client of my company. She wants a theocracy, and took offense when I laughed at her, and told her we tried that, that's why we called it the Dark Ages. Morphed into a tax argument, what a way to start the day.
Is there a difference between politics, and religious institutions? I would say not. They both control a mass of people, and both for money…which is the power of this world. If you are asking if there is a difference in politics, and what is written in the scriptures? Again the answer is no.
The battle for ruler ship started in the Garden with Satan’s rebellion. The present earthly Governments are under Satan’s control. No place in the scriptures has God given man the right to rule other men.
The first man to rule others was Nimrod, who is written to be, “In opposition to God.”
Mans ruler ship is against Gods Law. It is why Christians do not participate in Government. Those who do, are also in violation of Gods Law. Christians are commanded to obey all of mans Laws, unless they go against Gods Law.
It is not a battle of politics against people of the Bible…it is a battle of God against the rebellion of Satan…and it’s conclusion was set from the beginning. It’s end has only been held off to give people the opportunity to identify what side they stand on.
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.